Subscribe to RSS feed
Last night I gave a talk on the case for a republic. Someone in the group I spoke to suggested that what’s more important than republicanism is giving local communities real power. My answer was that you can’t do one without the other.
There’s a lot of talk at the moment of ‘localism’, the delegation of authority to local communities, so people can make decisions about policing, health, education and planning in their own area. As with a lot of political discourse in Britain, the debate is entirely back-to-front.
If people genuinely want localism, then they must want a republican form of democracy. Republicanism starts from the premise that the people are in charge, that all power rests with the people. In a republic there should be no debate about parliament delegating power to local areas, for that’s where power will already lie.
In this country, when we discuss devolution or localism, as when we discuss any extension of democratic rights or opportunities, it is in the form of power being gifted by a generous and benevolent government or parliament. This is not how it should be.
In a democratic republic power ought to be delegated not from parliament to the people, but from the people to parliament. As it is, any gift of power the government is kind enough to give us can equally be taken away again on a whim. This is the relationship of a parent and child – they’ll let us make some choices and have some control, but if they think we can’t be trusted or we’re making the wrong decisions, they’ll take that power away again.
Localism means nothing if it is not entrenched in the system, if it is not gifted from on high, but is instead a fundamental feature of the political process.
Democracy must be about “we the people” being in control, and our political institutions must be our servants, delegated power from us. In Britain it’s about the political institutions being in control, and if we’re lucky we’ll ocassionally be given a small part to play in making decisions for ourselves.
Tags: constitution, devolution, localism, sov, sovereignty
October 15th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Graham Smith: “If people genuinely want localism, then they must want a republican form of democracy.”
I agree. This is because monarchists don’t have a problem with a form of republican democracy in local Government. I mean, many of us would support the idea of a man in a monkey suit being elected the mayor.
Just as long as we keep our Monarch and our Monarchy – for I certainly wouldn’t want a monkey (let alone a big turkey) as our Head of State.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
That’s the problem with your “argument” Neil. With a hereditary Head of State what’s the guarantee you won’t at some point get a monkey or a turkey. When you do you’re not going to be given the chance to change him/her. But I expect you believe those Windsors anointed by God have also been given superior intellect and are far and away more superior to us lesser beings so that possibility will never arrive in your cloistered mind.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
With all this talk of monkeys and turkeys, it’s very difficult to keep images of Charles Windsor and his brood out of my mind. Which is very unfair, particularly to monkeys and turkeys.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“localism” my god thats something else that drives me nuts. Whilst i support the conservatives, i cant stand their approach of “localism”. Im actually more in line with labour on such things who like central control allowing them to issue orders that must be followed nationwide.
I do not like the idea of certain areas deciding for example what happens in our schools. There are some very liberal areas, we cant allow brainwashing to go on against the state. We shouldnt have some areas that are soft on drug crime or have a different policy on dealing with extremism.
Transfering powers from our sovereign parliament is a slippery slope, be it to devolved administrations, local auhorities and ofcourse in the opposite direction to Brussels.
But leaving aside my feelings on localism, local government is very very different to national government so i fail to see why we need to become a republic to fully embrase this alarming “localism”.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Bob Wiggin,
The good thing about the royal family and the line of succession to the British throne is we have a list showing us whos next. When i see a turkey or chicken reach the spot of heir to the throne, then i may consider a republic more seriously.
Right now however, its clear there is not a problem or threat. Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince Harry would all make fine kings. Can i sit here and say i will like, respect or trust our next 3 prime ministers or presidents of the USA? I think not.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Simon – you don’t have a say in who is going to be President of the U.S.A. unless you’re American. If you were American you would have the privilege of deciding who you wanted, unlike us. When your turkey arrives it will be too late Simon, you will be lumbered mate. Plus you will have to suffer the indignity of having to refer to your turkey as glorious, or wonderful, as you always do. Your glorious turkey Charles III. Has a nice ring to it don’t you think?
October 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Simon: “I do not like the idea of certain areas deciding, for example, what happens in our schools. There are some very liberal areas. We can’t allow brainwashing to go on against the state.”
I very much agree. It all comes down to how you define localism and the role of local government. Personally I don’t have a problem with a man in a giant monkey suit being mayor, just as long as his remit is harmless – like planning bin collections or organising the street lighting.
As for being lumbered. Bush was a turkey in 2000. Re-elected in 2004.
That’s why the republican turkey is now well cooked in Britain.
Have you seen the latest opinion polls?
October 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I didn’t say that the American system of government is not flawed, it most certainly is. But at least they still are not encumbered by George Bush, and why not? Because their President is limited to two terms and cannot stay in office until he pops his clogs. When we get a grade A plonker as head of state what is your solution going to be? You don’t have one. According to you our head of state is anointed by God so you will have no choice but to grit your teeth and watch the grade A plonker make us all a bigger laughing stock than we probably are now. Plus by association you will be saying that God is a plonker too, since your head of state, by your definition the Glorious, wonderful, absolutely fabulous Grade A plonker will be the representation of God on Earth. Hang on! It’s the second coming. You really are funny.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
When we get a grade A plonker, support for a republic will increase and support for the monarchy will decline. Thats natural, thats the time to be plotting a republic, not now trying to kick out one of the greatest monarchs this country has had who has won the hearts and minds of the British people.
She is indeed, a glorious Queen. As the song goes
October 15th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Come on Simon, really. Let’s get back on subject. Localism is republicanism. You have said you are against localism and prefer centralisation of power. Why? What are you going to do if you get exasperated about a local issue where you live? What is wrong with the people locally making decisions in matters that affect their lives? You’ve got until tomorrow to think about it as I’m off out with the wife.
Neil – Opinion polls are fluid and can be affected by changes in public opinion. Don’t put too much stall in your 75% support for monarchy, it can very easily change given time.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Bob Wiggin,
I am fine with certain issues being handled locally. Bin collection, car parking charges, changes to on street car parking etc, i have no problem at all with that being handled at a local level by democratically elected officials, i wasnt aware that made me a supporter of republicanism, but if thats the case at the local level then so be it.
However there are some important things that should not be handled at a local level. I want the government elected by the British people to be able to decide what is taught in every single state school in this country, i dont give a damn what some jumped up local thinks. Its risky, as in some areas they will be brainwashing kids with some awful stuff depending on demographics.
On healthcare, people moan about the postcode lottery but the only way to do away with that is to have a set standard applied equally across the country, Some may see that as socialism or communism such state control but i think thats fairer.
Also ofcourse local elections have low turnouts, so you end up with more radicals be they BNP, or lib dem for example.
On polls you are quite right they go up and down all the time. The only real way to know is if a republican party stands at general elections. Then we can see how many people actually vote for a party promising change on this matter. Id love to see someone here run as a republican candidate, id follow the election very closely.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Bob Wiggin: “Their President is limited to two terms and cannot stay in office.” How very democratic. So republicans believe in limiting the will of the people – something they have the gall to accuse monarchists of.
Simon: “When we get a grade A plonker, support for a republic will increase and support for the monarchy will decline.”
Monarch removed in constitutional crisis and handsome son takes over.
Polls dramatically improve.
God at work again.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Oh come on Neil, what’s that in the Bible, “Do not look for a speck in your neighbour’s eye when you have a log in your own” (or words to that effect). There’s very good constitutional reasons why a US president is restricted to two terms and you know that as well.
Another bit of hilarity from you was that last comment to Simon Monarch removed in constitutional crisis and handsome son takes over. Polls dramatically improve.. You’ve already told us your monarch is chosen and anointed by God, so how are you going to remove him/her should they turn out to be a plonker, or worse still, a numpty?
October 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Bob Wiggin: “You’ve already told us your Monarch is Chosen and Anointed by God, so how are you going to remove him/her should they turn out to be a plonker, or worse still, a numpty?”
Accidents can happen or perhaps a great scandal will be exposed – perhaps The Monarch will start to feel unwell and then be certified unfit.
God works in mysterious ways.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
@ Neil – Accidents can happen? So you fall into the Mohamed Al Fayed school of logic – interesting.
Perhaps a great scandal will be exposed? No chance of that Neil. – Your glorious, anointed monarch; appointed by a Deity who appears to be prone to make mistakes, and is also unable to learn from them, is protected by what’s called exemption from FOI.
God works in mysterious ways – evidently
October 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Have you ever considered the benefits of The Noble Lie, Bob?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noble_Lie
Evidently not.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Great article! I think it has to be said that so many of the reform packages being talked up are essentially little carrots being dangled in front of a disgruntled electorate. We want power not the illusion of power.
If monarchists want to go local, shouldn’t they support local feudal lords, and the replacement of county councils with counts? Likewise, shouldn’t they also want to scrap elections to the Commons and put hereditaries back in the Lords? Why can’t these monarchists follow things through to their logical conclusion?
October 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Gareth Hughes: “Replacement of county councils with Counts?” I had not thought of that. Excellent idea. It would be cheaper than having all these council officials and we’d have a Council Tax reduction instead.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@ Neil – Have you ever considered the benefits of The Noble Lie, Bob?
No I hadn’t Neil, but now I have I can see there are none once the game is up and the noble lie has been exposed for what it is – A noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony, particularly the social position of that elite. A noble lie, although it may benefit all parties, is different from a white lie since a white lie does not cause discord if uncovered whereas noble lies are usually of a nature such that they would do so.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
You’ve misunderstood The Noble Lie, Bob. Sometimes you do things for the good of your Country or cause. It helps to maintain social order. Republicans believe in this Noble Lie. “A republic is more democratic.”
October 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
@ Neil – “Republicans believe in this Noble Lie. A republic is more democratic”
Then it’s not a noble lie we believe in Neil. How can an unelected and hereditary head of state, a partly unelected legislature, political cronies given peerages or, on the other side of the coin, people shunted off to the Lords to keep them from causing trouble for the PM in the commons, how can this fiasco be more democratic than a republic? In a republic the people are sovereign, that’s what democracy is, popular sovereignty.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
The queen, who you love above all else by your own admission, has throughout her reign been unable to intervene on the people’s behalf because she has no democratic mandate.
Who safeguards our constitution? No-one.
Is that democratic? No.
Are the peerages given to Michael Martin and Jacqui Smith in the interest of democracy? No.
Does Peter Mandelson having his hands on the reins of power enhance the democratic process when he is unelected? No.
Does Dave (Blair mark2) Cameron’s proposed appointment of Kirstie Allsopp to the Lords do anything for democracy? A big fat no.
We do not live in a democracy – we live in an elective dictatorship.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
The Queen has throughout her reign been unable to intervene on the people’s behalf because she has no democratic mandate.”
Why should she? Politicians are great, you’d have one as our Head.
“We do not live in a democracy – we live in an elective dictatorship.”
“In a republic the people are sovereign, that’s what democracy is, popular sovereignty.”
Of all Noble Lies I have heard, the latter is the most unbelievable yet.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
You’re definitely trolling Neil.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Whilst I agree with popular sovereignty as a necessary pillar of any modern democracy I don’t see it as being the solution to all our woes. Popular sovereignty would not guarantee the rights of historic nations and national minorities within a larger state. Only autonomy and constitutionally recognised cultural rights can ensure the Cornish nation has a future.
Power devolved up from the grass roots to an elected government is all well and good and a must for any future Cornish body of governance, but if the majority in a British Republic decided to give power to a government that ignored the needs of its national minorities and centralise all decision making…….
October 20th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I agree, Phil, that popular sovereignty will not solve all our woes, but it would go a long way down the path of actually getting the machinery in place to enable some meaningful reform. We’re never going to get any of that as the executive have ably demonstrated recently with the minuscule changes to the prerogative powers.