Shorts on the British Constitution

The core dilemma of popular democracy (17 November, 2003)
People never respect persons who seek their approval. But that is what democracy forces "leaders" to do.

The problem with dissing "The Crown" (18 October, 2003)
New Labour's urge to modernise has produced an effect which they did not perhaps intend. We have drifted away from a convention of great significance to the British Constitution and our national sense of ourselves. The convention has been that ministers, policemen, judges, the whole court system, the postal service, members of Parliament (Lords and commons), the entire civil service, and soldiers all serve "The Crown". That's to say, they owe allegiance to "The Crown". This loyalty, more emotional and even spiritual than managerial, had the valuable effect of reminding some very powerful people that they were not the servants of a party or an administration, or even a state, or the state - but of an entire nation as represented by its sovereign.

Now, we are to be rid of the Lord Chancellor and his department, and thus we will lose a great office of state which has always harked back to a monarchical view of society. That may seem to make sense, but it is part of a trend by which the body politic is rendered mundane and secular, as well as less clear. These changes risk diminishing the sense that powerful people are under an almost mystical obligation to consider something larger and longer-lasting than the expedient. Serving the Crown usefully both ennobled and humbled the mighty.

An overlooked reason for liking parliamentary democracy (8 January, 2003)
It is often stressed that the good thing about democracy is that it lets the majority rule. It's true enough. But the brilliant thing about representative, parliamentary democracy is that it allows the defeated to have a proper role in making decisions. This means that the minoritiy parties in Parliament are genuinely a part of government, too. And that's true even though they are not, of course, part of the Government with a capital "G". A modern problem (though it would have been familiar to the pre-Twentieth century politician) is that our system enshrines a special role for the second major (but minority) party, and we are less sure than we used to be that this works well, or will work well in the future. After all, we might see the Tories and the LibDems (or others) sharing substantial minority votes.

Why locals do not really want local provision of services (8 October, 2002)
The Tories, libertarians, greens and even New Labour say they believe in locally-determined provision of welfare services. The idea is that locals should have a say, and that localities should determine what suits them. Neither is a serious prospect.

The "democratic deficit" is not the lack of opportunity of locals to involve themselves in running government: it is their own reluctance to do so. But they want their own district to be free of any problem they see any other district, anywhere, is free of; and they want any benefit that any other district, anywhere, has. The one is a recipe for central decision-making and the latter is a recipe for central standards-setting.

Subject, not citizen; customer, not dependent (6 October, 2002)
I want to be a subject not a citizen and a customer not a dependent. That means: I like the peculiarity of being the "subject" of a monarchy (something organic, nebulous and almost spritual) and resist the concept of "citizenship" which makes me a creature of the state. And I want to be an autonomous purchaser of goods and services, not a patronised recipient of welfare. The former ambition is a question of not altering a British tradition. The latter is a matter of evolving a new one.

Why Britain is not a "pork barrel" polity - unlike the US or the EU (6 October, 2002)
Our Members of Parliament do represent a constituency, but they don't expect to do much bargaining with the central state. They don't "trade" their votes on unreleated matters in exchange for advantage for their region. This is because party and personality matter more to them than their constituents. So party loyalty turns out to be a liberating thing - it frees MPs from slavishly promoting narrow interests. One of the reason party is strong is that because the UK does not have "separation of powers", the majority party in the House of Commons nominates around 100 of its brightest and more biddable characters to be the Government of the day.

Ends