Notes from the Panopticon: Cheerleaders

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. ~ George Orwell – (1903-1950) Animal Farm

I am publishing this post earlier than intended because of Gordon Brown’s announcements on constitutional reform. It was written some time ago during the dark days of Tony Blair’s premiership. In its first few days, the Brown government addressed some of the issues which worry me and inspired me to write this blog. It is too early to make a judgment and politicians are masters of the finesse – but the signs are good. If his first proposals reflect Gordon Brown’s priorities, one can only imagine his fury as, he watched the his predecessor shred constitutional safeguards that had been refined over centuries.

Democracy is a tricky thing. The principle is straightforward – people, joined together by the vagaries of geography, form a club. A management committee is elected and the most popular chaps (m & f) are given the job of ensuring that the rubbish is cleared, that someone is delegated to sort out Mrs Snodgrass who's having a hard time, and that nobody breaks in and steals the silver.

Hard decisions

The reality is more complicated for three main reasons:

the range of jobs to be done is enormous. Decisions are hard to make and managing the show requires a huge range of skills,
people are forced to be members of the club whether they want to or not, they are different from each other and want different things from the club. While some are more than capable of paying their dues, others don't have enough money to survive, let alone to pay into the common pot,
the membership is so large, it is difficult to know who is popular and who is not. Few people have the time or inclination to check whether the committee is doing a good job, whether it is doing what was agreed at the time it was elected, and even whether it is not, itself, running off with the silver.

A system going wrong

The solution devised to deal with these problems is called representative democracy. We divide ourselves into smaller, more manageable groups. In each group we choose a chap to go and represent us, who will – on our behalf – keep an eye on the committee that we elected.

It is this part of the system that seems to be going wrong in Britain.

All power corrupts

An important principle of representative democratic systems – which ensures that they continue to work effectively – is called the separation of powers. This is designed to ensure that when (inevitably) power goes to the heads of those entrusted with it, someone is in a position to blow the whistle and call foul. And, most important, that that someone should have the power to physically stop the match.

In the American Constitution, the separation of powers is made explicit:

the President has the executive power (the job of deciding what should happen and organising how to do it),
the Congress has legislative power (making laws which put the President's plans into effect, as well as supplying the money to pay for them),
the Judiciary, in the form of the Supreme Court, ensures that everyone plays by the rules, most of which were written down many years ago in the constitution. The courts also have powers to interpret the constitution to take account of changing mores.

An example: President Bush has dug himself into a hole in Iraq. He needs more money to shore up the excavation before it collapses on his head. Congress, however, has proved reluctant to pass the law which gives him the money. Unfortunately, in this instance, the scale of the problem is so huge that Congress realised that it must spend the money to avoid the US being buried along with the President and his executive. But the principle remains: Congress acts independently of the executive; if it takes a different point of view, it can frustrate the President's policy.

Powers are concentrated in Britain

Here in Britain, the powers are more concentrated and – frighteningly – they are becoming more so:

to begin with, the executive (the prime minister and his cabinet – what we normally think of as the government) sits alongside the ordinary MPs in parliament. So the power of the legislature (i.e. parliament) to control the executive is circumscribed. It would be difficult for it to mount a campaign to stop the government going off the rails,
secondly, many (if not most) MPs go into politics, not to keep an eye on the government, but to get their fifteen minutes of fame and become members of the executive themselves. So they have every incentive to support their party leaders, and very little incentive to stick their heads above the parapet and call foul,
since winning their seats in parliament is dependent (to a large extent) on how successful their party is, and almost not at all on how well they represent their constituents, MPs have a huge incentive to toe the party line,
finally, since Britain does not have a written constitution, the power of the Judiciary has always been limited (although our supreme court, which sits in the House of Lords, can still judge whether the government is attempting to exercise authority beyond its legal powers). In recent years, the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights has provided a framework for courts to judge whether the laws themselves are legal, but this has resulted in a lot of friction between government and Judiciary.

Control of the courts

So we can see how the executive has effective control of the legislature. And in recent years, we have seen it try to increase its control of the legal system as well. There has been a rash of statements by ministers with the underlying structure – "if only judges did what we told them, the world would be a better place; and if they don't watch their step, we'll force them to behave as we want them to."

In the meantime, the government has been kicking up dust to hide its true intentions. Lip-service is paid to the concept of ensuring judicial independence through constitutional reforms, but these promises are matched by attempts to opt-out of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. And there has been a rash of efforts to increase the power to detain individuals without charge, thereby denying suspects the protection of the courts.

Double standards

A recent (and forceful) example of this push by the executive to have its own way was provided by Tony Blair in the dying days of his premiership. He said the disappearance of three suspects under control orders was a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror. He described this as "misguided and wrong". He said that prioritising a terror suspect's right to traditional civil liberties was "a dangerous misjudgement". And this coming from a man whose only positive lasting legacy is based on his willingness to negotiate in Northern Ireland with people who, until very recently, were terrorists – a breathtaking example of double standards. Also a depressing example of politician's determination to fail to learn from past mistakes.

An excuse not a reason

Thus the supposed threat of terrorist atrocity is an excuse, not a reason. The executive will have its way or, like the spoiled and wilful Violet Elizabeth in the Just William books, it "will scream and scream till I'm sick — I can, you know".

Arbitrary detention

It is for this reason that there should be a separation of powers in Britain. The issue of detention without trial (loosely known as habeas corpus) is a very important one. It goes back in time before the Magna Carta and has been used for centuries to protect the individual against arbitrary detention by the state. It is protection against false accusation by individuals as well as by the police. In the current climate of child protection, teachers who, are vulnerable to malicious accusations by pupils, have increasingly restricted channels of redress – a frightening development. Any weakening of the law which ensures that proper evidence must be provided and tested by the courts will subject all of us to the risk of false accusation and imprisonment.

(Interestingly, in 1772, a man brought to England from Jamaica was released from slavery when his advocate successfully argued his case invoking habeas corpus. Mr Blair should have thought harder about the dangers of dismantling laws which protect our freedoms at the same time as expressing his "deep sorrow" for Britain's participation in the slave trade.)

Cheerleaders showing off their knickers

Our representatives in parliament, the chaps we choose to keep an eye on the committee, should be protecting us from these risks and dangers. But because of their entanglement with the executive, they cannot perform their legislative function properly. We are stuck with a system where the club committee has untrammeled power. If MPs were elected separately from the government, as they are in the US and some other countries, they would be less likely to act like a line of cheerleaders for their party bosses, showing off their knickers in the hope of catching the chairman's eye.