Margaret Thatcher was the first British prime minister in modern times to demonstrate the sheer weight of power now concentrated in the hands of a single individual: presidential power but without the checks and balances that keep an American president on the rails. Tony Blair has learned his lessons well. Constitutional reform is in the air, but where is the Constitutional Commission? Where is the debate over reform of the House of Lords, over English devolution (or its absence), or over the reintroduction of faith-based schools? The media and the opposition seem strangely silent on these issues. Malaise is in the air, but it is hard to see what can be done to address the almost all-pervading feeling of angst.To try and find some answers we can perhaps look at how these matters are handled in other democracies in Europe and elsewhere.
Firstly, we in Britain live not in a democracy but under an elected dictatorship. Because we have no written constitution there are not even any rules that govern which issues are constitutional; every issue is capable of being decided by a simple majority in the House of Commons. The power of the House of Lords to stop, defer or change unwelcome legislation the principal functions of any second chamber has been eroded to the point of virtual extinction.
Few other countries in Europe, indeed few other democracies, have allowed responsibility for deciding constitutional changes to fall into the hands of a single individual. History suggests that those that do find serious trouble ahead. Few young politicians enter Parliament without some ambition for ministerial office. And the only route to preferment is to catch the eye of the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Whips. Behave like pliable lobby fodder (sorry, build a reputation as a safe pair of hands), learn to yap like a partisan dog, eschew reasoned compromise, and you might stand some chance of preferment. There can be no career for anyone unwilling to put the interests of the party above those of the nation, or his conscience. Step out of line and you can kiss your career goodbye. So Parliament offers no forum for considered debate and no brake on the unbridled ambition of an unscrupulous Prime Minister.
The contempt that the Prime Minister now shows for parliament the breakfast briefings on TV, the homely newspaper articles is easy to understand. Parliament simply doesn't matter any more. Mr Blair may use focus groups to guide him in the presentation of his ideas and spin doctors to keep the press at bay but are these really an adequate substitute for democratic consultation?
The press, of course, must be kept onside. The second most important role in government is now the un-elected position of cabinet press officer spin doctor to the Prime Minister. The press feed on controversy so they must be fed a little warm flesh from time to time, a little scandal here, an indiscretion there, anything to keep them away from the real issues. The real issues tend to be complicated anyway. In-depth analysis doesn't sell millions of newspapers or keep your audience glued to their screens. Simple-minded controversy and blood on the carpet are what sell. So reasoned discussion and debate go by default.
And where is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in all this? Apparently so focused on Europe that what is happening at home holds little interest for them. But even if they were to take an interest they like the Labour opposition during the reign of Mrs Thatcher could have no possible influence over what is happening. Their only hope is to try and look credible until the next general election in the faint hope that it will be their turn next for the dictator's seat.
The governing party is always quick to claim a mandate (whatever that may mean) for whatever measures it cares to promote. The idea of the mandate is one of the recurring myths of modern British politics. How can any government, elected as it invariably is by a minority of the electorate, using a voting system that encourages voting against the candidate or the party you dislike most rather than for the candidate you want to win, with a manifesto that covers every aspect of government, with ideas both good and bad, how can such a government possibly have a claim to have a mandate for anything? But how much easier for a prime minister to claim a mandate than to actually have to listen to the people.
There are two arguments commonly used against referendums: that they cost too much, and that ordinary electors don't have the time or expertise to decide difficult issues for themselves. Both, of course, are nonsense. In the many American states every local, state and congressional election includes a series of referendum questions on which the electorate is encouraged to vote. By combining referendums with regular elections, which happen about once a year, the costs are minimised. The other objection is simply the old argument against democracy that has been used by every wannabe dictator since Attila the Hun. Politicians dislike referendums because they take power away from them and give it back to the people. Would there have been riots in the streets when Mrs Thatcher introduced the Poll Tax if the safety valve of a popularly initiated referendum had been available?
How are we to break free from the dispiriting sequence of dictators and their henchmen? Reform will be difficult because both of the major parties see advantage in the present system. Each of them while in opposition knows that their turn will come around again. Proportional representation offers some chance of a more representative parliament and an opportunity to vote for a candidate rather than against, but is unlikely to happen while parliament is dominated by the two major parties, whatever half promises Tony Blair might hold out to the Liberal Democrats to keep them onside. Nevertheless, I believe that electoral reform will be a necessary step in reducing the power of the party machines and in restoring democracy in the United Kingdom.
A democratically elected second chamber is, I believe, a further necessity in reducing the power of prime ministers, their cronies and of the vested interests that surround them.
Above all we need to restore the power of parliament. Britain must once again become a democratic country.
