This year has been particularly challenging for us all. COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, an environmental crisis, an economic recession, and growing uncertainty throughout the world of politics. Unity is increasingly a hopeless concept, but in politics, unity is rarely apparent, nor desirable.
In Prime Minister's Questions on June 3rd, Boris Johnson attacked the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, for his criticism of the government's approach to tackling coronavirus. Johnson accused Starmer of undermining trust in the government through his questions regarding the failures of the track-and-trace system, but was the Leader of the Opposition seeking to undermine and discredit the government, or was he seeking to hold the government to account? It is taken for granted in a democracy that leaders disagree, and not always is this disagreement responsible or constructive - indeed, David Cameron was a frequent critic of the "Punch and Judy" politics of PMQs - and in a crisis, there is an argument to be made that the nation should coalesce around a single leader to guide us through a difficult time. There is an argument to be made that the Leader of the Opposition, who has no powers in government, shouldn't be criticising the government on matters that he cannot change. But that argument has several fundamental flaws, namely the idea that opposition parties cannot affect positive change in government policy.
In a parliamentary democracy, there is no role in government for opposition parties. In the US, for instance, the outgoing Republican president Donald Trump has to work with the Democratic Speaker of the House to enact new legislation, but there is no such requirement in the UK, where Johnson's ruling Conservative party has a strong majority in the legislature. Indeed, Johnson could only have to work with his own party to write laws, enact policy, and run the country, and therefore there is only a realistic role for backbench MPs in the Conservative party to hold the government to account, but the Leader of the Opposition still plays a fundamental role. PMQs is the most-watched parliamentary spectacle in the UK, and it is because of this audience that Keir Starmer plays an important part in holding the government to account.
The Leader of the Opposition is, by name, responsible for opposing the government. A government without opposition is hardly a democratic one at all, and so while the majority of MPs may agree on certain issues, it is almost inevitable that in a legislative chamber with 650 MPs there will be some disagreement. Take a look at Yvette Cooper's amendment to the Brexit bill, for example. The amendment was designed to force the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Article 50 to prevent the UK from crashing out of the EU without a withdrawal deal, and the bill received 502 votes in support, and only 20 votes against, an astonishing margin of 96% in favour, but there are still 20 MPs, who each have the same individual power as the others, who voted against the bill. It was quite clearly futile for them to resist the bill, but they did so anyway on the grounds of principle. Even with the most bipartisan legislation, there will be those who oppose, and it would be wrong, and undemocratic, to ask them not to do so.
The Leader of the Opposition plays an important constitutional role in holding the government to account, not least because of the differences in political philosophy the two individuals share, but there are other ways in which opposition members can work to hold the government accountable: through the shadow cabinet, for instance (where it is no coincidence that each cabinet member has a 'shadow' who holds them to account); or through committees (comprised of both government and opposition MPs); or even through public campaigns (for example, the work of opposition MPs in UKIP to push for a Brexit referendum). Research conducted by Gover and Russell even demonstrates that "parliament has significantly greater influence on government policy that is often assumed... not only at the formal legislative stages, but also in conditioning what the government proposes in the first place." But holding government to account is particularly useful in a crisis, as we discussed in the podcast episode with Ben Bressette, a young activist from March For Our Lives Virginia, who has spent the isolation periods in his home state lobbying the government for gun-safety laws.
During a crisis, particularly in the UK, there is a tendency for the government of the day to coalesce sweeping powers and authorities, and this can be seen through the government's use of emergency powers, in particular, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which enabled the government to detain those reasonably suspected of being infected with COVID-19 without passing any legislation to authorise them to do so. These exceptional powers are instituted without the normal parliamentary procedure, and so there is no chance for either backbench Conservative MPs or opposition party MPs to scrutinise them in the same way they scrutinised the government's Brexit plans, for instance. We are seeing civil liberties being stripped away, and there is no parliamentary accountability for this without the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet doing so in PMQs and other ministerial questions. This is not to say that these measures are not for the public good, quite clearly they are, but it is to say that democracy doesn't just function better with opposition scrutiny, it requires opposition scrutiny to function as a democracy at all.
This brings us on to other aspects of criticism - namely that of the press and the general public. Sometimes referred to along with ombudsman, watchdogs, and anti-corruption offices as the "integrity branch" of government, an active citizenry and robust press are crucial to the survival of a democracy. When democratic institutions fail us, as they have done and are bound to do on countless occasions, it is up to the media and the public to push for changes. For example, after the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in the USA, it was because of the Black Lives Matter movement putting racial justice back on the agenda that Americans began seeing steps towards demilitarising the police, banning chokeholds, and more accountability for police officers. Those who believe that a government shouldn't be criticised, especially in a crisis, often find it hard to justify their viewpoint when faced with the concrete changes that have occurred during a government's term in office, rather than immediately following an election when the public has made their voice heard at the polls. Indeed, during a crisis may be the perfect time to criticise a government, as the crisis acts as a catalyst for change.
It is understandable when people lament those who criticise the government for damaging national unity or hurting public morale, but such criticism is essential for a functioning democracy, be it in a national crisis, or be it in a time of peace and prosperity, just as the right to disagree with those critics is too. The only thing that is not helpful to our democracy is criticising the mere act of criticising - this only serves to stifle debate and damage the free exchange of ideas - and we would do well to remember this the next time our preferred party is in government.
Click Here For The Audio Version Of This Post
The opinions of this article are solely those of the author and are not intended to provide accurate legal advice for anyone to rely on. While the content is intended to be factually correct, the author does not accept any responsibility or liability arising from the use or misuse of this article or any loss/inconvenience/damage stemming from this. Legal advice should be sought from a qualified professional, not this blog. The opinions represented in this blog are personal and belong solely to the blog owner, and do not represent those of the people, institutions, or organisations that the owner may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. The views expressed by any podcast guest are their own entirely, and do not necessarily reflect those of the blog owner. The blog owner is not responsible and liable for any discrepancy, if any. Any content provided by this blog or its companion podcast is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organisation, company, individual, or anyone or anything.
Comments
Post a Comment