The UK Parliament is under huge pressure (including a looming deadline) to enact new measures that would regulate the behaviour of newspapers. The highly controversial measures have seen an increase in cross-party negotiations as the Lib-Dems (Tory partner in government) seem to prefer an alignment with Miliband’s Labour on this one. Labour, on its own part is not too keen to be seen working comfortably with Clegg’s party for the simple reason that it would prefer to send out the image of a party that could govern alone.
It is not just our “fledgling” 50 year old parliamentary democracy that has trouble working out the difference between legislative representation and governance. Coalitions and possible difficulties they carry have nothing to do with the real problem here. Only the short-sighted would pin the trouble on the existence of the coalition. Cameron, in fact, is having to also deal with 20 rebel MPs (at least) and that surely proves that the controversial subject is one of those that causes rifts and alliances beyond the lines of government vs opposition in any case.
What is more interesting in fact is the nature of the ongoing debate – whether or not the press should be controlled by statute or by charter. The repercussions of statutory control are enormous since the chances that MPs become the ultimate guardians of the free press would be higher in such a case. The problem of such a scenario is that this would put serious limits on the freedom of the press itself – the risks of the abuse of the power by MPs would end up creating an unnecessary muzzle of imaginary censorship.
A Royal Charter setting up an independent body could be the most amenable solution in the circumstances. It would ensure that one of the entities that must be scrutinised by the press does not suddenly have control over their freedom of expression. By way of example, the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up by Royal Charter.
The danger of having parliamentary control over the press can never be sufficiently highlighted. Dealing with this in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy is all the more important – and the danger of having a relativist idea of fairness dominate true principles of justice and rights is a clear and present danger. Not just on the embankment in London.
There can be absolutely no doubt that this rise to commercial greatness was partly made possible by those freedoms won in the 18th century – an independent judiciary; habeas corpus; freedom of assembly; the right of voters to choose their representatives; and above all the freedom of the press to speak truth to power: to ridicule, to satirise – even to vilify – and to expose wrongdoing. – Boris Johnson on the rise to greatness of London.
