24 Feb 2010
One of the key issues for Republic is sovereignty – in other words, the source of supreme legal and political power. In the UK it is the Crown and parliament that are sovereign (through an odd concept of “Crown in parliament”, which simply means the monarch retains constitutional authority but does the bidding of MPs).
This means parliament can do nothing illegal, it is the supreme authority. Yet, in a democracy, it really should be the people who have supreme authority – it should be ‘we, the people’ who can set the rules of the game, determine how parliament should work and how power is delegated and distributed. But that’s not how it works in this country. Parliament controls all, which is why parliament is so stubborn in its unwillingness to change the system.
This is why a republican constitution should be a written constitution. A written constitution provides a clear framework for the operation of power, it also provides a clear mechanism for changing that framework, a mechanism that hinges on popular consent through a referendum.
There is a long-standing myth that our un-codified constitution has a strength in its ‘flexibility’. But this flexibility is something of a mirage. Yes, it would appear that it can easily be changed if there are no rules about how to change it. If much of it is convention then that means it can be changed simply by change of habit. But look at the evidence of what this famed flexibility has given us.
Over the past 100 years how much change has there been? On more than one occassion government led attempts at reform have come unstuck, most notably efforts to reform the House of Lords. The main reason for this is that the lack of a clear process for changing the constitution, and the theoretically ease with which it could be changed, ensures that change becomes very difficult. If governments go about introducing radical change that the opposition disagrees with it could cause serious confusion and instability as alternating governments keep chopping and changing the political system. So a convention has emerged that major change requires a degree of cross-party support, support that is self-evidently lacking.
The consequence is that nothing ever changes. Exceptions to this are when governments have been willing to bypass that convention of bipartisanship by appealing instead to the will of the people: this has happened on just two issues, devolution and membership of the EEC (although at the time EEC membership wasn’t seen so clearly as a constitutional issue).
Where there is agreement from the political classes on reform it remains unlikely to be in the interests of the people and democracy. The status quo suits those who have power, so those with the power to change the constitution all too often find excuses for not acting (as we’ve seen with PR, Lords reform, changes to the Commons and so on).
A written constitution can take all that power away from the government and parliament – it can take away their power to obstruct change and the power to enact change. Instead it would be the people who would decide whether the political rules warrant changing. Yes, the government could propose changes (as could the people), but the decision would be made by referendum. No consensus would be needed, just a simple vote, either with a simple majority or a super majority of, say, two-thirds (perhaps also with weighted voting to favour smaller populated areas).
A written constitution would also make it much clearer where power lies, who has it, how they got it and how they can be held accountable for it. So anyone, not just constitutional experts, can understand how the system works and propose changes.
It isn’t democratic for politicians to control the rules of the political game. Evidence tells us that they have little interest in changing a system that suits their interests well, and even if reformers do make attempts at change, the current system makes it all too easy for opponents of reform to block the process.
A written constitution puts power in the hands of the people. It would allow us to limit the power of those we delegate authority to, it would give us a clear and straightforward process for amending the rules, and would ensure that future reform would not be so hard to achieve.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 at 7:56 pm and is filed under A future republic, British constitution, Constitutional reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
February 24th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
The Spanish Constitution…
Spain has a monarchy and its written constitution clearly states that the power rests with the people. So does it really make much difference if their constitution says that and a republican constitution in the USA says “We the people”.. etc
I can understand the reasons for wanting a republic, i still have not got my head around the obsession with being able to say the “people are sovereign”. We all have elections to change our governments, we are just as sovereign in reality as them even if we dont have the term written down somewhere in a fancy document.
Oh and as i have said before. You are again saying that those in power like the current setup because it gives them absolute power. But these are the people who you want us to trust to introduce a new written constitution and create a republic which will define our country for generations to come. I dont want to take that risk.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
A written constitution is the best foundation for a Republic to thrive. When Britain adopts a written constitution as its own, it will leave only Israel as the only nation in the developed world without one.
If you genuinely distrust Politicans to write a constitution, why would you want to let them govern without one?
I sucpect your concern is not sincere as on one hand you say it doesn’t matter if we have a written constitution or not, yet on the other state it would be a disaster to let the political elite write it.
You need not be concerned anyway as a handful of drafts have already been written!
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Having elections and being sovereign are not the same thing. It is a fundamental principle in the UK that ‘Crown in parliament’ is sovereign, not the people. This has serious political consequences, such as parliament being able to do as it pleases without limit. It is the reason we signed the Lisbon Treaty without any consultation with the people, to name one obvious example.
As for your second point – the challenge is to put sufficient pressure on those in power to make the change we need. That’s done by changing some of those in power and by building popular support for change so opposition to it would be detrimental to the interests of politicians. That’s how it is with all campaigns and pressure groups.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Simon,
Three things you are saying in the above statement:
1. You don’t trust the current crop of politicians and Parliamentarians leading your country right now. You don’t think they are worthy of crafting a Constitution for the country.
2.You believe a written Constitution defines a country for generations; therefore since you don’t have one now, you are saying that your country is not defined, therefore they are making it up as they go along in Parliament right now.
3. Yet you want status quo maintained. So, how could you? If the current system produced an entire crop of politicians unable to draft an acceptable constitution, shouldn’t we look at the system that produced them? Isn’t such a wholesale production of ‘unworthy Parliamentarians’ be considered a systemic problem?
I suspect you want to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result? Do you know the process used by a Country to draft a written Constitution? Even if having a written Constitution comes with a one or two negatives, shouldn’t you weigh ideas based on the preponderance of the positives measured against the alternatives?
On the previous blog, you stated that the US is the only republic you had respect for; then you proceeded to dismiss the entire virtues found in the US Constitution based on the one negative factor (according to you), that the US Citizens ‘worship’ their flag. That one ‘negative’ out-weighed all the positives it offered, to the point of discarding the whole thing.
On a written constitution for Britain, you dismiss all the virtues that it could offer based on the fact that the current crop of Politicians are too liberal?
But on the Monarchy, you admit that a lot of it is vice, however, because of one Virtue, “Her Majesty, the Queen” (according to you), that reason and that reason alone, you want the Monarchy to sustain. You have stated that after the incumbent monarch, you are willing to go republican. So, I guess, you deal in simplicity of thought. You deal with one issue at a time? Let me understand better, help me out. Thanks.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:46 am
I can’t imagine a workable Republic without a written constitution.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
You only have to compare the respective party manifesto against the actual achievements of that party once in power.
Once elected, the government is basically sovereign and does what it likes without impunity or challenge. Sure, there are debates but once the whips get into gear, the chance of proper consideration reflected in legislation is not always achieved.
There are many examples where this has happenned – everything from “poll tax” to identity cards to legislation on terrorism.
There simply is no framework within which to govern in the UK.