Many commentators expect that Gordon Brown will resign as prime minister in the forthcoming days or weeks and will be succeeded most likely by Alan Johnson. Whilst this is constitutionally acceptable, as the prime minister is merely regarded as the representative of the party that wins an election, the effect of having a second unelected prime minister, even if only for a few weeks, undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of the Labour Government. At a time when constitutional reform and modernisation is on the agenda and when arguments that the current spending rules permit excessive expense claims from MPs are rejected, it would be equally as inappropriate to take advantage of the antiquated rules regarding the succession of a party leader/prime minister, especially when such an expedient move can only benefit the Labour Party.
It has been said by numerous constitutionalists that the high concentration of power in the figure of the prime minister effectively means that voters elect a democratic dictator. This level of power therefore should not be passed on in a hereditary, nonchalant manner and without popular consensus and democratic legitimacy. I wish to reiterate that I understand that our votes elect a party to occupy the position of government. However, contemporary politics in all western democracies is inalienable from the party leader or candidate for the premiership. It is this figure which receives the democratic mandate to govern as leader, whilst the governing party occupies the majority of parliamentary seats to facilitate the promulgation of legislation. I was pleased to read that the Queen has been advised to intervene and warn a newly unelected prime minister to establish a time table for an early election. This precaution evidently supports the premise of my argument; hereditary prime ministers undermine our democracy and the constitutional rules which permit them should be made redundant.
As such, the more favourable outcome to the current situation would be for Gordon Brown to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament as soon as he accepts he can no longer continue as prime minister. This would save the country the time and the embarrassment of pointlessly having to endure the undemocratic process leading to the coronation of Alan Johnson, or any other equally worthy figure, especially when it is likely that he will be forced to call an election in any case. So why change leader when many of Brown's most ardent supporters have condemned these fractures and disputes for occurring during the economic and financial crisis? I believe that the Party's true concern lies more with hanging on to power than responding to the recession. Undoubtedly a new leader will renew confidence amongst Labour MPs and buy them enough time to futilely attempt to limit the extensive damage believed to be dealt through a general election. Has our democracy become something for the Labour Party to abuse and undermine to their advantage? Tony Blair's third election victory was not meant to consign British democracy to the servile subjugation of Labour. The outcome will prove where Labour's true interests lie; with itself or with the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment