Elective dictatorship
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2010) |
"Elective dictatorship", also called "executive dominance" in
The phrase was popularised by the former
Constitutional background
In the United Kingdom, ultimate legislative sovereignty resides in Parliament (Parliamentary sovereignty). Parliament may pass any legislation on any subject it wishes. Parliament operates without restraints such as, for instance, an obligation to legislate in accordance with fundamental constitutional rights. The apparent exceptions to this rule are situations in which Parliament has chosen to limit itself as with the case of implementation of European Union law, where British courts can "disapply" UK legislation that is in conflict with EU law (see Factortame), but could withdraw such authority, as it has by and large done since leaving the European Union.
Parliament consists of the
Such is the theory; in practice Royal Assent has become a formality, the monarch has not refused (or threatened to refuse) assent to a bill for some 300 years (
Operation
The party which commands a majority in the
The government, so long as they can keep their MPs on-side, stand an excellent chance of getting their legislation through the Commons. The Lords may or may not also approve the legislation, however a combination of judicious compromise from the government, combined with the Salisbury Convention and the overarching threat of the Parliament Act means that most legislation also manages to get through the Lords. Royal Assent then invariably follows.
Hailsham borrowed the expression "elective dictatorship" to describe this situation in which control of the Commons (and thus of Parliament) by the government is actually weak. His paper was published as a criticism of the Labour government of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. He saw these governments as undemocratic, as despite their slim hold on the Commons they were able to pass a large number of their bills.[citation needed] He saw this as undemocratic as they did not reflect, as Hailsham saw it, wide enough support in the country. Many have interpreted Hailsham's criticism as being one against large majorities. In fact, he actually saw these as more democratic, as they had commanded more support at elections.[citation needed]
Proposals for reform
A common proposal from reformers to reduce this executive dominance is to reduce the power of the majority party by adopting an electoral system based on proportional representation for the House of Commons. The Green Party of England and Wales, Liberal Democrats, and Scottish National Party have consistently supported proportions representation for the House Commons but without noticeable support from larger parties.
Some groups, such as Charter 88, have argued that a codified, written constitution with appropriate checks and balances is also essential to solving the problem of executive dominance but again without popular success.
The Power Inquiry in its 2006 report Power to the People made recommendations on how to deal with the democratic deficit inherent in the British system of governance.[4]
See also
References
- ^ "Elective dictatorship". The Listener: 496–500. 21 October 1976.
- ^ "The Rule of the Monk", The Times, 5 March 1870, p. 4
- ^ "Mr Hogg's way to end the tyranny of Whitehall", The Times, 12 October 1968, p. 10; and "Hogg fears for British constitution", The Times, 16 April 1969, p. 6
- ^ The Power Report: Power to the People
Further reading
- Ward, David (1 March 2023). "Labour, don't repeat your mistakes: promise fairer elections". openDemocracy. Retrieved 22 August 2023.