It's now past 100 days of the Coalition government. So far it has survived its fair share of scandals and reached the traditional time to review the early days. Here I wish to point out something that occurred to me following the post-election negotiations.
Constitutionally, Mr. Brown & Labour won the election. That fact appears indisputable. Our constitutional 'tradition' posits that if no other leader is able to muster a parliamentary majority at an election, then the sitting Prime Minister 'wins' (BBC, 2010; Blick, 2010). By that, of course, I mean he remains Prime Minister as a constitutionally appointed duty. It is also then his responsibility to form a workable government.
So when Mr.Clegg chose to disregard constitutional precedent in favour of the moral authority of 32% of the population (52% of a 65% turnout), what he in fact did was set in motion a coup d'état.
Now let me clarify that a little bit before I start a mass panic. Our constitution is often referred to as being 'unwritten'. That is not necessarily the case. It is more that it is not contained on any one piece of paper. We have one, it is however the sum of a number of separate laws and traditions.
These traditions are what we have to thank for Mr.Clegg's actions not sparking civil panic. They are what allows the press (Telegraph, 2010) to call for a candidate who has not strictly won, to have a chance to construct a majority. Some however see this not so much as one of the positives of a flexible system, but the result of an impenetrable and convoluted collection of constitutional traditions that leaves us manipulated in the dark (Blick & Wilks-Heeg, 2010).
Now, the Conservative Party, being broadly supportive of traditionalist stances, which includes the maintenance our current governing system; have taken power by that system. However the supporters of a republican style written constitution, more broadly to be found on the Labour left, did not implement that form of constitution while in power. Had it been introduced by the party for the 2010 UK General Election, it would have solidified the sitting Prime Minister's position, giving Labour the firm backing to declare victory.
This is the particular point I wish to address. With the sitting Prime Minister's constitutional role enshrined on paper, would there have been an outcry against Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street when no other majority could be found? Would we now be under a Lib-Lab or Progressive Coalition?
This I think exposes the strengths and weaknesses of our constitutional system compared to a written model:
+ The 'unwritten' model allows room for negotiation and flexibility in situations requiring adaptability.
+ However they can also create 'constitutional crises' in the event of differing or competing interpretations.
+ The written model provides a stable and accountable document demonstrating the divisions of power and constitutional roles.
+ Some written constitutions have been criticised for a perceived inflexibility and the potential for highly subjective stances to be enshrined. Arguments suggest these might be exploited as much as 'unwritten' documents, yet be harder to counter, eg. The Weimar Constitution of 1919.
The questions seems almost to come down to one of preferences. A question of comparison between a looser set of traditions & precedents, adaptable to the realities of the political situation, against a set of inflexible rules that are laid out and cover the chain of political power and everybody's roles, rights and liberties.
For me the jury is still out. However, it is nonetheless comforting (as someone who can safely be described as a NON-TORY) to know that, from a certain point of view, David Cameron is Prime Minister courtesy of a anti-constitutional coup d'état.
==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Election 2010: First hung parliament in UK for decades'; 7 May 2010
+ Andrew Blick's 'Changing the Rules by Stealth: the UK's Constitution is being written as the public follows the election'; 28 April 2010
+ Andrew Blick & Stuart Wilks-Heeg's 'Governing without majorities - coming to terms with balanced Parliaments in UK Politics'; 16 April 2010
+ The Telegraph's 'General election 2010: Labour has lost and the Conservatives deserve a chance to govern'
+ Anthony King's 'ANALYSIS: So why didn't the Tories reach the summit?';
+ The Weimar Constitution of 1919
No comments:
Post a Comment