 |
Parliamentary Reform?
The repetitive topic of Parliamentary reform has been around for centuries and it fails, or rather is so incremental as to have no effect, because there is an odd deference under which we ask power addicts to plan future power addition procedures. We vainly expect MPs or members of the House of Lords, who "belong" to political parties bent on power, to sort out their institutions to the benefit of the electorate, the vast majority of whom are not party members. There exists here a fundamental conflict of objectives which is not commonly recognised. As a result, reliance on party aperatiks will never end up with an assembly which could be described as the represention of the free will of the people of England. This article covers just one aspect of this fundamental conflict and provides a simple proposed solution.
The need for transparent constituency representation and the separation of powers
Individuals representing a constituency
Individual freedom rests on a chain of trust and goodwill. In particular, the ability to rely on the fact that a representative will willingly express and advocate in favour of one's exact wishes is vital. This is the means of sustaining a freedom of expression channeled from the constituency to Parliament. Therefore individuals or groups can only sustain such freedom of expression if their representative is free to respond to those he or she represents, unencumbered by any other impositions which might compromise this.
The British party system prevents transparent representation because MPs expect to represent their "party", in all cases a miniscule private organization with a ridiculously inexpressive membership, over the interests of their constituents, who in total, represent the whole country.
What did I vote for, the person, the ideas or the party?
An underlying corruption of the British political process is that political parties associate their tiny private organizations with a selection of ideas over which they have no copyright or ownership claims at all. In a world of free expression of ideas it has become more and more difficult to relate those ideas which might provided the basis for policies to specific people or parties. Indeed, many such ideas recycle over time and within and across parties.
But in the event people are left to vote within a confused perspective. Irrespective of what parties might believe, some people will vote for the representative as a person they can trust. Others will select the least worse collection of ideas presented as a manifesto. Yet others will vote for a political party. Irrespective of the basis for selection applied by voters, the outcome of an election is that the "winning" political party presumes that they have an across-the-board mandate to hand their party members an absolute control over all matters of governance and in many cases, beyond.
And, this is one of the reasons why, increasingly, voters do not vote at all. The decline in turnout is not voter apathy it is more an increasing recognition that one is not really participating in an electoral process which will reflect the wish of the true majority. Nor will this process result in a system which can reflect the wishes of sizeable minorities. This failure in representation is a direct result of the nature of the aggressive and intensely jealous pursuit for power which is a characetristic of each and every British political party all of whom are prepared to persist in this quest to the point of dismissing the view of the majority.
Constituencies do not vote for ministers they vote for MPs
In government, political parties impose a veil of secrecy over cabinet decision-making. This hides motivations and points of view from the electorate. It obscures valid differences of opinion through the concept of "collective" decision making, protected by secrecy. Collective decision making is, since it is protected by secrecy, a byword for an ability to hide those aspects of the goverment activity which support, in particular, members of their own political party, it can hide corruption and dishonesty. Everyone knows that it is rare for political processes to have any such unanimity. Constituents have the right to know how their MPs represent them in all matters and they have a right to know to what extent their representative has reversed or distorted a constituency position in the name of cabinet unanimity.
Government and constituency interests are distinct, different and valid
Now, of course, Prime Ministers insist that a government minister, who is also a Member of Parliament, should deny his or her constituents that right of transparency in the name of cabinet secrecy. This being the case we need to return to the purpose of constituency representation which, above all else, is the ability to rely on the fact that a representative will willingly express and advocate in favour of one's exact wishes, free of impositions. This imperative has to take absolute precedence over government interests at all times. Therefore if the Prime Minister wishes to sustain a state of affairs where this is not possible then it is only common sense that the minister concerned should be required to reliquish their representation and their seat. This is because the Prime Minister has provided the minister with another job which, of course, he should keep. Being a minister is not the same job as an MP. Therefore constituencies whose MPs have taken up ministerial office should be provided with a by-election to elect someone able to provide a transparent and responsive representation.
The future of a minister's employment in government depends upon the view of the Prime Minister. But more importantly, the future of an MP, as a constituency representative, should remain in the hands of the constituency.
Unacceptable intimidation
Under the current system MPs can be forced to vote under the Whip system the way the party and government desires. This robust process is nothing other than blackmail and it suppresses a free vote and therefore the freedom of expression of constituents. Such blackmail can include a threat to remove from them some government position which provides either status or financial advantage. In essence the Prime Minister establishes the degrees of compromise into which selected MPs are sunk by selecting them as "members of the government" in various capacities from junior to senior ranks. This process tends to ensure "loyalty" to the government and party. On the other hand the rest of the MPs come under a more direct pressure from the Whip including threats to withdraw the name of an MP as candidate at the next election. So overall MPs are completely compromised by the system which maintains them under an imposition, not to serve constituents but to serve the government, or, in reality, the party. It is evident that this state of affairs undermines the freedom of MPs to represent their constituents. This in turn destroys the freedom of expression of constituencies in Parliament by competent representation.
The party system corrupts representation of the people by demeaning the power invested in an MP by a constituency as a result of an enforced obedience to party interests.
Removing the conflict of interests by separation of powers
This process of course results in a significant conflict of interest on the part of "government members" as well as on the part of normal MPs. The purpose of constituency MPs is to represent the opinion of their constituents and an important part of this duty is to review and vote on legislation. Part of the review of legislation should involve MPs reviewing the implications with the constituents so as to come to a weighted opinion as to which way they should vote. But when an MP is a minister there will be no constituency participation in reviews simply because it is a foregone conculsion that the minister will vote for the legislation which they have proposed, normally with no reference to their constiuency. There is therefore a complete conflict of interests between all government MPs who have signed up to support the government in all matters and the constituencies who in effect remain without a transparent representation. The Whip system enforces this process of conflict of interest creating a constituency participatory desert.
The only way this suppression of the freedom of the English electorate can be stopped is by separating government members from the Members of Parliament, as mentioned above, and allowing by-elections to replace all MPs who are given ministerial or government jobs. To constituents, unencumbered and attentive MPs are far more important than ministers. On the other hand, clearly, good ministers are important to the government. This is why they should be distinct and separate entities.
So the process would be that the government, separated from Parliament, should propose legislation. They can have as much secrecy as they like in their cabinet. All legislation should come before a Parliament populated by MPs who represent their constituencies. Legislation would have to pass through Parliamentary committees and on all matters MPs would be required to exercise a free vote in Parliament.
Terminating intimidation
The Whip system should be outlawed because it corrupts the constituency MP relationship by introducing a imposition upon MPs not to respect the free wishes of their constituents. Indeed, the Whip system, with its debasement of the value the English place in individual freedom, is, and always has been, completely unacceptable.
Replacing ministers
When a minster has been badly selected and fails to perform then if the Prime Minister decides to replace him he should use Parliament as a pool of elected representatives from which to select any replacement. However, a minister should only take up his position once a replacement in Parliament has been elected. If a minister no longer serves the purpose of government then he should be sacked. This is because he would have willingly chosen that job over that provided to him by his constituency. Therefore he will not have served the interests of the constituency which elected him. There would in any case be a sitting MP for that constituency who substituted him when he became a minister.
A better performing government with Parliament supreme
This arrangement could achieve some additional benefits. The Prime Minister would be more careful as to how ministers are chosen and their number and in some circustances might well be advised to seek competence amongst MPs from other parties. On the other hand selected ministers would take on a ministerial function after much thought since there would be no safety net in the form of "returning to the back benches". As a result they would be more likely to work to understand their brief and to do a good job. On this basis governments might be smaller but be marked by more competent ministers. This could reduce the pantomime of those other party aperatiks parading as somewhat ineffective ministers or as hangers-on in junior positions.
The main benefit of what is proposed here is that there is a true separation of powers with a more competent government and with Members of Parliament exercising a free vote on government propositions.
In conclusion
The pressure for political parties to exploit this corrupt system which creates the strong conflict of interests between constituencies and government parties is that it is the only way that parties with extremely low electorate support can guarantee their "majority" vote in Parliament. The current government sustains this majority with just 22% of the electorate's support. This has resulted in the introduction of legislation in England against the wishes of most English MPs and in the country going to war based upon the assertions of the Prime Minister and which turned out to be untrue.
British governance stumbles forward, not as an example of Parliamentary Democracy upholding the defending the freedoms of the people of Britain, but rather as a scurrilous fix serving only the interests of political party power. This system levers parties, with an insignificant electoral membership, into a force which is dismissive of the wishes of the majority. There could be no more stark example of the usurpation of power and the crushing of individual freedom. There is an urgent need for a political assembly in which the membership represents the free will of all of the people. But this can only come about when people recognise that there is a genuine conflict between their individual freedom and the current party system.
It is evident that no member of a political party will agree with this analysis, but then, is that in any way pertinent to this discussion when their party will have a membership which represent less than 1% of the electorate?
Reference: A modified excerpt from "Isles under threat" by Hector McNeill and which will be part of a forthcoming publication, "The new collectivism", Hambrook Publishing Co., 2006. A more analytical version of this text will be posted under the Leading Issues section of the Emancipation website which will go live 15th June 2006. | |