15/08/2012
We dealt with this as one of the first items in my analysis of the Harrogate conference, under the category "
separation of powers". Of all the issues, though, this was perhaps the best-supported, and most easily explained in terms of having an elected prime minister.
However, in a land where so much store is placed on the "democratic" legitimacy conferred by elected office, it is quite remarkable that we do not already have this in place.
As is stands, we have David Cameron occupying the office on the basis of 33,973 votes in the 2010 general election, all in the
constituency of Witney which boasts 78,220 electors. Commanding 43.4 percent of the electorate, he did not even achieve of majority amongst his own local voters.
It is ironic then to see
Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP, complain about "the disturbing contempt for democracy at the heart of the EU", when less than 0.2 percent of the 46 million-strong electorate are allowed to vote for their prime minister in a general election.
Furthermore, when Cameron holds office on the back of 10,703,654 Tory votes, from an electorate of 45,844,691, representing only 36 percent of the votes cast and less than a quarter (23 percent) of the electorate, Hannan and his colleagues are in no position to complain about lack of democracy in the EU.
Direct elections for a prime minister would, therefore, go a long way to address this huge anomaly in British democracy, although the actual process of election needs to be only one part of a raft of sweeping reforms.
First and foremost of a suite of allied reforms, it is absolutely essential that the prime minister should not be an MP. Amongst the main tasks of parliament is scrutinising the executive and holding it to account. It stands to reason, therefore, that you cannot be a member of the executive â much less lead it â and then scrutinise yourself, and hold yourself to account.
It is just as important, however, that ministers should not be MPs either, nor even peers. Not least, having to select ministers from the 650-strong House of Commons is dangerously narrowing the gene pool, and more so when the candidates are usually drawn from the largest grouping. But, more crucially, MPs cannot be part of the executive and scrutinise themselves.
Here, the US system has something to offer, where an elected president selects his own cabinet, which must then be approved by Congress. By this means, there is a proper
separation of power, as between the executive and the body which holds it to account.
Perversely, a not entirely dissimilar system applies in the EU â certainly in the sense that there is full separation between the executive (the commission) and the EU parliament. No-one can simultaneously be a member of both and, in that very specific context, the EU is more accountable than the British system.
Thus, separation of powers,
per se - and an elected prime minister - will not necessarily improve the state of our democracy. At best, these improvements can only be small steps towards that end.
But then, as Hannan points out, democracy comprises two parts,
demos, the people, and
kratos - the power. Our egregious MEP seems very keen on addressing the
demos issue but, as an advocate of representative democracy, seems less keen on people taking real power. At his heart, young Dan is an élitist, concerned mainly about the transfer of power from one élite to another. The people don't get a look in.
Here, the bottom line is that, had we had true democracy in this country, we would never have joined the EEC. When Heath took us into the Common Market, entry had not been on the preceding general election manifesto, and he thus lacked any democratic mandate for his action.
Parliament, as then constituted, rather than acting as a watchdog, simply rolled over. Without even being aware of the terms of entry, after a six-day debate culminating on 28 October 1971, MPs gave Heath a Commons majority of 112, achieved with the support of Labour pro-marketeers, without whom entry would have been rejected by 36 votes.
Subsequently, with the exception of the rigged poll of 1975, the people have been denied a referendum on continued membership by our elected representatives. Even when the EEC was transformed into the EU, our representatives have consistently defied public sentiment in keeping us in this failed construct.
In our search for democracy, therefore, we need to look closer to home. It is the failure of the British system, not the lack of democracy in the EU, that has got us where we are. Election of our prime minister and separation of powers are indeed small steps towards an improvement. But we need much more than this.
