Even your half aware American would concede the historic fact that Britain’s Westminster is ‘the mother of parliaments’.
Note parliaments, not democracy, there is a world of difference. Britain was dragged kicking and screaming into any semblance of universal suffrage.
I know about these things because my own family, back in the 1840s, was unceremoniously exiled from Britain, (again note exiled, not transported as convicts, but the effect is the same). Exiled because of the family patriarch’s deep involvement in a movement which sought real reforms in the way the country was governed, a group called the Chartists.
Now people tend to think the good life came to Britons with the Magna Charta, but this was nothing more nor less than a bunch of petty chieftains clamoring for their own bit of power, against the total power of the crown.
That they used words like ‘to all free men of our kingdom’ narrowed the stakes a fair bit, as anyone below them was hardly considered worthy. This style was seized on later, when more people were notionally free in that society, to spread the rights. It was never actually intended for everyman.
Like the petty chieftains, the powerful Bishops sought guarantees for the freedom of the English Church. Although this originally meant freedom from the King, later in history it was used for different purposes, like out free men.
The parliament existed well before any semblance of democracy, as a powerbase for the non-royals.
Slowly, slowly into the early 20th century, a reasonable form of democracy took hold in Westminster.
That is the history lesson, now we get to the strange…
In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order, Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power from Parliament and the British people
On the one hand, it is now illegal to democratically protest, within a bulls roar of the old parliament precinct.
Ministers now have the right, without recourse to anyone, to invade, confiscate and detain on suspicion of terrorism.
Sure parliament can force inquiries into questionable acts, but reports from those inquiries must go directly to the minister and only released at the ministers discretion.
There are a boatload of similar proscriptive laws under a two anti terrorism acts over the past few years.
Now Blair is trying to up the ante, allow certain classes of law to be made, with no reference to parliament at all.
A stupefied commentator asked the question, ‘what would they think of that in Bush’s America?” What indeed? It has arrived already.
In the face of this steady dilution of democracy and freedom, we have the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ events in the very undemocratic House of Lords.
These crusty old souls used to be appointed by the government of the day, for life. The system has changed in recent years in that aspirants to the House of Lords now buy their way in, fluffing up party coffers as they go.
So here, this most undemocratic house is in need of a new president (one who presides over) and for the first time since that old magic Magna Charta, these appointed souls decide on an election to fill the role.
The rules are worthy of the greatest democracy we could dream of. Apart from a 75 word manifesto, the candidates are barred from politicking. No teak and biscuits in the members rooms, or pink gin at the bar. Any form of largess is immediately seized on as breaking the noble rules of this election.
The job is probably worth around
Give me a break! Obviously money does not buy brains. These privileged morons actually expect to get applauded for democratically electing the head of a house bought with cash.
All I can say is that Britain has always had a dubious approach to democracy, the politicians put their collective toe in the water and obviously decided it wasn’t for them.
She’s a heartbreak old ‘Mother of Parliaments’.
3 comments:
It is a big topic, which is my problem here.
I like parliamentary democracy, as systems go, and have written policy papers on various aspects.
I usually had either more leeway or at least acceptable jargon to use as shortcuts.
So having skipped so much, yes you are right about Blair.
Lords has always worried me. To be properly effective, to my mind, an upper house in a bi-cameral system should be elected - and on a PR system.
Another important aspect is that a house of review should not be a legislature as such.
The Lords, of course, by tradition is unelected and has legislative powers.
One or the other might work, both is a mockery.
And I could still use several tousand more words :(
Now Blair is trying to up the ante, allow certain classes of law to be made, with no reference to parliament at all.
Isn't this what Bush tried to do with the military tribunal system? "Military Order No. 1."
Both are precident-setting circumventions of the legislative body. Do we have to start giving civics lessons to these people?
Legislative, executive: a beginner's guide.
An eigth grader can figure this stuff out.
What fascinated me was the incredulous - ‘what would they think of that in Bush’s America?'
I don't expect US journos to be informed, it is not opoart of the culture. I do expect it of an English journo.
The fact is, this is being tried on by most of our great western democracies.
It is the systematic erosion of our democratric base.
Post a Comment