The answer to the breakdown in trust is the reform, not the destruction, of principles

I’ve seen uncountably many calls for sweeping reform of our system of government and Parliament itself since the economic crisis developed, and it has intensified beyond all reason in the light of the recent expenses row.

Yes, reform is necessary, and in many cases it both should be and must be composed of fundamental changes to the institutions in which the process of government works; it should be so that the all-important principles of transparency, openness and accountability be best maintained; it must be for the electorate to regain faith in the system which governs them, to begin to trust it again, and trust is an essential prerequisite for effective government.

The electorate give the ruling party their democratic mandate in General Elections, but it is difficult to argue, and indeed should not be argued, that this in itself can give the government free reign for five years. It can’t, and to act as though it does is to betray the democratic principles underlying our governmental system.

However, whilst changes must be made, and it is right and proper that they should be strong across the board, it is another matter entirely to argue, as I have seen, that MPs should be turned into delegates of their constituents, rather than the representatives that they both always have been and, in my opinion, always should be.

It is appropriate to quote the famed political theorist and statesman Edmund Burke, a man who himself served for many years as a Member of Parliament, at a time like this. I have bolded in particular the most famous sentence he ever uttered, one which is still relevant to and debated over in politics courses even at university level today.

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention.
It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.
But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.“

(The entire speech can be found here; I advise you to read it, as it offers a fascinating insight on the idea of representation versus that of delegation and how it relates to democracy.)

The answer to the feelings of despair and betrayal which we have seen does not lie in destroying one of the key principles of that body of case law, Parliamentary statute and convention which forms the British constitution. It lies in sensible and reasoned reform with the purpose of modernising and opening up the process of government and the institutions under which it operates, be that Parliament or the judiciary or anything else.

Advertisement