Michael Meacher

Labour Party | Oldham West and Royton

Do We Really Have A Democracy?

By Michael Meacher

The Guardian, 3 August 2006

The UN has now labelled the pulverisation of Lebanon an “illegal war”, yet still the UK has not called unequivocally for a ceasefire.   This defiance of strongly held British and international public opinion not only diminishes our standing in the eyes of the world, but also acutely raises, yet again, how those in power are held to account for their decisions.
There are many such examples in Britain today.   What mechanism is there to prevent the Prime Minister unilaterally giving support to a US attack on Iran, if that were to happen, embroiling the UK in a conflict which the public overwhelmingly rejects?   How can the Government be dissuaded from carrying through further fundamental structural change in the NHS and education system which carries neither electoral sanction nor public support?   When Tony Blair abruptly overturns his own 2003 Energy White Paper and announces that Britain will go nuclear ‘with a vengeance’, even before the Energy Review he himself set up has reported, is policy-making now a matter of personal dictat, or if not, how can effective counter-pressures be brought to bear?    When Gordon Brown declares his support for replacing the Trident nuclear weapon at a cost of £15-25bn, even though many believe it now serves no useful purpose, are such ex cathedra statements now how policy is made?   All these questions, and dozens more, flow from one single cause.

Power has become more centralised in Britain than at any time since the last War, even than in the Thatcher era.   Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No.10, and at the same time politically power has been drained away from the Cabinet, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Labour Party National Executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre.   Unlike in the US, however, where power is shared within the ruling hierarchy between the President and a  countervailing Congress, presidential power in the UK commands every aspect of the unified power structure without a rival and, with very few exceptions, can enforce its will without consultation or concession.   The division of powers, on which the unwritten constitution of Britain has depended for three centuries, is being steadily eroded.   The checks and balances have all but collapsed.

One little noticed current episode illustrates how far this process has gone.   The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill at present before Parliament unprecedentedly granted Ministers power to alter Acts of Parliament without parliamentary scrutiny and to exercise virtually untrammelled executive power in almost every area of government.   The ensuing furore forced the Government to amend its more extreme provisions, but even the amended version still creates a major shift of power within the State which in other countries could not happen without a change to the constitution.

How can these things happen?   It reflects a confluence of several factors.   An enfeebled Parliament is browbeaten by a ruthless use of patronage, the timetabling of all important Bills, and a culture of compliance rather than genuine debate.   The parliamentary vacuum is then colonised by a small unelected group of aides and advisers round the Prime Minister who on his behalf arrogate to themselves significant power over policy formation, press communications, and liaison with the other key power players in business, finance and the media – without any accountability to Parliament or the public at all.  

Is this autocracy irreversible?   It is not.   What is needed is a new constitutional settlement whereby Parliament reasserts its democratic rights across the whole area of policy and procedure where its authority has been usurped.   As the Blair era draws to its close, this should be the springboard for a democratic renewal.   A new cross-party convention should be established to draw up a blueprint to present to the people of this country for their approval.

Some of the areas for reform are already clear.   If Cabinet Ministerial appointments had to be ratified by the appropriate Select Committee of the House, which should also have power of recall, Ministers would be  jointly accountable not only to the Prime Minister but also to Parliament.   If Select Committee membership was decided by a secret ballot of all MPs, not by the Whips, with a quota reflecting Party strengths, and with the Chair in each case then chosen by the Committee, the Committees would have much greater independence and authority.  If the members and terms of reference of Committees of Inquiry (such as the Hutton and Butler committees after the Iraq War), when proposed by the Prime Minister, were subject to Parliamentary vote, their findings would command much greater respect.   Parliament might also have power to appoint such committees itself where the Government refuses to do so (for example currently over rendition flights).  

If the Liaison Committee, made up of Chairs of all the Select Committees, had the right to table motions for debate and vote on the floor of the House, say, once a month, control of the House agenda could then be shared at least partly with Parliament itself.   The Royal Prerogative, whereby at present the Prime Minister can unilaterally declare war, make international treaties and authorise military action, should surely be ended.   There is a growing consensus that the House of Lords should be transformed into a Senate with at least 70% of its members elected.   Key extra-parliamentary appointments – including permanent secretaries, key ambassadors, chiefs of staff, and heads of the security services – could require ratification by Parliament.   All these measures would restore democratic control.  And if the honours system were supervised by Parliament, or preferably abolished, it would remove a blatant source of patronage and potential corruption. 

Parallel with these parliamentary reforms each political party will need to consider what changes in Party procedures are necessary to secure real and genuine accountability of the Party’s leadership to its members.    Mechanisms to hold the Leader (and Deputy Leader) to account would certainly be part of any changes.   In the Labour Party that could mean restoring the right, recently removed, for delegates to Party Conference to make nominations for their choice of leadership.

But democracy goes wider than Parliament or Party.   If major Bills were examined first in televised hearings in Parliament, members of the public could then offer on-line comments to the Bill Committee.   If referenda were made available, on carefully drawn criteria and with a guarantee of balanced media coverage, the public could have a decisive voice on some of the major and most controversial issues.   And perhaps the fraught issue of proportional representation should now be seriously reconsidered if the excesses of autocratic power are to be effectively curbed.    

This issue of political accountability is overriding: it underpins every issue of contention in Britain today.   Until we face up to this and major reforms are instituted, none of the current malaise and feelings of impotence and disengagement so widespread among the British public will be addressed.