02 Feb 2010
Although the reforms offered for debate by Power2010 fall short of the fundamental changes Britain needs, and certainly don’t go far enough to challenge the underlying structure of British politics, they should nonetheless be welcomed by all those interested in furthering the cause of democracy. Most of the ideas that made it through the deliberative assembly would, if implemented, move us towards an improved political system, giving people more power to take further steps toward a genuine democratic settlement as well as checking off some important changes from the reform movements long-standing list of demands.
In the UK at the moment all power begins at the top and in the centre. In some respects we have barely moved forward from the days of Queen Elizabeth, except to say that the Crown is now worn by the PM rather than the monarch. The power parliament once had over the PM has been eroded by a combination of modern political realities which demand backbench ‘unity’ and an electoral system that denies power to all but one party. As the Lords constitutional committee concluded only last week, the PM is a unique position of authority and checks against his power are woefully inadequate. Yet this should be no surprise, because the people have never been ‘in charge’. We have never won our sovereignty, our democracy has always been born of compromise between those who have historically held power and those one rung down who wanted a slice of the action for themselves. But popular democracy has never really taken hold in this country – demands for real democracy softened through the gift of infrequent and flawed opportunities to elect less than half our parliament. What’s needed then is not just a reform here and there, but wholesale change to the nature of our politics.
So the key test of meaningful constitution reform is whether it begins to move us in this direction – away from a top-down master/subject political culture and towards a bottom-up democracy founded on the principle of popular sovereignty: the idea that ‘we the people’ are in charge. Anything short of that is simply adjusting the nature of our subservient relationship with our political masters, rather than turning that relationship on its head.
So how do the proposed Power2010 reforms stack up from a republican perspective? Well, it does rather depend on how the reforms are implemented, but some on the list clearly have a lot more going for them than others.
Keep in mind that the test of reforms is whether it moves us closer to the democratic ideal in which the people have genuine and meaningful control over the government and parliament. In order to achieve that we need structural and institutional changes that will dilute the power of the politicians and grant power to the people. In other words the people must be able to put limits on what the politicians can do, and power must be shared among politicians of different persuasions so it doesn’t become concentrated in the hands of the few, or the one, as happens presently.
So for me, on that basis, some Power2010 reforms immediately make it to the top of the list. The first being electoral reform. Now I know I’m going out on a limb here – there are plenty of republicans, and Republic supporters, who don’t support proportional representation. But the reason I believe a new electoral system would fit the republican bill is simply because it would help dilute the power of those elected and it would give more control over parliament to the people. Our votes would really make a difference, where ever you live. No politician would control parliament with the ease the PM does today, because no one party would have an automatic majority. The result is a rebalancing of power in favour of the people and away from the politicians.
A written constitution is also in keeping with republican ideals. Again, not all republicans would agree with me on this point, and of course it’s quite possible to have a written constitution that is abhorrent to republican principles and democratic values. But assuming a written constitution can be put together by the people, and assuming the new constitution can be amended by the people, and that it enshrines other important changes to our political system, then it is in itself an important reform. For the writing down of the constitution prevents our politicians from changing the rules of the game to suit their own interests.
Two other reforms I believe republicans should support are fixed term parliaments and an elected upper house. Fixing parliamentary terms takes a power and a political advantage away from the PM and puts all parties on an more level playing field. An elected upper house, in my view, should be a no-brainer for republicans. Republican democracy is founded on the notion of popular sovereignty – it stands to reason therefore that those who legislate for us, make the rules by which we must all live, should only do so with our consent. The very fact we still debate the question “should all our parliamentarians be elected?” says a lot about the poor state of Britain’s democratic culture today.
I haven’t the space to comment on the whole list of reforms, but I’ll finish by commenting on the question of stronger local government and on the need for the reform movement to embrace republican ideals. To me this proposal to strengthen local government, while commendable, goes to the heart of the problem of British politics. This idea, like the others, is about asking the “powers-that-be” at the top if they’d mind ever so much handing some power down to the local level. This is back to front. As I argued in a blog post a few months back – meaningful localism is republicanism. Democracy shouldn’t be a question of asking if those at the top would mind granting power to those at the bottom. Power should start with the people, it should start locally. ‘We the people’ can then delegate that power to the politicians we elect to do the job of running and governing the country. That’s the real democracy we should aim for.
This is why we mustn’t just look for easy wins and piecemeal changes. We must seek a culture shift, away from asking government to grant power to the people and towards a very loud demand for the people to have all the power in the first place, so that we can choose who we will grant it to and how. Moreover, any such movement must itself embrace the values of democracy, trust the people and engage with them at every level of the campaign.
Power2010 is a step in the right direction and is offering a number of reforms that republicans can, and in my view should, support. The next stage of the reform agenda however must be unashamedly republican in spirit and republican in nature.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I agree with many of the reforms proposed. I also agree with many of the things Brown mentioned in his speech which actually covered many of them.
Brown is saying he wants some form of written constitution. Hes a committed monarchist so atleast such a constitution would have the position of the monarch clearly cemented in it like the Spanish constituion does.
Despite being a supporter of the monarchy, id like to see some form of trigger in a constitution which clearly defines a path of how the country moves towards a republic if the time comes and one that more clearly defines the powers of the monarch. It could address many of republicans concerns, pushing for full abolishion of the monarchy though will simply make reasonable change harder.
Matts position as a Conservative Republican does still rather puzzle me. The party couldnt be more strongly against major political reforms, they cant even accept the house of lords needs to be fully elected who edit our laws on a day to day basis, let alone reform to the monarchy.
I hope my fears about a written constitution do not come true though. I can just imagine loads of “green” parts to a constituion which will annoy me.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Graham Smith:
You have it right, in my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.
You must get support from us to assure you that you are right, the nod you give to the Power2010 is exactly what it deserves; in essence saying “it doesn’t hurt anything to support their agenda”, as this one maxim goes, those who are not against you are for you. But it falls way short, and very timid when it comes to the sort of energy and change that is needed in UK. One may argue that half a loaf is better than none, I doubt if it applies to liberty and democracy. There is a level of boldness, courage, and effort required to bring about REAL democracy. Piecemeal deals hardly suffices. In any event, I believe your approach to it is proper. The two campaigns are totally different: The one (Power 2010) trying to get what it can by questioning and soliciting ideas from a mixture of educated, some partially informed, and some ill informed ’subjects’ on how to attain reform, and the other (The Republic), on a campaign to abolish the monarchy and institute a republic.
Simon:
Your comment above brings you back from the brink. You made a lot of sense for the first time, in my opinion, on this blog. I am even beginning to look at you as a potential candidate for the best republican of 2010. A careful look at your comment, reveals the tug in your head, the yearn for liberty in your blood, and unfortunately, the sycophancy in your heart. The way I see it, you are going to be an asset for the Republic in the near future. Cheers.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Simon:
Matt’s position as a Conservative republican does still rather puzzle me. The party couldn’t be more strongly against major political reforms, they can’t even accept the house of lords needs to be fully elected who edit our laws on a day to day basis, let alone reform to the monarchy.
I’ve addressed the issue of actual reforms in my comment on the other Power2010 thread. But in a general sense, there is no contradiction whatsoever between being a Conservative and being a republican: because a Conservative government will do infinitely more than a Labour one to awaken the masses from their slumber, stop infantilising them and make them realise their potential, and this will be a major boost for the republican cause.
If even a small part of you is truly conservative, then you will know full well that Brown is only saying all these things about reform as a desperate last-ditch bid to retain power. But then having said that, all your pathetic anti-Tory comments make you sound like a dyed-in-the-wool socialist: so if Brown’s monarchism is as genuine as yours is fanatical, then both you and the lame duck premier are doing my work for me by illustrating how socialism and monarchism go hand in hand.
If you really want to live in a country where the all-powerful politicians have a vice-like grip on the people and society, well I’ve got a friend in China who might be able to put you up.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
eclub1 – I think you haven’t fully got the scale of the power2010 project. We didn’t just consult a few people here and there, we opened to the public to submit their ideas for democratic renewal and received 4,500. That was then whittled down to 29 by Citizens Convention all of which have now been opened back up to the public to vote on. If this isn’t clearly premised on the notion of a sovereign citizenry I don’t know what is – the people having their say on the shape of democracy.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Here’s a simple question concerning reform:-
If we hadn’t got a monarchy already in place, would we now be creating one as part of a written constitution?
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
To: GGabriel
I applaud your efforts, and I wish you success.
I hope one day, the one major reform will come to pass, and it may render the remainder unnecessary.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:31 pm
O Simon, where are you? Stop hiding, come on out and answer my criticisms head-on! Or have you finally faced up to the fact that you have absolutely nothing even remotely sensible or constructive to say?
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Matt,
I agree that the conservative policy towards our broken society is better than labour which simply leave people to live on benefits and in poverty instead of trying to get them into good education and work. That doesnt change the fact the conservative party itself today stands in the way of reform and not for it, even on issues where the public support change.
Ofcourse Brown is only promising a reform to the voting system in an attempt to win over some lib dem voters. Thats all politicians and political parties do, making choices to win over certain voters to get them into power. Doesnt mean the reform itself proposed isnt a good one. The AV system could do huge damage to the SNP in Scotland making it very hard for them to hold onto most of their very few seats many they pinch with tiny minorities simply because the unionist vote is split 3 ways.
I do not think i am anti tory, i like certain conseravtive policies and i like their loyalty to our Queen. The party knows its place and remembers it is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and has certain responsibilities. I like conservative views on immigration, although in the 18 years they were in power huge damage was still done on that front so they can not pretend our current problems are just because of labour. I dont like Camerons attack on the state, i like an all powerful central government which is able to dictate policies on education, so we can be sure we know what kids are being taught in our schools. Cameron wants to leave it up to the locals. :\
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
That doesnt change the fact the conservative party itself today stands in the way of reform and not for it, even on issues where the public support change.
If you’re talking about constitutional reform, then please refer to this comment:
http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=1005#comment-28414
If you’re talking about wider reform, then you are certifiably insane (like we didn’t know that already), because you should know as well as I do, and as well as Cameron does, that sweeping reforms are going to be required to mend our broken society. If you were a true conservative you would understand that every good minimalist government is pro-active in instituting whatever reforms are necessary to level the playing field so that social and market forces can then be left to run their course within a sound legal framework.
The AV system could do huge damage to the SNP in Scotland making it very hard for them to hold onto most of their very few seats many they pinch with tiny minorities simply because the unionist vote is split 3 ways.
The AV system does have some virtues, throwing aside the unionist issue, but you still haven’t explained how a Conservative government might damage the union. To say absolutely nothing of the painfully stark reality that Labour’s complete hash of devolution created a one-sided relationship between England and Scotland which has fuelled the rise of English separatism.
I dont like Cameron’s attack on the state, I like an all powerful central government which is able to dictate policies on education, so we can be sure we know what kids are being taught in our schools. Cameron wants to leave it up to the locals.
Well, that comment is about as anti-Tory as they come, does even more to promote the virtues of Conservative republicanism, and further justifies my offer to arrange accommodation for you in China.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
The trouble is the conservatives lack of support in Scotland. They are doing awful and its very obvious a UK government which has the majority of Scottish seats and a Scottish prime minister is easier to defend than a UK government with just 1 Scottish seat or perhaps up to 20% of the seats. The SNP will exploit it. Also a labour defeat is going to destroy their party. In less than a year after the UK election Scottish labour must take on the SNP in the Scottish parliament elections. If they have no real leader it will help the SNP hold onto their seats and we will have no choice but to allow a referendum on the destruction of the United Kingdom.
If labour managed to win the UK election, despite all the odds being against them it would give labour a huge boost and the conservative party will fall apart. That would give labour the perfect platform to go into the Scottish parliament elections and retake Scotland from the separatists. Alex Salmond will not hang around as a leader of a party and he will exit the stage. The man who is the greatest threat to the union will be gone for ever.
I am not about to get out my red flag. If the conservatives win it will bring certain benefits including for the monarchy but they tories have to be very careful not to put the union at risk.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Here we go again with this strange expression about person ,place or thing “knowing its place”. This time it has been used to describe the Tory party. What on Earth does this expression really mean. It seems to smack of hierarchy, and the old nonsense about some parts of society being better than others. I would tend to believe that the Tory party,in many ways, does not know its “place” at all. A lot of Tories think they have a divine right to rule.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
We’ve gone way off-topic here Simon, and my fellow republicans will no doubt rebuke me for wasting my time feeding the troll. But I wasn’t going to let even you get away with ignoring three accusations in one evening, so I’ll wrap this up now by reiterating my belief that you are a traitor if you would rather live in a morally bankrupt, degenerate cesspit called the UK than a thriving, virtuous nation called Britain, or even just England. But hey, I’m doing it again – stating the bleeding obvious: your total lack of faith in the British people, which everyone here knows about, is equally treacherous.
O, and Barry, you see what I mean about Simon’s deference delusion? He thinks we’re still living in the 1950s.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 pm
No doubt everyone in Simon’s perfect world, if he ever gets his way, will be compelled, on pain of a damn good thrashing, to either genuflect, curtsy, doff one’s cap, tug one’s forelock, or walk backwards away from, anyone deemed by Simon to be a member of a higher social order and especially anyone remotely ennobled. We mere mortals will have to know our place.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:39 am
“I agree that the conservative policy towards our broken society is better than labour which simply leave people to live on benefits and in poverty instead of trying to get them into good education and work. That doesnt change the fact the conservative party itself today stands in the way of reform and not for it, even on issues where the public support change.”
Is is the Tory party that allowed unemployment to ise to 3 million +? And they were the official figures! Many more were encouraged onto incapacity benefits, massaging the figures even more.
Labour have also fiddled the unemployment figures particulary with its failed New Deal and Flexible New Deal. I do not see the tories offering anything much different!
If Sycophantic, Infantile, Monarchist, Opinionated, Nonsense wishes to know his place, then that’s up to him! He obviously has little regard for his own self worth. The sad thing is, he expects others to behave in the same sad, subserviant manner.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Would it be possible to use this forum to debate the issues posted rather than discuss Simon’s views on the Tory party? I imagine it would be a much more enlightening discussion.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Barry,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs5hg9mg8e0
It was his comment in this video that i liked from 1:25. Where he highlights that he may be the leader of the opposition, but its Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and that its 100% loyal to Her Majesty.
“knowing ones place” is an important part of every society, without it anarchy reigns. In a family, children must know their place. In school, children must know their place. In work, workers in some ways must know their place.
When it comes to society as a whole, we must all know our place. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is very much at the top of the food chain in this country.
Matt,
I am loyal to my Queen (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) and my country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). I do not want to see damage done to either, as i have mentioned many times becoming a republic has implications for the union aswell.
Bob,
I do not think such things are needed through fear of pain. However i would like to see more order in our country where people have have far more respect for one another aswell as our glorious Queen. I see no harm in having children take an oath to Her Majesty when in schools but it could be optional. Many would have liked to step up if given the chance to be a bit patriotic and loyal in our schools. Sadly our left wing teachers do not think patriotism has any place in schools. Its breeding disloyal citizens. I do have a problem with that.
Even if we lived in a republic i would have a big problem with such things. The sort of republic id like to live in would have to learn lessons from American patriotism, we would certainly needs kids pledging allegiance in schools. I would also like to see more of a militarized nation where citizenship is very important and we have national service and things like that. It would also need to be a very high tech society where true democracy was possible, sadly at the moment we are not capable of such things. Maybe in 50-100 years time when we are able to vote in elections from our own computers and have lots of nice stuff (like in the film Demolition man) that would be the time for a change.
We mortals must know our place, that would apply in a republic too. Wed just have to replace being loyal to our Queen to being loyal to the state and government.
Imatt,
I expect British citizens to be loyal to their country, i respect peoples right to oppose the monarchy however we should all show respect to our Queen, even if someone wants a republic.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Dear Simon,
The point is that “her majesty” ,as you call her, should not be at the top of the “food chain “. No body should be at the top of any system by dint of mere inheritance. Nobody is “majestic “. That is the whole point of the republican movement. Obviously you do not agree with this. Fair enough. That is your right. Even in a republic, I would like to see a fair sharing out of assets etc. I dislike Anarchy, and it could never work. If a country is in a state of anarchy,then it is actually in a state of “revolution” . To my mind this would eventually lead to a settling down of society and the establishment of a new order,for right or wrong. However republicans do not seek anarchy. They seek a fairer system based on a better form of democracy. This means that a society can be re-structured in a better way. Of course you are right about societies being arranged so that people occupy different positions for different purposes. Not everyone is brainy/academic and able to become a high flier. Not everyone wants to be prime minister etc. This does not matter in a fair society, because everyone would know their worth as well as their function,( their” place” in your terms). They would not be looked down on as inferior due to lack of “birth”, or their position in an unhealthy structure based on hereditary leadership.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Oh, incidentally,there is nothing wrong with left wing teachers,and they are not necessarily un-patriotic. We must not confuse patriotism with “royalty worship” and toadyism. I have never voted “Labour” , because I know that the official party has been anything but socialist.To be fair, on recollection, they have done some very good things,such as the minimum wage, one to one school tuition etc etc. I am rather eclectic in my political views. I believe in aspects of a number of parties ,including the Greens. I do not see issues in “black and white” ,as some folk do. To my mind there is something good in all manifestos,( even the communist one !), but there is an awful lot of un-acceptable stuff as well. I sympahise with some Tory attitudes. A number of my associates hate Margaret Thatcher. Some extoll her virtues. My view is that she did some good things and some bad things.I tend ,in the long run ,to believe in what are genuine socialist ideas. In our society today, it is true that we often lack respect for each other in general. However this has absolutely nothing to do with respect for royalty.Royalty is completely out of the question. The queen and company have no positive influence upon the decline of our country . Among other careers , I have been a teacher in all types of school for over thirty years, and I have never tried to brainwash children about the values of royalty. I have never been asked either. This is absolutely right. Children should grow up and be able to make up their own minds about such things .
February 4th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Sorry about that Graham, it’s just that the Blog has been so quiet recently I couldn’t resist the urge to deconstruct every stupid but previously unchallenged argument of Simon’s piece by b****y piece!
February 5th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Simon,
You are yet again confusing “Monarchy” with “Patriotism”. An easy mistake for a sycophant to make. Let’s look at the facts:-
Some of the least patriotic folk to inhabit these islands are either royalty or have close connections to Royalty.
William I removed practically all traces of Englishness and established the aristocracy and hereditary principle to keep power, Henry IV oppressed his subjects violently, Edward II (shed loads of charges against him but general acknowledged that he was incompetent), Mary sent many protestants to the stake, Charles I ignored or overruled parliament, James II’s belief in absolute monarchy, etc. etc. …..culminating in the Nazi supporter and spy, David Windsor (ne Saxe Coburg Gotha), a.k.a. Edward VIII.
Many monarchs were foreign and couldn’t even be patriotic enough to learn or speak English nor live in England despite the requirements of the “job”. Even Victoria and Albert spoke German at home.
Indeed, practically every English monarch with “King”or “Queen” in their job title exercised little patriotism on numerous occasions.
The most famous “unpatriots” of the 20th century, Blunt, Philby, Maclean and Burgess, whilst not Royals themselves, were all connected to the establishment with Blunt receiving a knighthood (he worked for the monarch) and Philby an OBE.
On the other hand, I doubt whether many the republic views espoused on these pages or elsewhere are not from the mouths of sincere patriots.
So, you see, if anything, republicans have far more concern and love for their country than many who proclaim the “Royal we”.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I’m afraid the Power 2010 is NOT what I joined up for. Others have articulated the inherent despotism of monachy and sycophancy much more clearly than I intend to try here . Thank you. I wish only to make two points. 1. That no monarch ever acceded to democracy without the need to bring about their downfall by the use of violence against them,(with the exeption possibly, of the king of Portugal who was offerd the opportunity to clear off, and saw the light without the need, in the early 1900’s). 2.That the Royalist’s monarch should be respected because of her age and length of time in the job, is not a political argument….Ask a Russian, and anyway, she wasnt my mother.
I joined REPUBLIC with the hope of it being apolitical until it’s worth voting for anybody.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Simon
We Republicans know our place. That place is in the opposition to Monarchy.
If you wanted to give anyone a lecture about “knowing your place”, it should be the Government as it wishes to be a member of Europe yet defying Europe’s laws. Know your place Britian!
February 5th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
If anyone’s still interested in the original topic of this thread, ie the extent to which republicans ought to support Power2010, then I have to say that I agree with Graham Smith. I too was deeply disappointed – having been one of those who submitted policy ideas in the original trawl – to find that abolishing the monarchy didn’t make the final cut of proposals in the Power2010 voting list. I challenged them about it, and got the same reply, ie that abolishing the monarchy failed to get support from their “citizen’s panel”. Who knows whether this was because of genuine opposition to the idea, or just a tactical fudge? (ie, abolishing the monarchy is too controversial and will lose us support for other causes if we adopt it). Either way, republicans have a problem, because if we can’t muster support for the cause among constitutional reformers, where can we get it from? Republicanism is a key part of the constitutional reform agenda or it is nothing. Who wants to get rid of the monarchy, only to leave the royal prerogative powers intact in the hands of the prime minister? And contrariwise, no amount of tinkering with the electoral system can replace real popular sovereignty as a basis for “people power”. Having said all that, it’s true that there are several things on the Power2010 agenda that are worth supporting, and I agree with Graham that electoral reform, an elected upper house and a written constitution are the most important of these.
February 7th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Hi Ray
Power2010 isn’t a Republic project, we’ve been involved only insofar as being a ‘partner’, which is simply because we think it’s useful to ally ourselves with constitutional reformers and help promote wider debate about our constitution.
Mark – most reformers I’ve ever met are republican. The Power2010 list wasn’t chosen by constitutional reformers however, it was chosen by 127 random people. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that process it has meant that 127 random people have been able to tell everyone else what they can and can’t vote on in the Power2010 ballot.
We had a very interested discussion at Wednesday’s Republic Talks event on the subject of tactics. Some reformers believe they’ll get serious constitutional reform achieved only so long as we don’t mention the monarchy or suggest a different way of selecting our head of state. We believe very strongly that such a tactic is bound to fail and that only a direct campaign against the fundamental basis of our constitution will work.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:40 am
The roots of our present monarchy lie in soil rich with the blood and anguish of the people. There can be no fudge or compomise. Monarchy bad, Republic good. Accepting always that no system of governance will or perhaps ever can be perfect, given human nature, but that is no reason no to strive for better. No support, whether overt, implied or expedient of our Monarchy can be acceptable. And simply to echo previous writers, support of the monarchy does not equal patriotism – support for all citizenry and the welfare of the nation does.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Well said Paul !