Britain's False Democracy

[Demosthenes]

We all hold in our subconscious the stereotype of Britain being the most socially advanced country, the first state to adopt the idea of ‘democracy’ encompassing a Parliament with elected Houses (besides Ancient Greece), the country where the Industrial Revolution initially took place. In fact, Britain is often lauded of being ‘democratic’ and a ‘democratic example’. But at the end of the day, someone needs to go and explain to those tweedy old men who run the country what ‘democracy’ really means.

Democracy means ‘governed by the people’, and sadly, in today’s world Britain is governed by a group of upper class intellectuals who claim the population’s mandate through the justification of being elected. They are, after a fashion. But who elects them? Not us. In fact, the only person who holds any real power on paper is the Queen, and any power or rights we constitutionally have is not written down anywhere and is open to interpretation, or nullification by a mere Act of Parliament.

Britain can only claim to be democratic in the most backwards and indirect way; the only power the population actually has is to elect an MP which will subsequently effect the balance of the electorate. We can’t vote for a candidate or a party – we elect an MP and he takes it from there on. Even if the government would hold a referendum it in reality holds no weight as it can be overruled by an Act of Parliament. So Britain is technically less Democratic than Stalinist Russia, where the population at least had the power to vote in on a government, even if there was only one party to choose from; it’s the principle that counts.

After all has been said, where can ‘pure’ democracy truly be found? A good model may be Switzerland, as a referendum there is final, but even that isn’t perfect as there are only referendums when the government chooses to hold one, and they can easily make their own decisions on any important issue without consulting the public. In essence, Democracy itself is flawed in that it is utopian. Democracy in the true meaning of the word cannot exist as there are always going to be those ambitious individuals with hefty financial backing and a good Public Relations officer who will seek to rise above the will of the people. This is not fancy idealism, but reality. A tabula rasa is never really a tabula rasa, as self-interest will always exist in some form or another. Therefore, just live with it; accept the traditional Augustinian view that man is inherently bad and let Britain’s undemocratic democracy continue to corrupt and implode.

Or, since Democracy is doomed to fail because of the selfish Human, government as a whole really has no place as it is undemocratic in that it is a suppressor of freedom, not a defender of it. True, it might protect us from so called ‘things’ we need protecting from, such as changing our currency to the Euro, but at the end of the day, it suppresses more freedom than it defends, all in the name of liberty and democracy. “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law” as Hobbes famously said, and it can’t be more true in Britain today. We don’t need these undemocratic democratic laws which we have no say, power or influence in the making of, hindering our every movement. We don’t need so much Authority, as after all, it is a suppresser of freedom and undemocratic. So what Britain needs to do to help its democratic health is to Proudonise Authority, or adopt another model which doesn’t falsely claim to govern ‘for the people’.

[Midas]

Hi Demosthenes, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended “Welcome” message in the “Rules and Guidelines” section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here, listed as “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce yourself, which you can do here, or tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates

As to your post, and in a very brief summary, I quite agree that we have very little democracy left here in the UK; not that we've ever had a great deal, and what there is, is effectively a form of representational democracy which, thanks to our first past the post electoral system, has been seized upon and corrupted by a party elected and maintained by a significant minority of people. Time for a very significant change is long overdue.

[petra]

Or, since Democracy is doomed to fail because of the selfish Human, government as a whole really has no place as it is undemocratic in that it is a suppressor of freedom, not a defender of it. True, it might protect us from so called ‘things’ we need protecting from, such as changing our currency to the Euro, but at the end of the day, it suppresses more freedom than it defends, all in the name of liberty and democracy.

True, and we've clearly embraced the Hobbesian rather than Lockeian vision. However, from a practical perspective, perhaps the issue is not that we have too little democracy but too much mass democracy. When everyone - no matter how irresponsible, ignorant, uninformed or self-serving - has a vote, the point inevitably comes when what per se started as a good concept (mass democracy) ends up leading to ruin. Politicians will generally do what the electorate wants them to (as their sole objective is to be (re)elected). Hence we've gone down the path of statism and welfarism, and now find ourselves in this great progressive socialism experiment, which will come to an end eventually, but not thanks to the wisdom (and vote) of the masses but for pure economic reasons of the country going bust.

[Opinionated]

True, and we've clearly embraced the Hobbesian rather than Lockeian vision. However, from a practical perspective, perhaps the issue is not that we have too little democracy but too much mass democracy. When everyone - no matter how irresponsible, ignorant, uninformed or self-serving - has a vote, the point inevitably comes when what per se started as a good concept (mass democracy) ends up leading to ruin. Politicians will generally do what the electorate wants them to (as their sole objective is to be (re)elected). Hence we've gone down the path of statism and welfarism, and now find ourselves in this great progressive socialism experiment, which will come to an end eventually, but not thanks to the wisdom (and vote) of the masses but for pure economic reasons of the country going bust.

Are you arguing there for a criteria in order to vote, a certain IQ perhaps or gainful employment, or am I making a leap that wasn't implied?

[georgepopovic]

Somebody quoted:

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" -- Margaret Thatcher

And the trouble with Margater Thatcher is that you eventually stop being human

[georgepopovic]

And the trouble with Margaret Thatcher is that you eventually feel the pain

[JAMC]

True, and we've clearly embraced the Hobbesian rather than Lockeian vision. However, from a practical perspective, perhaps the issue is not that we have too little democracy but too much mass democracy. When everyone - no matter how irresponsible, ignorant, uninformed or self-serving - has a vote, the point inevitably comes when what per se started as a good concept (mass democracy) ends up leading to ruin. Politicians will generally do what the electorate wants them to (as their sole objective is to be (re)elected). Hence we've gone down the path of statism and welfarism, and now find ourselves in this great progressive socialism experiment, which will come to an end eventually, but not thanks to the wisdom (and vote) of the masses but for pure economic reasons of the country going bust.

The cornerstone of the democratic process is to allow the electorate to learn by making mistakes. The ancient greeks found this out not long after they'd invented it.

[Don]

The cornerstone of the democratic process is to allow the electorate to learn by making mistakes. The ancient greeks found this out not long after they'd invented it.

The problem being that they rarely learn from their mistakes. On those occasions that they do learn from their mistakes, their memory seems short lived.

It strikes me as strange that a person born here (U.S.) is automatically a citizen with full voting rights, no matter how scant his knowledge of how government actually works (or is supposed to work) and the Constitution whereas a person who immigrates and wishes to become a citizen must be fully versed and pass a test on the U.S. Government and the Constitution. It seems to me if one doesn't care enough to understand these things, he shouldn't be allowed to influence the direction of government, and thus my life, via the right to vote.

[LA]

Hello there,

Firstly I would like to deal with this issue of ancient Greece. It was not a bloody democracy, unless you consider rule for the people by a few rich guys democracy. I personally don't.
Secondly, democracy is so overrated. Britain; I think, has the right idea in regards to democracy it just needs to be completed. We should maintain the monarchy, maintain the House of Lords and maintain our political system in a similar way. What needs altering is the power of the prime minister, our electoral system, the influence of parliament over the government and the power for people to remove their MP, initiate citizens referenda and various other things like that.

[Midas]

Firstly I would like to deal with this issue of ancient Greece. It was not a bloody democracy, unless you consider rule for the people by a few rich guys democracy. I personally don't.

You're absolutely right, Ancient Greece certainly wasn't a democracy, however it was the first nation to put forward the principles of democracy and to implement them in a form of representational democracy, however rudimentary it might have been.

Secondly, democracy is so overrated. Britain; I think, has the right idea in regards to democracy it just needs to be completed. We should maintain the monarchy, maintain the House of Lords and maintain our political system in a similar way. What needs altering is the power of the prime minister, our electoral system, the influence of parliament over the government and the power for people to remove their MP, initiate citizens referenda and various other things like that.

Yes, and no, the latter to our present political system which is a shambles and has lost popular respect. What we need is more direct democracy by way of proportional representation and mini referenda, or at least representative sampling, on many topics of national interest, the results of which could be used to guide government on certain aspects of policy making. But above that, democracy does need to be over-ridden at times, especially when there are matters which are too complex or too sensitive for the general public to be involved other than in the broadest sense. On those occasions we need expert decisions and a final yes or no vote by a small cross-party committee.

[JAMC]

The problem being that they rarely learn from their mistakes.

They must first be given the opportunity to do so. Neither the US or UK political systems are constructed in a manner that encourages active participation on a sensible timescale, whereby the electorate would actually hold their representatives to account for their performance. "Democracy" itself cannot really be blamed here when we operate systems that at heart are largely undemocratic.

On those occasions that they do learn from their mistakes, their memory seems short lived.

Ah, now here you have hit on the system's achilles heel - what happens when the next generation don't learn about the mistakes of the past? They're doomed to repeat them. Civic education is vital to the overall heath of the democratic process, but so often neglected because it entails a lot of hard work and expense for those that don't stand directly to benefit from it - the politicians.

It strikes me as strange that a person born here (U.S.) is automatically a citizen with full voting rights, no matter how scant his knowledge of how government actually works (or is supposed to work) and the Constitution whereas a person who immigrates and wishes to become a citizen must be fully versed and pass a test on the U.S. Government and the Constitution. It seems to me if one doesn't care enough to understand these things, he shouldn't be allowed to influence the direction of government, and thus my life, via the right to vote.

Universal suffrage is based on the notion that the average man/woman in the street is capable of understanding the basic principles of politics. What you observe is not incapability, but apathy - a condition itself that arises from pseudo-democratic systems in which a) the worth of the individual's vote is marginalised through complex weighting mechanisms and b) there is no direct observable correlation between the vote cast and the effect it has on the voter's daily lives.

[JAMC]

Firstly I would like to deal with this issue of ancient Greece. It was not a bloody democracy, unless you consider rule for the people by a few rich guys democracy. I personally don't.

OK, here is the full story of democracy as practiced by the ancient Greeks;

• It wasn't practiced by the ancient Greeks - it was practiced by the ancient Athenians. Most 'Greeks' (i.e. Greek-speaking peoples) lived under different political systems in which power was highly concentrated, usually in a monarch.
• The system the Athenians devised was a (rudamentary) democracy, although it did not exercise universal suffrage. Only male Athenian citizens above a certain age were extended the right to vote - this excludes women, foreign (non-Athenian born) merchants etc that settled in the city, and of course slaves. Nevertheless democracy and universal suffrage are two distinct concepts, although they usually go hand-in-hand in the modern world that was not the case in the far more formally stratified societies of the ancient world. You could argue of course that we don't practice universal suffrage either - there are certain groups from whom we formally rekove the right to vote i.e. prisoners (most other democratic countries don't).
• "Rule for the people by a few rich guys" pretty much sums up the end days of the Roman Republic, but the details of ancient Athens are a little different.

Secondly, democracy is so overrated. Britain; I think, has the right idea in regards to democracy it just needs to be completed. We should maintain the monarchy,

I would question the validity of retaining the monarchy when in reality most of the powers of the head of state are exercised by the prime minister in any case.

What needs altering is the power of the prime minister, our electoral system, the influence of parliament over the government and the power for people to remove their MP, initiate citizens referenda and various other things like that.

Do these things collectively not add up to a wholesale rejection of our current system? If, for instance, we were able to directly instigate legally binding citizen's referenda without the involvement of MPs or parliament, why exactly are elected representatives required?

[LA]

Do these things collectively not add up to a wholesale rejection of our current system? If, for instance, we were able to directly instigate legally binding citizen's referenda without the involvement of MPs or parliament, why exactly are elected representatives required?

No. In some aspects, I would call it a restoration of our system. The idea that the PM can run rampant over cabinet and parliament is outrageous and modern. The power was always absolute. Now a days, government can walk over it.

So, in regards to those, I don't see it as changing our system, I see it as restoring our system.

Who said that the citizens referenda should be legally binding? It doesn't need to be legally binding. A number of referenda the government would ignore, however, more controversial results could become politically binding and force a government to act anyway.

[fubar]

whilst i agree i agree with you in principle when it all goes pear shaped as it inevetably will what do you think will replace this present system considering were on the verge of a soclist new world order.

[fubar]

Are you arguing there for a criteria in order to vote, a certain IQ perhaps or gainful employment, or am I making a leap that wasn't implied?

high IQ to allow you to vote a very socalist idea that would leave the majority of us unable to vote at all ??

[Midas]

Who said that the citizens referenda should be legally binding? It doesn't need to be legally binding. A number of referenda the government would ignore, however, more controversial results could become politically binding and force a government to act anyway.

Who would decide what referenda were binding and which weren't, and what would be the point in having them if the results of some could be ignored? I'd love to see regular referenda on many topics of national interest, and with a decent system of proportional reepresentation in place I'd even say that if there was a referendum on any given matter, the public opinion resulting from it should carry an automatic percentage of any final vote in parliament.

[LA]

Who would decide what referenda were binding and which weren't, and what would be the point in having them if the results of some could be ignored? I'd love to see regular referenda on many topics of national interest, and with a decent system of proportional reepresentation in place I'd even say that if there was a referendum on any given matter, the public opinion resulting from it should carry an automatic percentage of any final vote in parliament.

A referenda doesn't need to be legally binding to be binding. I take devolution as my prime example. Parliament could easily remove devolution as it is not legally binding. However, it is politically binding and would prevent parliament from taking action.

Referenda become politically binding when there is significant public support. Politicians have to act.

However, I am at odds with national referenda. I love the idea, however, I equally loath the idea.

[JAMC]

A referenda doesn't need to be legally binding to be binding. I take devolution as my prime example. Parliament could easily remove devolution as it is not legally binding. However, it is politically binding and would prevent parliament from taking action.

Referenda become politically binding when there is significant public support. Politicians have to act.

However, I am at odds with national referenda. I love the idea, however, I equally loath the idea.

Sorry LA, I don't buy it. Millions marched to try and stop Iraq (something that requires far more effort on the part of those involved than ticking a box in the villiage hall and therefore carried far more political weight) and it only took the bloody-minded zealotry of Tony Blair to ride roughshod over it. A referendum of any sort should tie the politicians hands by being legally binding - else sooner or later someone like Blair will simply say "the majority is wrong" and do whatever they please - and then what's the point of it?

[raffigrant]

An informative article, i thank "demosthenes" for his insights. The only thing I would like to add, is that political correctness, in its "democratic" form in this country is completely out of control. And referenda should definitely be legally binding, let us not forget Abraham Lincolns first theory on democracy: "governement for, with and by the people", if they can allow any charlie from the street to be on a jury in a murder case, why shouldn't the people be allowed to govern?

[LA]

Sorry LA, I don't buy it. Millions marched to try and stop Iraq (something that requires far more effort on the part of those involved than ticking a box in the villiage hall and therefore carried far more political weight) and it only took the bloody-minded zealotry of Tony Blair to ride roughshod over it. A referendum of any sort should tie the politicians hands by being legally binding - else sooner or later someone like Blair will simply say "the majority is wrong" and do whatever they please - and then what's the point of it?

I accept that, however, I don't want public anger to be binding on Parliament. Not only is it impractical, but it destroys the very nature of our constitution: Parliament is sovereign. I would, however, be willing to accept a form of petition that forces a debate in parliament - However, I would not go past that.

[Midas]

I accept that, however, I don't want public anger to be binding on Parliament. Not only is it impractical, but it destroys the very nature of our constitution: Parliament is sovereign. I would, however, be willing to accept a form of petition that forces a debate in parliament - However, I would not go past that.

Surely there wouldn't be the same 'public anger' if we had more democracy to start with, including canvassing the public's views on such matters of national importance by way of binding referenda? I quite accept that there will always be some matters in government where decisions counter to popular opinion will be necessary, however for the remaining 90%, or whatever the figure might be, don't you think we have a right to have our views directly expressed in parliament, not just the second hand representative views of the minority who happened to get a government elected using the present system?

It seems to me that to think otherwise implies you have more interest in the party and its policies than in democracy or in what's best for the country as a whole.

[JacquesMagique]

I accept that, however, I don't want public anger to be binding on Parliament. Not only is it impractical, but it destroys the very nature of our constitution: Parliament is sovereign.

Parliament shouldn't be ultimately sovereign; we need a real constitution.

[LA]

Surely there wouldn't be the same 'public anger' if we had more democracy to start with, including canvassing the public's views on such matters of national importance by way of binding referenda? I quite accept that there will always be some matters in government where decisions counter to popular opinion will be necessary, however for the remaining 90%, or whatever the figure might be, don't you think we have a right to have our views directly expressed in parliament, not just the second hand representative views of the minority who happened to get a government elected using the present system?

It seems to me that to think otherwise implies you have more interest in the party and its policies than in democracy or in what's best for the country as a whole.

Direct democracy has huge faults - Switzerland is a brilliant example of these faults. Though brilliant in theory, it just isn't practical. It would be great for people to run the country and merely have politicians dealing with the technicalities of the issue or putting it into place, however, it just isn't practical.

What happens if the population vote to kick out immigrants en masse? That isn't good for the country, yet due to the system it has to be done.

Midas, please do not imply I have more interest in a party or policy rather than the country as a whole. You know that is not true.

Parliament shouldn't be ultimately sovereign; we need a real constitution.

Codified constitutions are too rigid and ours has worked for centuries.

[JAMC]

I accept that, however, I don't want public anger to be binding on Parliament.

Anger is an irrelevance, we can only second-guess the motivation in each case. What matters is that the will of the majority is carried out - I see no reasons why politicians should be allowed to deviate from that will when it is expressed unequivocally and legitimately by democratic process.

Not only is it impractical

How so?

but it destroys the very nature of our constitution: Parliament is sovereign.

That's not my understanding of our unwritten constitution. No truly sovereign body requires the permission of a monarch to go to war or to dissolve itself.

I would, however, be willing to accept a form of petition that forces a debate in parliament - However, I would not go past that.

I fail to see how this changes very much - virtually all issues are subject to parliamentary debate (although not necessarily a vote) in some form or other. I seriously doubt that the public would come up with an issue out-of-the-blue that had never been debated before. I honestly don't see the value of greater direct involvement by the public unless it guarantees outcomes that respect their expressed will.

[JAMC]

What happens if the population vote to kick out immigrants en masse? That isn't good for the country, yet due to the system it has to be done.

This is a strawman argument - in the presence of a codified constitution it is not possible to pass unconstitutional laws. Assuming the example referred to kicking out Swiss citizens, it would have never made it to the ballot box as the proposal violates the constitutional rights of those citizens. The irony is that our present system does allow bizzare laws like that to be passed, albeit by a bunch of "representatives" that are essentially unquestionable masters of the universe for 5 year periods.

Codified constitutions are too rigid and ours has worked for centuries.

They can be changed easily enough if there's a genuine need.

[Robin Edward Putland]

To Improve democray Britian should adopt Tony Benn's proposal to absolve the institution of the crown. Make Government answerable to the people and not the Crown ( the queen doesn't have the power its her magical hat) as the crown is in effect answerable to the primminister.

Make the Hose of Lords should be entirely elected.

All government infomation would have to be digitally record and publiclly avaible by request (excepted for clasified socuments).

There should be a written constitution.

Democray and voting should be taught at school through both lessons and pupil run responsiblities.

There should also be an English parliment as you can't have a true democray with only three out of four nations having there own internal parliment.

[Midas]

To Improve democray Britian should adopt Tony Benn's proposal to absolve the institution of the crown. Make Government answerable to the people and not the Crown ( the queen doesn't have the power its her magical hat) as the crown is in effect answerable to the primminister.

The Queen is head of state in name only though, but if you find even that too much it would be easy enough to sever that vestigial link. In all practical matters she has nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the government; when was the last time that she actively intervened in the running of parliament for instance? The value of the monarchy lies in its tradition and (international) public appeal; no reason to change that as far as I can see.

Make the Hose of Lords should be entirely elected.

I'd disagree with that, although I do think there's a place for a certain percentage of elected members. Many of the long-standing peers have a huge wealth of knowledge of constitutional matters, and removing them for the sake of it is rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There should be a written constitution.

Yes, I will agree with that, although I'd quantify it by saying that a huge amount of care needs to go into it so as not to make it too inflexible (LA's main complaint), yet to make it powerful enough to restrict the more excessive powers of government. The Swiss example of votes for women is a good example of the bad aspects of a written constitution, but in the light of such potential problems, it's surely not beyond the capability of intelligent and non-politically biased people to write a good constitution.

Democray and voting should be taught at school through both lessons and pupil run responsiblities.

Agreed.

There should also be an English parliment as you can't have a true democray with only three out of four nations having there own internal parliment.

Also agreed, with one common overall authority to cover matters of importance to the UK as a whole.

[Robin Edward Putland]

"The Queen is head of state in name only though..." Midas.

I agree with this. The enthasis of my point was meant to bethat the government is answerable only to it's self, through the institution of the Crown, which the government controls.

"I'd disagree with that, although I do think there's a place for a certain percentage of elected members. Many of the long-standing peers have a huge wealth of knowledge of constitutional matters, and removing them for the sake of it is rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water," Midas.

I didn't say Hereditary Lords would be banned, they can always get themselves re-elected on merit if they want; Tony Benn is the prime example of this as he resgined his peerige and got re elected in 1963.

On the question of becoming a republic I wouldn't mind, but it may have an adverse affect on the United Kingdom soverreignty and the commonwealth.

[DougieG]

Codified constitutions are too rigid and ours has worked for centuries.

I really don't get people's obsession with this whole 'rigid' versus 'flexible' argument on constitution. Flexible in what way? If you mean flexible in that politicians can just mess about and do as they please, violating as many rights as they want in the process and refusing to give us a democracy, then yes it is flexible. The entire point of a constitution is to constrain government so that it can only serve its democratic functions without overspilling into our rights. Saying that one is too 'rigid' is like saying that a computer is 'too' fast, a wedding dress 'too' pretty, a film 'too' entertaining or a sportsman 'too' skilled. It is their entire function, and one that does not fulfill that function is not a good one.

[Robin Edward Putland]

I'll agree with you there comrade Citizen Smith. They should be broad giuding princibles that constrain governnent policy, whilst guarding citizen rights.

[LA]

I really don't get people's obsession with this whole 'rigid' versus 'flexible' argument on constitution. Flexible in what way? If you mean flexible in that politicians can just mess about and do as they please, violating as many rights as they want in the process and refusing to give us a democracy, then yes it is flexible. The entire point of a constitution is to constrain government so that it can only serve its democratic functions without overspilling into our rights. Saying that one is too 'rigid' is like saying that a computer is 'too' fast, a wedding dress 'too' pretty, a film 'too' entertaining or a sportsman 'too' skilled. It is their entire function, and one that does not fulfill that function is not a good one.

So if we had a codified constitution and we decided to go for reform... Oh damn you gotta change it again.
It is rigid because it means if you want to change something; anything, you must have a sufficient majority in parliament to achieve it. Some countries go with a vote of 75%?

[Don]

So if we had a codified constitution and we decided to go for reform... Oh damn you gotta change it again.
It is rigid because it means if you want to change something; anything, you must have a sufficient majority in parliament to achieve it. Some countries go with a vote of 75%?

In the U.S. 2/3's of both houses of Congress must approve an amendment to the Constitution, then the amendment goes to the states where 3/4's of the states must approve the admendment. One of the main reasons for this process, and it can be lengthy, is to guard against the capriciousness of the majority. The process has worked well for us for over 200 years.

[DougieG]

So if we had a codified constitution and we decided to go for reform... Oh damn you gotta change it again.
It is rigid because it means if you want to change something; anything, you must have a sufficient majority in parliament to achieve it. Some countries go with a vote of 75%?

And what is wrong with that? I can only assume that you want a flexible (non-existent) constitution so that governments not even supported by a majority of the population can run rampant doing whatever they wish? Why is it such a bad thing that the US government is not allowed to kill people willy-nilly?

[Midas]

So if we had a codified constitution and we decided to go for reform... Oh damn you gotta change it again.
It is rigid because it means if you want to change something; anything, you must have a sufficient majority in parliament to achieve it. Some countries go with a vote of 75%?

Like Dougie, I don't see a problem with that either, Written constitutions, as long as they're carefully structured from the start, can be amended just as easily as unwritten ones, and anyone with any degree of knowledge of writing legal contracts and agreements will know that any such amendments can both have the full power of the original contract and can only be changed upon certain specific conditions.

Off the top of my head, something like: "Any alterations or amendments to this constitution shall be appended to this constitution and shall become binding on all parties hereunto as if forming part of the original constitution." and "Any alterations or amendments to this constitution shall not be made unless approved by a quorum of the parties hereunto, such quorum shall be defined as not being less than 75% of all parties hereunto." OK, a bit simplistic and taken from a commercial agreement, but you get the idea.

[Don]

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81

[JAMC]

Oh damn you gotta change it again.

... because laws don't change all the time anyway?

A constitution is not an attempt at unalterable perfection, but a living document subject to continuous review and interpretation.

[Don]

A constitution is not an attempt at unalterable perfection, but a living document subject to continuous review and interpretation.

I would posit that, at least the U.S. Constitution, is not an example of a 'living document', as do most constitutional scholars. The prevailing and historical perspective is to look at the Constitution in the light of the original framer's intent. Interpretation should be consistent and not subject to the whim of current fashion. The intent of the a constitution should be that of an air of consistency and permanence, a touchstone. Certainly a constitution should be able to be amended but it should not be all that easy to accomplish as that makes it too subject to whim. If we are to judge laws by the constitution, as they should be, the meaning and interpretation of laws is apt to change with interpretation of the constitution. Original intent should be the guiding principle.

[DougieG]

I would posit that, at least the U.S. Constitution, is not an example of a 'living document', as do most constitutional scholars. The prevailing and historical perspective is to look at the Constitution in the light of the original framer's intent. Interpretation should be consistent and not subject to the whim of current fashion. The intent of the a constitution should be that of an air of consistency and permanence, a touchstone. Certainly a constitution should be able to be amended but it should not be all that easy to accomplish as that makes it too subject to whim. If we are to judge laws by the constitution, as they should be, the meaning and interpretation of laws is apt to change with interpretation of the constitution. Original intent should be the guiding principle.

Constitutional law will always be subject to a great deal of interpretation though, Don. Just think - not so long ago segregation and lynchings were considered constitutional. There is also a great raft of 'constitutional' law that governs the relationship between individual and state that isn't actually a part of the constitution. This isn't an argument against a written constitution, but it is necessary to recognise it.

[Don]

Constitutional law will always be subject to a great deal of interpretation though, Don. Just think - not so long ago segregation and lynchings were considered constitutional.

What ever in hell gave you the impression that 'lynchings' were ever considered constitutional. Certain law enforcement bodies may have turned a blind eye, but never has murder (don't mention state sanctioned execution) been considered constitutional. I have to admit that segregation was at one time so considered and Brown vs. Board of Education was the turning point. I would also point out that, though it was the right thing to do, the decision of the Supreme Court was and still is considered extra constitutional by many constitutional scholars, legislating from the bench. It's done and as I said the result was the right thing, the method was wrong.

There is also a great raft of 'constitutional' law that governs the relationship between individual and state that isn't actually a part of the constitution.

Such as? I never said that it wasn't subject to interpretation, I said 'original intent' is the first principle. To get at original intent we look at the plain wording of the Constitution and to the extra constitutional writings of the framers, such as the Federalists Papers. Many try to twist original intent to fit their desires, for instance the words "the People" many take "the People" to be, in fact, the people, that's plain language, then they look at the 2nd Amendment and suddenly "the People" becomes the Army or an organized militia, etc. disregarding consistency, plain language and original intent if you look at the framers writings.

[DougieG]

What ever in hell gave you the impression that 'lynchings' were ever considered constitutional. Certain law enforcement bodies may have turned a blind eye, but never has murder (don't mention state sanctioned execution) been considered constitutional. I have to admit that segregation was at one time so considered and Brown vs. Board of Education was the turning point. I would also point out that, though it was the right thing to do, the decision of the Supreme Court was and still is considered extra constitutional by many constitutional scholars, legislating from the bench. It's done and as I said the result was the right thing, the method was wrong.

Yes, let's not discuss state-sanctioned murder I concede lynchings, but I think my point does stand on the whole - constitutional interpretations will always be dependent upon the times that they are made in. Is there really any point attempting to look back at what some men (i.e., not infallible) decided to make constitutional a few hundred years ago? Teleological interpretation is useful for statutes made 3 years ago, but not necessarily documents made 300 years back. I fully understand your points, though. Just from a pragmatic stance, it will always be the case that such documents are interpreted differently.

Such as? I never said that it wasn't subject to interpretation, I said 'original intent' is the first principle. To get at original intent we look at the plain wording of the Constitution and to the extra constitutional writings of the framers, such as the Federalists Papers. Many try to twist original intent to fit their desires, for instance the words "the People" many take "the People" to be, in fact, the people, that's plain language, then they look at the 2nd Amendment and suddenly "the People" becomes the Army or an organized militia, etc. disregarding consistency, plain language and original intent if you look at the framers writings.

United States constitutional law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is what I was referring to. Shall we move back to discussion on the UK? I'd quite enjoy some discussion on the US if you want us to take it to the appropriate board.

[Don]

Yes, let's not discuss state-sanctioned murder I concede lynchings, but I think my point does stand on the whole - constitutional interpretations will always be dependent upon the times that they are made in. Is there really any point attempting to look back at what some men (i.e., not infallible) decided to make constitutional a few hundred years ago? Teleological interpretation is useful for statutes made 3 years ago, but not necessarily documents made 300 years back. I fully understand your points, though. Just from a pragmatic stance, it will always be the case that such documents are interpreted differently.

Then, my friend, it appears that you do not fully grasp the utility of a written constitution after all, and this does apply to one that may be written for the UK, so it is on topic. Why have a written constitution if you give scant weight to what the original framers meant when they wrote it? Just go on your merry way without a written framework for the way the government is supposed to work and defining it's limits. Let it mean anything to whom ever the hell is in power at the moment and when and if government changes to a different party, let them interpret their way. The whole point of a written down constitution is consistency in defining rights and the restrictions on power of government. It tells us, with reference to government, what is right and what is wrong and when the people say hell yes, this is the constitution we want, those rights and wrongs are defined, as I said before, they are the touchstone for future generations. Make changes if needed, and more importantly wanted by 'the people' but think long and hard before you do and make 'the people' think long and hard also.

The thought contained in the two following quotations can, and should be, reasonably applied to any written constitution anywhere.

"The only sensible way to construe a constitution is the way you construe statutes. What did its words mean when they were adopted? I think we depart from the traditional view of the constitution at our own risk."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"
--Frank Hogan, President, American Bar Assoc. (1939)



United States constitutional law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is what I was referring to. Shall we move back to discussion on the UK? I'd quite enjoy some discussion on the US if you want us to take it to the appropriate board.[/QUOTE]

[DougieG]

Then, my friend, it appears that you do not fully grasp the utility of a written constitution after all, and this does apply to one that may be written for the UK, so it is on topic. Why have a written constitution if you give scant weight to what the original framers meant when they wrote it? Just go on your merry way without a written framework for the way the government is supposed to work and defining it's limits. Let it mean anything to whom ever the hell is in power at the moment and when and if government changes to a different party, let them interpret their way. The whole point of a written down constitution is consistency in defining rights and the restrictions on power of government. It tells us, with reference to government, what is right and what is wrong and when the people say hell yes, this is the constitution we want, those rights and wrongs are defined, as I said before, they are the touchstone for future generations. Make changes if needed, and more importantly wanted by 'the people' but think long and hard before you do and make 'the people' think long and hard also.

I agree, to an extent. I mean simply to illustrate the STRENGTH of written constitutions. LA's main opposition to them is that they are too inflexible, and I am pointing out that their flexibility comes not only from the ability to change them, but also from the fact that people come up with better interpretations. Roe v Wade, for instance, is perhaps a cliched example and one that you may not agree with, but it allowed the modern phenomenon of abortion to be integrated into the constitution. LA argues that the UK constitution's flexibility is required for this, I argue that it is not because you can work modern events and practices into written ones to a reasonable extent. Besides, a constitution's functions go beyond merely spelling out what a group of people want for their country. They:

1. Give citizens inalienable rights and responsibilities.
2. Protect those r & r's from corrupt government.
3. Spell out how government must be run, so that it is not ambiguous.
4. Limit government areas of competence.
5. Serve as an education tool so that citizens are more politically aware.

The danger with them is being stuck with the whole gun law thing you guys have where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and certainly less than 60% of the country would allow it to be changed, but feelings run very high on both sides. Also, you have a pretty dreadful electoral system, especially when it comes to the Presidency. What would be wrong with a simple head-to-head vote across the entire population? These sorts of issues are the danger, and I am trying to explain why your constitution is not as rigid as it appears.

[LA]

It is inflexible. It doesn't take into account future situations which may require change, or take into account future public mood which may require change.
What if, for example, we had a codified constitution that specified in detail Britain's political system. A party is elected and then decides; with public agreement, that it should be changed but can't because they don't have 75%?

What then? Too inflexible.

[Midas]

It is inflexible. It doesn't take into account future situations which may require change, or take into account future public mood which may require change.
What if, for example, we had a codified constitution that specified in detail Britain's political system. A party is elected and then decides; with public agreement, that it should be changed but can't because they don't have 75%?

What then? Too inflexible.

I really don't understand your problem here LA. OK, I do see that there are a few points where a codified constitution can be less flexible that an unwritten one, however the whole point of a written one is to make it more difficult for any government to make fundamental changes without a quorum - something we could certainly have done with, with this present government! Surely it's not beyond the capacity of those who write such a constitution to specify certain actions which need a higher percentage in that quorum than for others - for instance, with purely arbitrary figures, changing the constitution itself could require 85% but changing the group of laws which determine the freedom of and right to privacy of individuals could be set at say 75%.

Such a codified constitution doesn't have to be less flexible than an unwritten one if correctly planned, and can be a lot safer, and with our knowledge about issues such as Dougie has expressed - "Is there really any point attempting to look back at what some men (i.e., not infallible) decided to make constitutional a few hundred years ago?" - it's not beyond the whit of the writers to ensure that interpretations are always made in the light of extant conditions, not those of the original writers.

Surely a codified constitution is either as easy and as flexible, or as hard and as inflexible, as you think it might be, depending on whether you like the idea or not?

[Don]

Also, you have a pretty dreadful electoral system, especially when it comes to the Presidency. What would be wrong with a simple head-to-head vote across the entire population? These sorts of issues are the danger, and I am trying to explain why your constitution is not as rigid as it appears.

I could not agree more on this one. We should go to a popular vote. At one time the electoral system was needed, not so now in this age of rapid communication.

It is rigid, but with the mechanism to effect change when needed and if wanted, but not capriciously. If 'we' wanted to go to a direct vote for president we could, through the process that is set up to amend. At one time Senators were appointed by the states. We changed that system with the 17th Amendment. There are other flexibilities built in such as the interstate commerce clause under which congress has exercised all manner of constitutional and unconstitutional control. The real key is oversight, such as that exercised by our Supreme Court and to some real extent by congressional restraint, although less so in recent years. At any rate, the legality of legislation is measured by the Constitution, as it should be in a nation of laws.

Frankly I don't understand how an 'unwritten' constitution can work, although it apparently does.