Tag: parliamentary representation

Categories
Brexit Constitutional Development

Parliament Strikes Back

Order to chaos

Speaker Bercow stood up and made a statement. He did so from his position within an old and respectable institution and what he said was firmly embedded and rooted in tradition. It was not tradition for the sake of tradition but rather the kind of tradition that forms part of an ongoing process of institutional development. The kind of tradition that gives direction, certainty and clarity.

Founding his position on a strong 415-year old rule fortified by precedent Bercow explained to the gathered members of the House that there could be no new meaningful vote unless there is a ‘new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same‘ as the previous ones. Erskine-May, that biblical volume(s) of reference on parliamentary procedure, was never intended to gather cobwebs; rather it was intended to be at the throbbing heart of an institution that has oftentimes been described as “the mother of all parliaments”. Rather than bellowing empty air, Bercow was the metatron – the channel of the divine voice – and in this case the divinity was the rule of the land that holds everything together.

I have often thought that it is a blessing that of all the EU Member States it was the United Kingdom that would go through the test phases of the process of leaving the European Union. As constitutional and representative mechanisms go there could be no better testing ground for the first time enactment of a multi-dimensional constitutional disentanglement to take place. The institutional self-awareness built over centuries of development and precedent should be able to withstand even the worst assault of today’s popular and populistic politicians.

That the ultimate distillation of all that is parliamentary representation would be severely put to test was a scripted inevitability. Once you had a parliament in session that overwhelmingly was against Brexit in principle but that was also tasked to go through the motions of trying to transform “the people’s will” (17 million reminder) into reality then it was clear that there would be a constant struggle to simply understand what the sovereign will ultimately was. I have dealt with one side of this conundrum in the post Unpopular Representation.

Add to this formula the internal party splits, the devolved interests (particularly Scot and Northern Irish) and the macchiavellian manoeuvering that would take place at a national level as well as the understandable negotiating limits with the European Counterparts then you would hope that as much as possible the institutional underpinnings of the process remain such as to guarantee the full purpose and functioning of a parliamentary democracy.

Bercow’s ruling ostensibly defends parliament (mostly backbenchers) from the actions of a “bullying” executive. May’s third attempt at pushing the “meaningful vote” (MV3) can not happen because it would be the third time too many of trying to get her own way by hook or by crook. The symbolic gesture of Bercow’s announcement is much more important than the practical consequences. I say that because there is always a workaround that is possible for May however any workaround that results in forcing the meaningful vote notwithstanding the Speaker’s warning risks taking on the wrong meaning of meaningful.

It is facile to impute motive to Bercow’s ruling. Truth is that the rule existed before Bercow. It has a purpose. In the wider picture we can see it as a safeguard against deception. An executive that attempts to “weaponize” time to force the hand of parliament is suddenly caught with its proverbial pants down. This could in effect be seen as a first step of parliament fighting back after it had lost a motion to wrestle the process from May’s hands earlier last week.

Returning to the issue of delegated and trustee representation we could see this kind of ruling as another pressure valve that sends a clear signal that on this particular issue – and unless some meaningful change is brought through (highly unlikely given the noises coming from Europe) – the matter might be slowly slipping out of the hands of the elected representatives themselves.

If they really want to fulfill their centuries old function of popular representation then they might want to realise that the mother of all parliaments is due a consultation with its people. If only to see whether their original mandate still stands given the new facts and circumstances that have arisen since the last popular vote.

Categories
Constitutional Development

Unpopular Representation

“(An MP) his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. … Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” – Edmund Burke

It’s a quote that’s brought up time and time again. Edmund Burke explaining his model of “trustee representation” as opposed to the idea of “delegated representation“. The question being the nature of an elected members’ duties towards his constituency.

On the one hand the idea of an MP as a trustee means that the electors choose a person who they deem is best suited to work and represent them in their best interests using his judgment in order to determine what those best interests may be. “These ‘trustees’ have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favour of the greater common good and the national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies.”

On the other hand a “delegate” MP would be a mouthpiece of his constituency. “In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency/ state, and have no autonomy from the constituency only the autonomy to vote for the actual representatives of the state. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience.”

What is the role of our elected MPs today in the age of social media and supposed rapid consultation of the constituent’s needs and opinions? Has the development of technology capable of immediate and real-time consultation driven inroads into the notions of representation particularly in parliamentary democracies? Is there still any room for the ‘mature judgment’ and ‘enlightened conscience’ of the Burkean representative?

Not if you went by Italy’s 5 star Movement there isn’t. With the Italian parliament due to take a vote as to whether or not lift the parliamentary immunity accorded to Lega leader Salvini in order to allow magistrates to prosecute him in relation to alleged crimes in the Diciotti case, the M5S – Salvini’s government coalition partner party – decided to consult its grassroots base. Using an online voting platform called Rousseau, members of the movement were asked (admittedly using a convoluted questioning system) whether they believed the vote should go in favour or against Salvini.

Now if we set aside all the vested interests of the populsit party trying to keep its place in government by not prejudicing the coalition we still have a basic issue of delegation vs trustee. In fact the M5S parliamentary members are reduced to automatons who are simply delegated with the duty of voting in parliament in accordance with the outcome of the online vote. As it is, 59% voted to grace Salvini and that 59% will be ‘translated’ into a binding order to all M5S MPs to vote accordingly. Which is in itself strange because strictly speaking the online constituency actually sent a message that around 60% of MP votes should go for saving Salvini while 40% should not. Be that as it may, the parliamentarians occupying M5S seats will not use any discretion or judgment of their own when exercising their vote. Worse still, they cannot for example exercise their discretion and say that a vote lifting immunity would be more in accordance to the mandate and principles upon which they were elected. A tough one that.

In another corner of the EU (at least for now) we have heard the argument of constituencies that have voted for Brexit over and over again. Opposition to the “second vote” has been propped up by the contorted reasoning that “the constituency would view a second vote as a betrayal” especially where the constituency voted for Brexit first time round. The whole Brexit conundrum has in fact thrown the delegate v. trustee debate back to the forefront of discussions on the exercise of parliamentary powers and sovereignty.

On the one hand the delegate option pays lip service to the “Brexit is Brexit” mentality. It serves as an illogical short-cut that somehow believes that an uninformed decision taken once during a “consultation” process somehow bars any future reconsultation once the facts are clearly on the table. It excludes with absolute certainty any notion of trusteeship on the part of the politicians in parliament who are therefore expected to act solely and exclusively on behalf of the 17 million one-time voters and without throwing in any weight of ‘mature judgment’ or ‘unbiased opinion’.

The magnetic/opportunistic attraction of the delegate option is also a lazy way out for the populist politician who rathaer than boldly lead through weighted judgment and analysis for what he could determine to be the common good prefers to rely on the safety of numbers and polls. This has created a tension within the traditional form of representation in parliaments – parties – with the delegate-minded representatives increasingly finding the trustee-oriented colleagues to be irritatingly frustrating.

The recent split within the Labour party is welcome proof that provided there is enough tension the former ties that bound party loyalists together are finally being broken. Macchiavellian manoeuvering aside, there is hope when it is finally understood that party loyalty need not trump loyalty to principles and ideals.When such principles and ideals mean a shift to trustee-oriented politics then it is all the better for the health of a parliamentary democracy that will no longer veer towards badly considered decisions made for and by the masses that lead to nothing but chaos.

Categories
Articles

Well Hung

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Election Night
Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

bert4j_100509

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

I.M. Jack (shorts)

A few comments here and there while we gear up for the usual article writing and news observing. There’s lots of titbits being thrown up in the news that deserve at least a fleeting bit of attention.

Exhausted Parliament
For those who missed the farce that calls itself parliamentary representation yesterday there was much to hear and see. On the PN side most members faffed on about how nothing had been proven and hence the administrative decision is sound. BWSC contract apart we are still left in limbo as to whether the administrative and procedural shortcomings will be seen to. Franco Debono yelled “transparency law and regulation of political party funding” to an audience too distracted (tired) to listen.

Joseph and Anglu tried hard to emulate the PN coup of 1998. They’ve been at it for some time now – instead of concentrating in building a strong and valid alternative to this tired and exhausted government they still pin their hopes on what? On a lapsus, a renegade MP or on their dramatising a problematic democracy in what they hope would be a reversal of 1981. He even got his walk out. Who knows? Maybe a long sabbatical out of parliament might do the Labour party good – enough time to get it’s ideas right.

Poster for a Russian circus show named "1...
Image via Wikipedia

Lawyers Without Restrictions

An Egyptian group calling itself “Lawyers without Restrictions” has called for the banning of “One Thousand and One Nights“. They are suing Egypt‘s very own General Authority of Culture (they might be twinned with our classification board) and they are suing under article 178 of the Egyptian Criminal Code which bans publication of material deemed “offensive to public decency” with violations of that code bringing a jail sentence of up to two years.

Ludicrous isn’t it? Arabian Nights, Ali Baba and all being banned because they are offensive to public decency. Thank deities of choice that we live in a Western community where such lawsuits are relegated to our medieval past. *ahem*

Language Lessons

Tonio Fenech did not spare a few tirades at the level of English on the Labour side of parliament. Ironically though whenever he read from the Auditor General’s report he did not exactly strike us as the champion of the English Speaking board. We just loved “hundsajt” – a rendering of the word “hindsight” that is right up there with “majtezwell”.

Euro Crash

Having planned a trip to the Big Apple in the near future I am somewhat demoralised by the rapid decline of the buying power of the Euro in the US of A. A few months ago a euro would have bought you a dollar and a half. It is now down to a bit more than a dollar twenty-five. Thank you Greece, thank you UK, thank you Freddie bloody Mac and Fanny bloody Mae. Greece is still not out of the merde and we’ll just have to see what the European Economic Summit will bring us before wondering whether our purchasing power in New York will have gone up in the angry flames of Athens. How some idiots can still claim not to feel “involved” by the politics in other countries (let alone being “bored to tears” by relevant developments in their own) is beyond any reasonable persons ken.

More to come.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]