The Constitution.

Both in my book, in this blog and in a separate campaign, most of which through lack of media interest goes on behind the scenes, I have pressed for a clearer understanding of our Constitution and ultimately one which is written down. Some controversey is now breaking out over the coalition proposal to introduce a 55% rule to dissolve parliament.

Parliament has no power to dissolve itself, by whatever method or vote. The plain fact of the matter is this country is presently structured as a monarchy with absolute power. That power is then delegated to the monarch’s government. The government must have the backing of parliament, either because it has a majority, or because the majority allows it to govern. It has become customary for the Queen and her modern predecessors to grant a Prime Minister’s request for dissolution. This is made either if the government loses a vote of confidence or if the government sees potential electoral advantage in going to the country for a new mandate.

The introduction of fixed term parliaments, as opposed to the current arrangement of parliaments with a maximum term, creates a situation where governments can change without a dissolution. This means that a loss of a confidence vote by one party or coalition of parties, would not cause the Queen to summon a new parliament, merely to summon a different member of parliament who could command a majority, to form a new government. This government would serve only until the end of the fixed term.

In present circumstances it is possible to envisage a situation where over the first two years or so with a raft of very unpoular measures arising from the extremity of the economic crisis, ten bye-elections occur in which Labour gains all the seats from the Tories. Labour would be then be able, in coalition with the Lib Dems, the SDLP and the Alliance to have a majority and form a government. This would  require the Lib Dems to change sides, unlikely now, but possible in theory. This provides the tension and drives up the standards of government, again in theory, of mixed party government. Willi Brandt’s first Social Democrat government in West Germany came to power when the Free Democrats, in coalition with the Christian Democrats, changed sides.

With a fixed term parliament, the question arises as to whether it should have the power to dissolve itself at all. I am not sure it should. If it did the mechanism has to be some sort of vote that requires the prime minister and the government to resign and go to the Queen for dissolution. The government itself should fall on a simple majority of one vote. If Parliament is to deny itself the right to form another government, there surely has to be a  sizable majority of turkeys voting for Christmas. The Coalition proposes 55%.  It is a good point. It may not get through. It is doubtful whether it would be Constitutional anyway. Maybe the answer is to have a fixed term parliament without the provision of self dissolution. After all, in law, the Queen has the right and the power to dissolve parliament whenever the fancy takes her.

Hitherto she and her forbears have done this only when her Prime Minister has requested this.The time has perhaps come to end that arrangement altogether. If the power of self dissolution is given to parliament it may be wiser to go with the arrangement for keeping parliament sitting, as in 1940, when the general election  was postponed until the end of the war in 1945. For Parliament to extend itself, a clear majority is required in both Houses, Commons and Lords. It would be neat to have the same provision to end itself. 

In practice the two party system creates a kind of tribalism which drifts far from the needs of good  government and the aspirations of the governed. Once there are more than two parties in play, loyalty is driven much more by objectives and outcomes. This is a more vibrant model of democracy and engages the participation of the governed in a  more specific way which is much more judgemental of the politicians themselves. Politicians will not like it, because they will be judged on what they do, more than what they are.

Our Constitution is flexible enough to cope with this, largely because so long as the Queen agrees, it can do almost anything, and she will agree if parliament approves. Missing from this equation are the people. They have no clear protection of their democratic rights nor any clear definition of what they are. All they have is a franchise of who can vote and a maximum length of time between being given those opportunities. This is why we need Constitutional, Political and Electoral reform. The responsibility to oversee this has been given to the Deputy Prime Minister. Nick Clegg has a lot to do.