What do the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry and the current post-Brexit mess that we are in have In common?
They reveal that the structure of institutions and safeguards against the abuse - and failings in the use of - power in this country are inadequate. We can blame individuals - and should do so - but our Constitutional structure has proved sadly lacking.
I have been putting forward the following thesis for all of my political and academic life - but please bear with me - I believe it has merit, and relevance.
Lord Acton highlighted that "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our Constitution addressed that final point in The 17th Century. It is the undeniable truth of the first phrase which demands that adequate "checks and balances" are built into the Constitutional structure of any State. The convention which led to the US Constitution discussed methods of doing that. Our checks and balances arose in response to particular events - have been moderately useful - but are now clearly not up to the job. "Conventions" - in the British constitutional sense of "non-legally binding principles, which Constitutional actors REGARD as binding on them" are not enough. In the lead-up to the Iraq War - and before and after the Brexit referendum - there were insufficient constraints - or guidance - for key politicians. Chilcot is scathing about how the system allowed Decisions and Policy to be made without proper control from other parts of the System. Brexit shows that fears of the 'tyranny of the Majority' have not been properly addressed, and that the conflicting ideas of Parliamentary and Popular Sovereignty have not been resolved. In Our current constitutional crisis, we are essentially "making it up as we go along."
We need clearer principles - and checks & balances which are useful. How are Rights to be protected if a referendum can be effectively binding, on the basis of a bare, perhaps even a challenged threadbare majority which doesn't even enjoy the support of half the country? A "super-majority" threshold could address that issue. Binding only if a proposition changing the Constitutional settlement gets the support of a set percentage (and we should debate the figure - not too high to make change practically impossible, but not too low that a minority turning out could impose their will on the rest of us). Scrutiny of decision making - be it by other members of Cabinet, or through Parliamentary committees, or external review needs to be CENTRAL to Our Constitutional structure, and not developed as ad-hoc responses to events. The Media can - and does - play a role in not allowing claims made in an election or referendum to go unchallenged - but I certainly feel some sections of Our Media played a disgraceful role in spreading untruths - or gave demonstrably untrue assertions of fact equal weighting with arguments backed by evidence.
We have come a long way in recent years - but as this month has shown, not far enough.
Agree. Checks and balances required. Scrutiny before and whilst is essential. After it is, as we see, too late. The media were shocking. I found myself shouting at Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr and several others particularly, on our so called unbiased BBC. The amount of times totally spurious things were said and left to lie was appalling. Let us face it the case for Europe has never been actively promoted by any governments (possible exception of Lib Dems in coalition) and now we are all paying for this fear of catching the Tory disease that split them so often. Just like the AV vote the Labour party really let Progressive politics down I am sad to say. Although the criticisms that have been levelled at Jeremy Corbyn are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. He did get the Labour vote out but not the protest voters who might have voted Labour but instead voted UKIP!
ReplyDeleteAs with the recent referendum, there wasn't an adequate amount of discussion about AV before that vote.
Delete