What do we want from democracy?

[Cav]

Constitutions are imposed on parliament (assuming we decide we still want one) not written by them. Ideally they'd be agreed in citizens assemblies as @wulbert suggests, ratified in a public vote and then all branches of government would just have to suck up the new school rules.

How would a constitution be "imposed" on Parliament? There is no way it is possible except with the agreement of the Government who do not want one.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The big problem I see with relying on the UDHR is that our government has signed up to it, but still plays fast and loose with it. I think any government that is prepared to break international law, albeit in ‘limited and specific ways’, needs more than just a declaration signed by another government generations ago, to keep it to heel.

 

[wulbert]

But the Jim Crow laws didn’t come into law until after slavery was abolished in the US and wasn’t declared unconstitutional until the modern era (1960’s?).

Weimar also had a written constitution!

Germany is probably the biggest illustration of the fact that where there is economic hardship, people vote for the right wing. We see something similar happening today after austerity and Covid.

It is for this reason that the UDHR offers greater protection for democracy because it includes a right to a well paid job. Not only would democracy be more secure, so would the wider economy and of course individual well being.

The UDHR also has the advantage of already being in existence, not needing legislation, drawing up, consultation or constitutional change, it is not something new (which always frightens centrists!) and our government has also already signed up to it.

What is your problem with a written constitution? What harm could it do? I'd agree that it does not, of itself, provide guarantees but it does set a benchmark. UDHR is not the same thing as a UK constitution.

Even your local bowling club has a written constitution. It is there to set standards and provide an agreed process to expel rogue members and committee members, including the president.

I agree with you about not voting greedy, anti-social, heartless fools into government, but that is a different issue. Our constitution could, for example, set an absolute limit on donations to political party, or do away with donations completely. Or take strict measures to de-couple the influence of lobbyists on parliament, or do away with an unelected second house, or provide direct, guaranteed funding for an independent press ( free speech, fair comment) regardless of who is in power and the political bias of each newspaper.

 

[wulbert]

How would a constitution be "imposed" on Parliament? There is no way it is possible except with the agreement of the Government who do not want one.

Because true power lies with the citizenry of a country and not its government. Our "elected members" are there to represent us. We elect them. We put them in power. What happened to Mrs Thatcher's poll tax?

 

[ks.234]

What is your problem with a written constitution? What harm could it do? I'd agree that it does not, of itself, provide guarantees but it does set a benchmark. UDHR is not the same thing as a UK constitution.

Even your local bowling club has a written constitution. It is there to set standards and provide an agreed process to expel rogue members and committee members, including the president.

I agree with you about not voting greedy, anti-social, heartless fools into government, but that is a different issue. Our constitution could, for example, set an absolute limit on donations to political party, or do away with donations completely. Or take strict measures to de-couple the influence of lobbyists on parliament, or do away with an unelected second house, or provide direct, guaranteed funding for an independent press ( free speech, fair comment) regardless of who is in power and the political bias of each newspaper.

I don’t have a problem with a written constitution. I just don’t think having one would solve the fundamental problem with our democracy while the problems of campaigning for one, writing one and getting agreement on one would be a distraction from those problems in democracy.

Just a couple of examples. How would you de couple lobbyists without containing trade union ability to lobby government on behalf of workers? This Government has already used existing lobbying legislation to constrain Trade Unions. How would you frame legislation differently?

How would you do away with political donations? Fund political parties from Government spending? How would you get around the massive burden that would be placed on ‘taxpayer money’?

 

[wulbert]

I don’t have a problem with a written constitution. I just don’t think having one would solve the fundamental problem with our democracy while the problems of campaigning for one, writing one and getting agreement on one would be a distraction from those problems in democracy.

Just a couple of examples. How would you de couple lobbyists without containing trade union ability to lobby government on behalf of workers? This Government has already used existing lobbying legislation to constrain Trade Unions. How would you frame legislation differently?


I get your point about it being a distraction at present. I was imagining a "normal" political process where several big ideas can be under consideration at the same time. Not the pandemic, war, buffoon-as-PM, populist, fire-fighting circus we are living in today.

I think the issues you highlight would be for those involved in writing the constitution to address and solve. Or not solve. Keep or reject. I just threw them up as examples. That is the point in having the discussion. Problems can be solved. The process of considering a written constitution itself could be a very helpful one. Personally, I think a national debate about "What kind of country do we want to live in?" could be very productive. Provided we could have it in a rational, adult, thoughtful manner.

How would you do away with political donations? Fund political parties from Government spending? How would you get around the massive burden that would be placed on ‘taxpayer money’?
That amount of money is peanuts for a country like the UK. Hardly noticeable. We already "fund" them anyway. We pay for Westminster, MPs salary and pensions and expenses, the various devolved governments, local councillors etc etc. The few quid extra to run a political party's internal affairs would hardly register.

EDIT: Sorry managed to "quote" my own response and can't undo it:

I think the issues you highlight would be for those involved in writing the constitution to address and solve. Or not solve. Keep or reject. I just threw them up as examples. That is the point in having the discussion. Problems can be solved. The process of considering a written constitution itself could be a very helpful one. Personally, I think a national debate about "What kind of country do we want to live in?" could be very productive. Provided we could have it in a rational, adult, thoughtful manner.

How would you do away with political donations? Fund political parties from Government spending? How would you get around the massive burden that would be placed on ‘taxpayer money’?
That amount of money is peanuts for a country like the UK. Hardly noticeable. We already "fund" them anyway. We pay for Westminster, MPs salary and pensions and expenses, the various devolved governments, local councillors etc etc. The few quid extra to run a political party's internal affairs would hardly register.

 

[wulbert]

The big problem I see with relying on the UDHR is that our government has signed up to it, but still plays fast and loose with it. I think any government that is prepared to break international law, albeit in ‘limited and specific ways’, needs more than just a declaration signed by another government generations ago, to keep it to heel.

If more powerful and smaller units of democracy were created, then we would all have much more practice at "doing" democracy and be far less complacent and fatalistic. Our "local" authorities are far from such. They are actually "regional" authorities. They are huge, vast and abnormal by European standards. Our "local" authorities are something like ten times the size of other countries'.

Some countries in Europe have local councils covering tens of thousands of people ( not hundreds of thousands like here) and people are paying their taxes directly to these small local, powerful authorities. As a result residents care very much about how their cash is spent locally. And it is locally. Turn out for local elections in the high 70%'s to 90% compared to the 40% odd percents here.

We seem to have a problem with the decentralisation and distribution of power in the UK, same as we have a problem with distributing wealth and opportunity.

 

[ks.234]

EDIT: Sorry managed to "quote" my own response and can't undo it:

I think the issues you highlight would be for those involved in writing the constitution to address and solve. Or not solve. Keep or reject. I just threw them up as examples. That is the point in having the discussion. Problems can be solved. The process of considering a written constitution itself could be a very helpful one. Personally, I think a national debate about "What kind of country do we want to live in?" could be very productive. Provided we could have it in a rational, adult, thoughtful manner.

How would you do away with political donations? Fund political parties from Government spending? How would you get around the massive burden that would be placed on ‘taxpayer money’?
That amount of money is peanuts for a country like the UK. Hardly noticeable. We already "fund" them anyway. We pay for Westminster, MPs salary and pensions and expenses, the various devolved governments, local councillors etc etc. The few quid extra to run a political party's internal affairs would hardly register.

Yes, absolutely agree that we need a national conversation around what sort of country we want to live in. It could happen around values, it could happen around human rights or it could happen around the constitution. But it would be the debate that would be important, a written constitution would not on it’s own solve anything. Plus a lot of that debate would be taken up with content, with wording. All I have been arguing is that a national debate framed by the UDHR has the advantage that the content has already been agreed and signed up to, we already have the principles set out so the debate can get straight to the more important point of holding our government to account for not living up to it.

Also, the UDHR contains commitments to a home and a well paid job that would likely not make their way onto a document about constitutional change. This I think is important. The problems our country faces right now are not just constitutional, they are economic and social. Enshrining the right to a home would go a long way to addressing social problems and giving everyone who wants one a well paid job would benefit the individual, society as a whole and the wider economic health of the country. It is madness that we have staff shortages in health, education, and elsewhere at the same time as massive unemployment.

 

[ks.234]

If more powerful and smaller units of democracy were created, then we would all have much more practice at "doing" democracy and be far less complacent and fatalistic. Our "local" authorities are far from such. They are actually "regional" authorities. They are huge, vast and abnormal by European standards. Our "local" authorities are something like ten times the size of other countries'.

Some countries in Europe have local councils covering tens of thousands of people ( not hundreds of thousands like here) and people are paying their taxes directly to these small local, powerful authorities. As a result residents care very much about how their cash is spent locally. And it is locally. Turn out for local elections in the high 70%'s to 90% compared to the 40% odd percents here.

We seem to have a problem with the decentralisation and distribution of power in the UK, same as we have a problem with distributing wealth and opportunity.

Yes. Peoples Assemblies could be a way to spark a national debate about many of the issues we face, not least the growing phenomenon of what has been called ‘authoritarian capitalism’
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/reimagining-democracy-peoples-assemblies/

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes, absolutely agree that we need a national conversation around what sort of country we want to live in. It could happen around values, it could happen around human rights or it could happen around the constitution. But it would be the debate that would be important, a written constitution would not on it’s own solve anything. Plus a lot of that debate would be taken up with content, with wording. All I have been arguing is that a national debate framed by the UDHR has the advantage that the content has already been agreed and signed up to, we already have the principles set out so the debate can get straight to the more important point of holding our government to account for not living up to it.

Also, the UDHR contains commitments to a home and a well paid job that would likely not make their way onto a document about constitutional change. This I think is important. The problems our country faces right now are not just constitutional, they are economic and social. Enshrining the right to a home would go a long way to addressing social problems and giving everyone who wants one a well paid job would benefit the individual, society as a whole and the wider economic health of the country. It is madness that we have staff shortages in health, education, and elsewhere at the same time as massive unemployment.

This sort of national debate is exactly the sort of thing the BBC is well placed to do. Obviously, they won't, and I'd be slightly concerned that its natural biases would show through, but they are the right engine for a genuine national conversation. Done in the right way, over weeks or months and tackling various different topics along the way, the BBC could produce the sort of engaging, informative programmes to fuel the debate, and it already has the technology for viewer feedback and voting. Imagine a whole BBC series, perhaps over a couple of seasons, on the state of the nation, and building a new Britain.