I've written in the past that many of our highly paid pundits do not seem to understand the constitution. They seem to think that we live in some kind of Presidential system, rather than a parliamentary democracy. In part, that is understandable, because as Lord Hailsham wrote several decades ago, the British political system had evolved into what he called "an elected dictatorship". In effect, what he was describing was type of Bonapartism.
In Presidential systems, where executive power is vested in the hands of one single elected individual, the forces pulling in the direction of Bonapartism are strong. In the US, it is countered by the strict separation of powers, and the role of Congress, and the Supreme Court. But, as Trump is showing, the vast amount of power granted to the President can be used to overcome these checks and balances. In France, the executive power of the President is checked by its hybrid political system that also vests executive power in the hands of the Prime Minister, and control over them by the National Assembly.
In Britain, the parliamentary system means that it is parliament that is sovereign, although in strict constitutional terms, it is the monarch, in parliament, that is sovereign. In reality, since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, it is parliament that is sovereign, with the monarch only fulfilling a ceremonial role, though, in a crisis, there is nothing preventing the Monarch actually using their remaining prerogative powers, including the fact that, constitutionally, the armed forces, and other bodies of armed men of the state, owe their allegiance to the Monarch, and not to parliament. In practice, if that were to happen, it would already mean that the country was in a pre-revolutionary condition.
Yet, in recent times the trend towards Bonapartism, or the strengthening of the dictatorship element of Hailsham's "elected dictatorship" has increased. What Hailsham meant was that the Prime Minister, whilst having to be elected as an MP, like any other MP, once ensconced in office as Prime Minister, has considerable powers, much like those of a President, whilst, unlike a President, not being subject to popular election in a General Election. In a Presidential system, such as that in the US, the President claims exclusive executive power, on the basis that they are directly elected, in a General Election, by the electorate as a whole. In fact, of course, in the US, that is not true, because the President is elected indirectly through the Electoral College, which means that although Trump received 4 million fewer votes than Clinton, he was able to obtain a majority in the Electoral College. The same happened in 2000 with the victory of Bush over Gore.
The Prime Minister, like a President, appoints the government, which in Britain today means a payroll of over 150 MP's. Those MP's, as Ministers have a vested interest, both pecuniary, and in terms of their careers, and future political ambitions, in being loyal to the prime Minister. Furthermore, the doctrine of collective responsibility means that they are bound to abide by government decisions, when it comes to voting in parliament. In a parliament of 650 MP's, having a core government payroll of nearly a quarter of all MP's gives the government considerable power to push its decisions through parliament, and thereby also gives the Prime Minister considerable power to push their own personal agenda through parliament, as it is they who appoint government ministers, and likewise remove them from office. Moreover, the government is only the government because it has the support of a majority of MP's in parliament. Normally, that means that the government party has a majority of MP's. Those same MP's, also have an incentive to back the government, and thereby the prime Minister. They want to ensure that their government remains in office; they want to ensure thereby that they retain their own seat, particularly if it is under threat in any General Election, a threat the Prime Minister can always hold over them if they become rebellious; they might also personally have their eye on joining that very large government payroll, and so gaining financially, as well as furthering their political career, a possibility that is threatened if they are seen to be disloyal, or a maverick.
A Prime Minister, like a President, also has executive powers, nominally described as Royal Prerogative powers, but actually in the hands of the Prime Minister. Until fairly recently, i.e, the Iraq War, the Prime Minister had the power to take the country to war, without parliamentary approval. Even after, the Iraq War, we have seen Prime Minsters commit British troops to combat without parliamentary approval, for example, in Syria. Its likely that British special forces have actually been committed to combat on many more occasions than that without parliamentary approval, and because their operations are undertaken covertly no reporting of their activities would be provided for parliamentary scrutiny after the event.
Also like a President, the Prime Minister has many other powers and privileges. For example, in the US, the President is described as having the power of the bully pulpit, meaning that they can use the office to command the attention of the media, so as to promote their views directly to their base, or to the population as a mass, in order to try to bully Congress into agreeing to their demands. Theresa May has tried to do that in recent days, by going over the heads of parliament to appeal directly to all of the Leave supporters in the population to exert pressure on MP's to back her deal. The prime Minister, has the ability thereby to have unequal access to media outlets, to promote their own specific agenda, and as there has been this increasing tendency to see the Prime Minister as a President, so it means that they can present themselves as a figurehead, a single representative of the amorphous mass. That tendency has been increased in recent years, as politics has become reduced to a cult of personality. The drive to hold "Leaders Debates", as though those Leaders were in some way being directly elected by the population at large, as happens with a President, has also increased that tendency, which ultimately undermines parliamentary democracy, and strengthens the tendency towards Bonapartism.
The dictatorial powers of the Prime Minister are mostly significant in times when the government itself has only a small majority, or is even a minority, as is the case with May's government. In order to overcome the difficulties that the lack of a clear majority imposes, the government is impelled towards trying to use its executive powers whenever it can get away with it, and to cut parliament out of any role of oversight and scrutiny, so as to ho,d the executive to account. That has been obvious with Brexit, but in similar ways it was seen in the drive to War in Iraq, with the government attempting to hold information close to its chest, so as to present the idea that it knew something that parliament did not know, but which if it did would lead parliament to back the government. May tried the same thing with Brexit, telling parliament that it could not give a running commentary on negotiations, because that would be to disclose the cards in its hands to the EU. In reality, the government had no cards of any worth in its hands, and it was to cut parliament out of any involvement that the government refused to provide any details of its negotiation objectives. In the end, it has had to do, now, what it should have done three years ago, which is to involve parliament via a series of indicative votes, so as to arrive at an objective in its negotiations with the EU. Its rather like a trades union that goes into negotiations with an employer, having failed to first talk to its members about what pay rise they want.
Now parliament has asserted its sovereignty, but it is telling that the government and its supporters now describe this as somehow revolutionary, or unconstitutional. They talk about the government having been elected to implement its policies, and that parliament should not seek to replace the role of government. But, of course, this is nonsense. The government is not elected by the electorate. The government is appointed by the Prime Minister. In fact, the government can include people who have been elected by no one. The government can include members of the House of Lords, for example. Gordon Brown, appointed the odious Digby Jones as an industry Minister in his government, though Jones was elected by no one, and unlikely ever to be elected by anyone to parliament. Nor is the Prime Minister elected by the electorate. I did not get to vote for or against Theresa May as Prime Minister. Only the electorate in May's constituency got that opportunity. As with every other elector, I only got to vote for the candidates put forward by the Labour, Tory, and other parties in the constituency where I lived at the time of the election. None of those candidates were standing for positions of Ministers, let alone Prime Minister, only as candidates to become a member of parliament. And, as one of those candidates in her own constituency, that is all Theresa May could stand for too.
So, it is totally untrue for government ministers and their supporters to claim that they were elected by the electorate to implement their Manifesto. They were only elected by the voters in their particular constituencies to be MP's, nothing more. It is only when MP's have been elected, and one party in parliament has a majority, or can command a majority of votes, for example, by obtaining the support of other MP's, that it can be in a position to form a government. It is parliament, by this process that elects the government, not the electorate. As evidence of that, for example, in 1940, Winston Churchill, became Prime Minister, not because he was Leader of the Tory Party - he wasn't, and the Tories who never trusted him, never made him Leader of the Tory Party - but because Attlee's Labour Party, voted to install him in that position, along with a group of Tory MP's.
That parliament has reasserted its sovereignty is not revolutionary or unconstitutional, it is a necessary corrective to the increasing drive to authoritarianism and Bonapartism that has been taking place over recent years.
No comments:
Post a Comment