Primus Inter Pares?

It now looks like there will be TV debates between the Party leaders ahead of the General Election. What are the issues this raises?

Under Britain’s, unwritten, Constitution, there is, in fact, no such position of Prime Minister that these leaders seek to occupy. It is a sign of the low level of political culture in Britain compared to other parts of Europe that even media commentators speak about Gordon Brown being an unelected Prime Minister. In fact, all Ministers according to the Constitution, are theoretically all equal Ministers of the Crown. It makes no more sense to complain that one of these Ministers (whose actual title is First Lord of the Treasury) has not been directly elected by the people than it does to complain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the foreign Secretary was not elected by the people either! According to the Constitution, the position, which has now, through Convention, become established as Prime Minister is described as being Primus Inter Pares – First Among Equals – which makes precisely this point.

Britain is a Parliamentary democracy, which means that the Parliament is elected by the people, and it is this Parliament, which then establishes a Government, and appoints its Ministers. That is completely different from a Presidential system such as that in the USA, or France where the President IS directly elected by the people, and who alone then appoints his Ministers, none of whom are themselves elected representatives. There are considerable benefits from the standpoint of democracy in the Parliamentary Democracy compared to the Presidential system. First of all, in most Presidential systems the fact that all power is vested in the hands of a single individual has to be checked by giving other elected bodies some veto over the actions of the Executive. In the US, the Congress wields the power. But, this has its downside. It is frequently the case that the Party that controls the Presidency does not control the Congress. Even when they do, the requirement to obtain two-thirds majorities, and the fact that US parties are more collections of individuals than disciplined organisations of the European variety, means that as with Obama’s Health Plans now, there is frequent stalemate between the two. In one area that is less true. As Commander In Chief the US President as was seen in the case of the Iraq War, can effectively start a War without any control by Congress. The only power Congress really has is to deny finance for it, which rarely is any Congress going to do once a War has started, against as the Iraq War demonstrated.

Moreover, it is inevitable that in a Presidential system where all the focus is on a single individual that as much concern will be shown over the personality of that individual as over the actual political program they are advancing. In a society such as the US, where there is such a preponderance of superficiality, and a desire for fast politics to go with the fast food, and where the media play such a significant role, it is inevitable again that such features should play a significant role.

But, in fact, the truth is that for a long time Britain has been moving away from the model of Parliamentary democracy and towards a more Presidential system. Even in the 1950’s Churchill was describing the British political system as being “An Elected Dictatorship”, because within that system, the First Past the Post, electoral system ensured that the Governing Party usually has an outright majority, whilst the power of the Prime Minister, is in fact, far from being merely just that of being “First Among Equals”. The Prime Minister, like the President, appoints the Ministers, who though normally are themselves MP’s, do not have to be, as the recent trend towards appointing Ministers from the House of lords demonstrates. Given that modern Governments often include around a quarter of the membership of the governing party, then this power of patronage gives the Prime Minster considerable power to gain the support of such MP’s, mindful of the possibility of being sent to the back benches. It is also probably inevitable that given the common language and pervasiveness of US culture as the world’s most powerful state, that there should be a coming together of British with US culture, and what goes with it. A low level of political culture, a stultifying obsession with superficiality – witness the fascination with the cult of celebrity – combined with the power of the media are bound to engender a climate in which real political dialogue becomes subsumed under a welter of trivia, and personality politics as I argued in my blog The Commoditisation of Politics .

Its no wonder then that Sky have been pressing for such a debate. Yet, ironically if used properly such a debate could be used to revitalise political discussion, but there should be preconditions. Precisely, because we do not live under a Presidential system the principle of Primus Inter Pares should be applied. In other words there should be a debate between Party Leaders only if it is accompanied by equal debates between the other chief Ministers and their counterparts – that is debates between the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, Education Secretary, Defence Secretary, Health Secretary, and their counterparts. All should be shown in prime time, and be of the same length and format. Such debates could enliven political discussion far more than the dull as dishwater Party Political broadcasts.

But, the Labour Party should build on such a set of discussions by following up each debate with debates in each Constituency, challenging the other parties to say in detail what they are going to do, and being opened up to criticism and questioning. That could only benefit Labour, because at the moment all its opponents have to do is to sit back and carp and take advantage of its unpopularity without saying what they would actually do themselves! The Left to should welcome this US import of the “Town Hall” style meeting, because it provides a platform for the left to put forward its case in a far more effective way than simply standing in elections for effect, putting out handfuls of leaflets that no one reads.

That ought to be more effectively channelled into a Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory, but that’s the subject of another blog.