A "democratic" case against an elected second chamber?
Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): Is there a democratic case to be made against an elected
second chamber? Anthony Barnett has made the case on OK for the Athenian
practice of sortition as an alternative and democratic form of citizen
engagement that could help renew the second chamber. David Marquand was not
convinced.
Now Lord Norton has put the "democratic" case for
appointment. In a series of posts in response to the Government's recent White
Paper on the Lords, first on Lords of the Blog and now on Conservative Home,
the Tory peer has been making the case for an appointed chamber on the basis of
"core accountability". The British constitution, claims Norton, has the benefit
that there is one body - the Government, chosen through elections to the House
of Commons - that is responsible for public policy. If the electorate
disapproves of these policies it can vote it out at the next election. To elect
other bodies "that can then claim the mandate of the popular vote undermines
that core accountability." Come election time the various elected bodies will
each be holding the others responsible for policy failures and a confused
electorate will not know who to blame. Democracy is undermined.
What is distinctive about Norton's argument is that he does
not exclusively rely on the common assumption that an appointed chamber, with
its greater depth of experience and expertise, will do a better job than an
elected one. (That is, it is not simply a case of opting for the "output"
legitimacy of higher quality legislation over the "input" legitimacy of
periodic elections.) Instead, Norton makes the case for an unelected body on
the basis of a democratic principle: the need to preserve clear lines of
accountability.
The first thing to point out is that Norton's "democratic" position
is rejected both by MPs and the public at large. As Lord Tyler posted in response,
it is ironic that peers who argue most strongly for the primacy of the Commons
should reject the result of the March 2007 vote by MPs in favour of a wholly or
partially elected second chamber simply because it does not suit their own
personal opinions or interests.
What counts decisively against Norton's argument, however,
is his overly narrow conception of democracy. It is one in which, we, the
voters, turn up once every four or five years to vote for or against the party
in government based on whether or not we're happy with the way they have
exercised the unbridled power we have handed them. In the words of another Tory
peer, Lord Halisham, it is an "elective dictatorship". Any gains in terms of
clearer accountability (and I'm unconvinced the electorate wouldn't be able to
distinguish between the different roles each body of government has) are far
outweighed by the losses, in terms of clumsiness and ineptitude, which come
from having an all-powerful executive (Iraq, ID cards, rail privatisation...take your pick).
The alternative to Norton's "democratic" argument is
provided by the whole history of liberal constitutional thinking that stretches
back to the 18th century and beyond. Democracy is best served by
having multiple sites of legitimacy. Each of the constitutional bodies acts as
a check on the power of government with the aim of upholding the values and
ideals that underpin democracy itself.
Norton claims that an elected rather than appointed chamber
would lose the "diversity" that the current House of Lords has relative to the
House of Commons. It is true that the White Paper has little to say on how a
reformed chamber can be made socially (as opposed to politically)
representative in terms of gender and ethnic make up. But this isn't telling in
favour of appointment. If anything, it is an argument in favour of a more
proportional electoral system since PR would produce a legislature which is more
socially representative as well as having the virtue of being democratically
accountable.
Lord Norton's elitist conception does not, as used to be
claimed, produce "effective" government. The British House of Commons has
proven itself unable to hold the executive to account. The result has been a
series of ever greater policy disasters and the systematic erosion of our
rights and liberties. A second chamber, elected under a proportional system
which preserves its cross-party composition, would have the independence and popular
legitimacy necessary to challenge the government. It is needed now more than
ever.
