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.
