Part of the openDemocracy Network

Power2010

Breaking the monopoly of the professional politician: Guy Aitchison's idea for popular forums in Parliament
 

When you're in a hole, stop digging: Pam Giddy's advice to MPs who still don't get it
 

Ending the divine right of political parties: Steve Hawkins makes a radical suggestion
 

Les Miserables and Power 2010: John Jackson diagnoses the political class's selective crisis-mongering
 

A call to oD readers: Helena Kennedy calls on oD readers to support Power2010
 

More in this series

Submit your idea for the Power 2010 pledge.

The British Crisis

Do the public really want to change ‘the system’?: Stuart Wilks-Heeg presents polling evidence
 

Don't trust MPs' constitutional poker: Guy Aitchison supports the call for a citizens' convention
 

Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal': Anthony Barnett on the Prime Minister's desperate proposal
 

More in this series

Navigation

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Syndicate content

Where there's a Wills there's a way

John Jackson, 18 - 07 - 2008
delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

John Jackson (London, Unlock Democracy): Many political commentators are enjoying great sport by sniffing out and pursuing members of the presently besieged government who smell like attractive quarry. With increasing frequency the victims deserve this attention because of incaution, stupidity or breaking cover at the wrong time. It is rare for a minister to attract praise for doing something rather brave. One such should be Michael Wills at the Ministry of Justice responsible for the discussion paper "A national framework for greater citizen engagement" (pdf).

I have just reread Wills' paper "A New Agenda-Labour and Democracy" written when he was a backbencher and published by the Institute for Public Policy Research in June 2006. In the introduction he says "This essay argues for a programme of reform, that may have to be driven not by the political class who are seen as responsible for undermining faith in our constitutional arrangements but by the people themselves who are served by such arrangements. It suggests that the time may be coming for an elected, one-off, fixed term constitutional convention to heal the fracture in our politics".

It is easy to contrast that imaginative idea, set out in clear and refreshingly honest words, with the caution, correctness and need not to be too costly pervading the ideas outlined in the discussion paper and either damn Wills as a cowardly backslider with faint praise or dismiss him as someone of no consequence with caustic snidery. It would be wrong and unfair to do either.

It has long been clear that many, if not most, of Wills' parliamentary colleagues (of all parties) take fright at the implications of admitting a significant degree of deliberative democracy into our constitutional arrangements. It threatens their power base so often defended by reference to the supposed sanctity of parliamentary sovereignty. The political parties which under our present arrangements wield so much unaccountable power are far from enamoured of the idea either for obvious reasons of self interest. They will kill it if they can. The media tend to regard the notion as of no political merit because it is (they say) of little interest to the average voter who is concerned most with what hits their pocket. And the suspicion that the Civil Service instinctively tries to kill any attempt to remove influence from their base in Whitehall is well founded.

Against that background, and at a time in which the Opposition is seeking political advantage by sniping at any proposal that can be presented as unnecessarily costing the taxpayer money and Labour MPs with small majorities (of which Wills himself is one) are terrified of any ministerial proposal which might not play well with the media and the voters nearer the bottom of the pile than the top influenced by the media, the mere production and publication of the discussion paper must have required belief, tenacity and considerable political courage. It must also have required a more than encouraging nod from the top of the governmental tree.

The discussion paper itself reeks of compromise and passage through many interested hands determined that it should suffer the fate of a worthy experiment designed to fail. Of course deliberative democracy should complement and support the Parliamentary process (in so far as that reflects genuine representative democracy) but what that means to those who have tried to stop Wills is encapsulated in the astonishing statement "Representative democracy depends on political parties and governments getting their business through Parliament." Diane Abbot's bazaar!

Despite all that, those of us who applauded Wills' IPPR paper in 2006 and were encouraged by the apparent commitment of Gordon Brown to the Governance of Britain Green Paper a year later should be thankful that the notions of deliberative democracy and genuine respect for "we the people" are alive - just - and on the political table. What is proposed may be a puny start with massive vested interests lined up against it but it is a start and should be supported. Michael Wills needs help and should get it. Well done to him for sticking to a thankless task - and well done to Gordon Brown for supporting him.

This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lawrence Efana said:

Thu, 2009-08-27 15:33

It couldn't be better stated: the crux of many of our problems - be they political or otherwise! Everything, especially the sensible, peaceful, advancing and or promoting with 'corrective?' imprints, will always be possible in us, our institutions and systems if there is the will. Whether such a will is "bestowed" or to be "nurtured" is another problem of political interest in the current discourses about "democracy and reform".

It appears quite difficult to circumvent, no matter how the things are phrased. That is, because it seems there is always something to return to: in this case it seems "nurturing" that will cannot be left out, amidst the 'rare' benevolence of also being bestowed! Two important sides of the coin to work for and compromise however!

Keith McBurney said:

Wed, 2008-07-23 00:53

Keith McBurney

I'll get back to you John. Where there is a will, there might be a way. Look ahead.

Aye Ours, Keith

 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Books from Amazon

They say about OK

"the ever-stimulating OpenDemocracy"
Ekklesia

"See OurKingdom to keep up"
South Belfast Diary

"...an essential guide to understanding the dynamic constitutional situation..."
Peter Oborne

"...becoming a daily read for me."
Iain Dale

"To make sense of it all, check out OurKingdom..."
Matthew d'Ancona

"Worth a look...it is, however, recommended by Matthew d'Ancona."
The Wardman Wire

"Fast becoming the best political website around"
Tom Waterhouse, CEP

"...attracting energy from a range of contributors."
thenextwave

"...looks very promising..."
The England Project

"The excellent new OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy..."
The Green Ribbon

"On the internet, I keep in touch with openDemocracy, a website on global current affairs, and its useful offshoot, OurKingdom"
Andreas Whittam-Smith

"thanks to the fine folk at OurKingdom, (who manage to communicate a variety of perspectives in the way that only a decent group blog can)"
Nostalgia For the Future