01 Nov 2009
On Saturday I participated in a panel debate at the Battle of Ideas. Others on the panel were Jessica Asato of Progress, former MP and BBC correspondent Martin Bell and James Panton of the Manifesto Club and lecturer in politics at St John’s College, University of Oxford.
The topic of debate was “Parliament: reform or revolution?”. Here’s what I said.
“In the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal there has, unfortunately, been a lot of distraction, a lot of concentration on trivia and with tinkering with our political system.
I hope we can instead look seriously at the fundamental questions facing Britain’s politics: these are questions of power – who has it, how do they get it, in whose interests are they exercising it and how can they be held accountable for it?
British politics is in crisis, but not because of the scandal of parliamentary expenses. The crisis goes much deeper and is in danger and worsening still. Indeed, the expenses row is threatening to add to that crisis in our politics, not bring about the reform we need.
We are seeing a lynch-mob mentality replacing serious political discourse, we’re seeing serious debate about what reforms are needed being distracted by widespread ignorance of our political system and of basic principles of democracy. We’re seeing demands for bans on second jobs, banning the employment of family members, the introduction of primaries, the power of recall – gimmicks that completely miss the seriousness of the crisis, which betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what representative politics is about and which threaten to distract us from the real nature of the problem.
In our rush to punish those few greedy and corrupt MPs, and in the name of making our politicians more accountable, we are seriously running the risk of making our politics less accountable and less accessible to ordinary people. In our bid to demand MPs have higher standards we risk stripping the meaning and purpose of politics from the political process, treating MPs as nothing more than Civil Servants, expected to clock in on time, abide by the rules and report back to their managers.
There are much more serious and fundamental issues at stake which can be addressed by radical constitutional reform.
A brief look at our constitution and we see that of all our national institutions, “the people” are involved in just one: the Commons. The Lords has been reformed backwards by several hundred years, to when it was all appointed. The ever more powerful and centralised government is indirectly chosen through poorly run and infrequent elections. Our head of state, we are told, is none of our concern.
Of all these institutions it is the Commons which is in decline, and the expenses scandal is accelerating that decline. No amount of tinkering around the edges: text voting, primaries and celebrity candidates, will address the fundamental problems our democracy faces.
Britain must face up to much more fundamental reforms. We must return to the fundamental questions of power and democracy. We must re-craft our constitution as a republic: a nation governed for the people and by the people.
It is time we had a constitution based on popular sovereignty, not the sovereignty of the Crown or parliament.
Reform or revolution? It’s really a matter of semantics. We certainly need to scrap the Crown, an institution and legal instrument that has kept power at the top and in the centre. We need a written constitution, placing limits on the power of government and parliament; not detailing every nut and bolt of our system, but putting in plain English, for all to read and understand, answers to those questions: who has power, in whose interests must they be using that power, how did they get there, how do we remove them?
We could benefit too, from a Head of State who could play a role in the political process, act as arbitrator and referee, as guardian of our constitution and representative of our nation, able to speak on significant issues of the day. Not an Obama or Bush, but a McAleese or Robinson. A head of state who is accountable to the people who can use some of the reserve powers the Queen has, but has no legitimate right to use.
Our Queen is constitutionally pointless, a puppet of the PM and a servant of the government, wedded to ideals and principles that belong to the dark ages, not to twenty first century Britain. There is a job to be done as head of state, and we must be able to choose who does that job, and hold them to account for it.
Reform or revolution? I’d say revolutionary reform.
We need a new way of doing politics. A new understanding of the role of parliament and government: an understanding that parliament is ours, MPs should be representatives of ordinary people, not public officials or civil servants.
A new relationship between people and politicians, a new appreciation of politics as a battle of ideas, a contest between competing visions, not a beauty pageant between managers each claiming to be whiter than white and duller than dull.
A new vision of power. Power not being gifted from on high, handed down to us from time to time by our benevolent masters, but power delegated by us – in a limited fashion – to our servants, those we freely elect to legislate and govern in our name.
There is no reason to cling to established institutions – whether out of fear or nostalgia – if those institutions are not the best on offer.
It is time for a genuine people’s democracy:
A new Commons with stronger power over the executive;
A fully elected upper house with full legislative powers;
A written republican constitution giving the people proper control over parliament;
A new settlement for Britain.
I want a British politics that inspires aspiration, that engenders responsibility, that forces people to look to themselves, as much as to the politicians, for reasons why politics is failing. A politics that repatriates that old cry of “we the people”.
This is the reform we need. Revolutionary perhaps, ambitious yes. But very doable. An Act of parliament, a referendum, fresh elections and a new start.
Tinkering will not do. Revolutionary reform is the answer.”
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 1st, 2009 at 11:14 am and is filed under A future republic, British constitution, Case for a republic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
November 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Graham, with your pleas for power to be decentralised and a culture of responsibility to be engendered, you have saved me the task of explaining any further – at least on this Blog – how I reconcile my newfound republicanism with my natural Conservatism. Thank you. Furthermore, you are absolutely spot-on when you talk of a lynch mob mentality and the need to replace this with healthy democratic debate.
By the way, I’d just like to ask if you’ve noted what I said in my last comment in the ‘Pointless Exercise’ thread about the article I wrote back in June which is finally due to be published any time now. If so, I take it you’re happy to ignore the article if you do happen to stumble across it? I accept the inevitable backlash from the Conservative ranks, particularly from older members of my local association, as the price I pay for having been too dismissive of republicanism when I wrote the piece (although that was partly due to the word limit); but I think the best way for me to deal with angry rebukes from traditionalist old-timers will be to focus on the question of how exactly a written constitution is in any way ‘un-British,’ or why exactly giving the courts more power to hold the government to account is such a bad thing.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
There is a job to be done as head of state, the Queen does that job very well and we have the power to choose if she continues to do that job by voting for a party that supports a Republic. This sort of compares to the situation with Scottish separatists. The Scottish people have a right to decide their own future, however at what stage is a vote needed to show the majority support remaining part of the United Kingdom? Only when the separatists form a majority will there be a need to hold such a referendum, i would suggest the same thing applies to a referendum on the monarchy. Only when there is a Republican government or a majority of Republican MPs will there be a need for such a referendum on the future of the monarchy.
As i have said before i have no real problem with the current system although i would like to see parliamentary reforms, but if we are to go alot further and reform the whole system then i fail to see why it must involve removing the monarchy completely. Matt has in the past talked about some form of Crowned Republic, i dont understand what exactly that implies and i object to a “Republic” being a description on principle, i do not want to live in a Republic, i would be prepared to live in a very reformed Constitutional monarchy to address Republics concerns however to live up to our democratic values this ofcourse should only be done via elections, with Republicans clearly running on such a platform of reform. It should not be because of pressure groups.
I have some suggestions of how it could be reformed to address most of Republics concerns, ofcourse for most people here if not everyone it would never be enough sadly, even though we could fix the constitutional matters, it just wouldnt be the system you guys want. Considering the response to my other post was negative as it was focused on cost, i will send in my ideas so it can be uploaded and people can comment there. It will take me an hour or two probably, it wont be a detailed proposal, but just ways to solve some of the problems.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
SIMON – Perhaps you could also elaborate on your definition of our democratic values, (I suspect they’re going to be your democratic values which will prove to be no such thing).. Why can you not see that heredity is fundamentally undemocratic and wrong? Put aside your personal unbridled love for her loveliest- jubbleyness, try and be dispassionate, and tell us where she fits in with any democratic model.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
SIMON – “There is a job to be done as head of state, the Queen does that job very well”
It depends on what the job description of head of state is Simon. My definition of a head of state’s role is for him/her to firstly have a democratic mandate, (not a poll result), and for him/her to safeguard the constitution.
If we are saying that the job description entails standing idly by while politicians of every stripe gather power to themselves and use it to the detriment of the people, and whilst doing so, he/she and his/her family are to take the tax-payers to the cleaners in the process, then the current set-up fits the bill perfectly.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Bob,
I take the same stance on the monarchy as i do on the union. If the people of Scotland want a break up of the United Kingdom, they must vote for separatists. When those separatists are a majority then is the time for a referendum on Scottish separatism. Until then, the status quo stands. I fail to see why dealing with the monarchy should be any different, we can make certain reforms sure, but until a party advocating to hold a referendum on removing the monarchy or radically reforming it is elected by the British people there is no justification for radical reforms or need along the lines i was mentioning.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
We could establish a written constitution which builds in safeguards like requiring the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to consider if a certain act is in line with our constitution or not. Heres a radical proposal, we could have national elections for the members of the Supreme court giving them that vital democratic mandate, perhaps they could not just ensure every government act is in line with the constitution but that the Queen remains in line with such a written constitution
I for one would love judges to be more accountable. We could get rid of all the soft liberals judges currently destroying the criminal justice system and replace them with some serious ones who are tough on crime.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Simon, one important thing I don’t understand: why do you think it’s wrong for pressure groups like Republic to seek out facts and generate debate which could, eventually, lead to mainstream political parties advocating republicanism? And don’t even think about replying “Because the Union’s more important at the moment!”
November 1st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“We could establish a written constitution which builds in safeguards like requiring the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to consider if a certain act is in line with our constitution or not.”
That is already a part of the Human Rights Act (remember, the one you want to get rid of cos it gives prisoners so much fun)
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 am
Simon,
While I can appreciate your view regarding elections, change only occuring as the result of the election of parties having a majority is not the perfect system you seem to envisage. The voting rights of women regquired a great deal of non-democractic actions to force debate, revolutions across the world (while generally leading to worse governments) occur because the system naturally prevents change. I am not advocating that republic starts using violence, it should use democractic means, but it should raise and force debate even without an electoral backing. This is particulalry crucial given the general ignorance concerning our system.
Furthermore the system could be greatly improved without removing the monarchy, but if it was retained then improvement would still be limited and subordinate to the monarchy. By removing the monarchy the a truly democratic and empowering system can be put in its place.
Regarding the election of judges, I have to say that it is a terrible idea. While I understand you express this as a means of increasing democratic control, the election of judges makes the role inherently political. In the US the appointment of supreme courts justices is heavily influcenced by their political position, the same at the lower levels of the judiciary where they are elected. The role the courts play means that their position must be politically independent.
Liam, currently the courts can certify that a law is in conflict with Human Rights Act but it does not strike down the law, so any such law is still legally valid.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 am
@Graham
You did very very well. We’re proud of you, buddy! You covered all grounds, made perfect impassioned sense. A’tta boy!
eclub
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 am
@Simon,
I’m waiting for your next post. The last one was a disappointment.
If you fail to move the ball forward a bit, but rather persist in the banal issue of cost and nostalgia, I will begin a campaign to ban you from this site again. We have to move forward. If we’ve exhausted your reason, we have a campaign to do here. I’m giving you one more chance, and that’s your next post. Make your case why we should keep going back and forth with you, convince us or be convinced, or be banned. I know it’s not my website, but sorry, we’ve got to carry on with this campaign.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
What ‘job’ does the Queen actually do? Would you care to name a few things she has actually done? A contribution to public and political life she has made?
It is complete nonsense to suggest that we have the power to choose if she continues through voting in a republican party, and I would be willing to bet you know that too. Accountability and democratic mandate need to be assigned to the office itself. It is not a democratic office just because the people have the power to change the constitution.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Sam, thank you very much for your contribution – we’re definitely singing from the same hymn-sheet now!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Simon, this is interesting. Here is one of the fundamental reasons why the institution of the monarchy itself must be removed (as opposed to just the Crown).
There has been debate at the highest levels of the main political parties over the need for a written constitution for over thirty years. Our former chair, professor Stephen Haseler, was speaking on this just the other day at our AGM.
The reason we haven’t made any progress on getting a written constitution, or any real progress on many of the other serious concerns about our constitution, is because the monarchy gets in the way. There is opposition and/or fear about undermining the position of the Queen, which would be an inevitable consequence of making the changes we need.
The least that would happen if we were to go down the road of writing our constitution is that it would prompt a bigger debate about the monarchy than we’ve ever had before. One of the first items of such a constitution would be: “the Head of State shall be…”. Are we, in 21st Century Britain, expecting serious and learned people to finished that sentence with “… Elizabeth Windsor and her successors”?
Those in power know full well that if you start making serious changes to the constitution it will jeopardise the position of the monarch – this is exactly why we have made so little progress on serious constitutional reform.
So my message to all constitutional reformers is this: if you shy away from scrapping the monarchy, you play straight into the hands of those who oppose any reform. The monarch is a dead weight on the reform agenda and we won’t make progress until that weight has been removed.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Matt,
I do not think its wrong for pressure groups to exist, although i do have a general negative view of groups like Greenpeace. I just think if a republic is what people want they should seek to get a party and MPs elected rather than just outside unelected sniping from the side lines. I am quite shocked at how much media attention this organisation has been given actually, i thought some said we had a biased media that goes out of its way to defend the monarchy, its clearly not the case.
Liam Finn
British law should govern the United Kingdom not some left wing judge thinking something goes agaisnt european laws.
Sam,
Im not saying Republic shouldnt be campaigning from the outside, but like with separatism the only way to bring about the change today will be through the ballot box. People may think our democracy is pretty bad but we are a democracy and the people do get to shape our future.
We could go a long way to reforming the monarchy, perhaps even giving people a referendum on continuation of the monarchy following a monarchs death. Id be prepared to accept that and such a mandate would strenghten the monarchy rather than weaken it. There would be even more need for them to ensure they are doing good for the British people and maintain the support of the people.
On judges, i do not want government picking the judges like happens in the USA, i meant a national vote for them and i wouldnt want them to have that position for life the way they do in the USA.
Or ofcourse if we do want to keep the supreme court unelected, then we could vote for some form of Council, something like 7 members elected for 10 years who advise the monarch on each act of legislation who are between the Monarch and the Prime Minister to help build extra safeguards. When the majority of the council think theres something unconstitutional the council sends it to the supreme court, if they think its ok they send it to the Queen to sign into law. That would solve the problems of the Queen signing anything into law even if it might be unconstitutional without the Queen having to get involved in politics. If reform is needed, i dont see why we have no choice but to go down the path of a republic based on other models. We could invent a 21st century monarchy if thats what the people want.
eclub,
I try to be as constructive as possible in many of my posts. I do enjoy the odd joke or two as well, but i always try to show respect to everyone and respond to points made.
Graham,
She has served this nation for almost 60 years as Sovereign. In that time she has won the hearts and minds of the people because she has been such a great Queen. Republicans all know that removing the monarchy whilst she is on the throne is almost impossible, just monarchists know that following her death the Republican cause will strenghten. We could quite possibly be a republic today had it not been for her greatness.
We do have the power to choose through the general elections. We all know that if we want to improve democracy we should vote for a party like the Lib Dems who take a tougher stance on that, whilst they may not abolish the monarchy they would try to reform it. If we had a referendum following every monarchs death which was legally binding and written into our constitution then we could even give that office some form of democratic mandate. Ofcourse that comes with its own risks aswell, i fight with anti europeans alot who moan about unelected presidents running the EU. I say to them, becareful about what you wish for, because if we give the President of the European Comission or Council a democratic mandate that is the fastest way to a federal United States of Europe. The fact the presidents are unelected means the heads of government of the member states have the people behind them more and its harder for the president to grab power.
I do accept your point about dealing with the monarchy makes creating a full written constitution more difficult for people to consider, however huge reforms can be done without even addressing the monarchy question. There is no real public support for the house of lords, Labour had a huge majority which they could have used to deal with the lords, but they didnt. The Queen or the Queens position did not stop that from happening, it could have been reformed without putting her position at risks.
Constitutional reforms take time in this country, We can not just start again. In the coming decades it may be time for a full constitutional reform which includes some form of referendum following the death of Her Majesty, but it depends on how the people feel. Also ofcourse as we share the monarchy with 15 other sovereign states it makes messing around with those in line for the throne almost impossible. If they all go their own way following the Queens death which i accept is likely then we will have more freedoms to address certain problems.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
It is a good thing that Republic is getting media attention. There is nothing shocking about it at all . Republicanism is rightly on the increase , and has a right to access the media as much as any other group. Although some aspects of media attack monarchy,there is a great deal of media support for it as well. It is “de rigeur “for announcers to smile when they present something about royalty. Often a scowl would be better !