The events of the last few days have posed a number of questions.
One is, why do we have governments when, if they are captured by those with the intent to abuse, they can be so destructive?
Another is, why don't we have mechanisms to prevent the capture of government by those who are intent on abuse? Shouldn't there be very clear flags that indicate that abuse that permit a constitutional court, or something equivalent, to prevent such abuse from taking place?
Importantly, why is it that we have politicians who are so intent on abuse?
At the same time, why do we have others who appear so unable to call it out?
These questions are, of course, all at the core of political economy. What they all relate to is how we might find an appropriate balance of power within a society where the interests of people, the need for government, the activities of business, the role of the civil service and the power of ideas and those who promulgate them must almost always exist within an uneasy relationship, one with the other, and between which we need to find mechanisms to ensure that government might operate in the interest of the people of a jurisdiction to best effect most, if not all, the time.
In that previous paragraph, there was an implicit statement of priority. I suggested that a government must operate on behalf of the people of the jurisdiction it governs. Theories of democracy have, of course, indicated that electoral processes that permit choice between candidates who are free to stand for office let the interests of people prevail.
However, those claims are almost invariably made by those who have succeeded in using such systems to advance their objectives. Successive leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK are clear evidence of this.
Democracy in the form that the UK has is, in itself, an insufficient mechanism of protection because:
- Not all people choose to vote.
- Like many electoral systems, ours fails to represent the broad range of interests of the electorate, either because the voting system denies that opportunity or because the promotion of alternative political opinions is made extremely difficult.
- Once an election has happened, there is very limited real accountability for those making decisions and almost no chance to force their replacement, even when it might be very clear that this is required.
I am hardly the first person to have considered these problems, and I will certainly not be the last. Let me, however, offer a few thoughts.
Firstly, unless the interests of the people of the country are required to be the priority of its government, with a bias being demanded towards those most vulnerable in that society, there is almost no chance that those interests will be best served. Having a requirement in a constitution that this must be the case is, therefore, a minimum necessity for good government.
Secondly, that requires that a series of tests that might assist determination of what is in the best interests of people, whilst recognising the necessary bias towards those who are most vulnerable, be an essential part of such a constitution so that an appeal against the actions of a government acting in contravention of those criteria can be made.
An example of such a test might be a requirement that no action should be taken by a government that prejudices the well-being of those least well off (who should be defined) in that society when it can be shown that other choices of action are available to it.
In addition, a requirement should exist that states that no action takes place that might prejudice the interests of one group in society to advance the interests of another group unless it can be shown that the group securing advantage is that which is least well off. The requirement must, in effect, be that all be treated equally without any of the usual bases for discrimination in favour of the well-off being used, with the sole exception that redistribution to those least well off be permitted.
Third, there must be a constitutional court. Crucially, those on whom it passes judgement should have no chance of interfering with this.
I offer these ideas as nothing more than a starting point and a basis for discussion. And for those interested, the underpinning philosophy is that of John Rawls.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
All excellent points – which get lost in the intercine squabbles between the various factions in the main parties coupled to party capture by vested interests (who capture the party in goverment usually a bit before an election). How to “operationalise” the points made?
Your arguments suggest/imply the need for a written constitution. That said, as events in USM(ango) and Germany show – basic rights can be overridden (in the case of Germany – the Germans want to deport EU citizens who protested against the ongoing Israeli genocide – the idiot Germans having defined themselves in terms of the existence of Israel). Perhaps what this shows is the need for more citizen involvement in government. Politicos cannot be trusted to do the right thing, without there being perpetual citizen oversight. I have suggested previously that there should be a yearly round of ostracism – citizens vote on who gets banished from politics/elected office for 10 years. This would focus minds. Starmer, Reeves, Bad-enoch would all be gone and creatures like McSweeney would not exist. Only the Greeks did this, the Romans preferred murder (typical).
These are excellent ideas, if put into practice would change our lives. 🙂
Would a structure that requires political power to work together and commit to key long-term initiatives for the thriving of people and environment work? (For example a shared commitment to housing being a human right, where all people have a decent, affordable home within their community.
As well as some sort of process to require politicians to make their work and progress to outcomes more visible and accountable, like the rest of us are expected to do at work!
Would a basic political fund, and limits on political funding work? – the current system protects mono wealth-backed politics – not sure what would increase democratic pluralism, participation and sustained engagement; so that the poorest engage more, as their experiences and involvement will be key to changing inequality and sustaining that change.
We need limitations on donations and state funding
A central problem has arisen with democracies because our interaction with candidates and parties is mediated by the mass media, so we now get (a) shallow politicians that are acting a media part (sometimes literally actors) and (b) media controlled, or heavily influenced, by wealthy and privileged interests. China argues that its in-party delegate system of democracy (as in most of the traditional labour movement) is better because the media doesn’t come between electors and delegates in this way (although it’s obviously open to other sources of abuse).
I sometimes wonder if a second chamber, rather than adopting either a ‘House of Lords’ or ‘Senate’ format, could be based on a delegate system, which would also have the possible benefit of better co-ordinating local and national government.
Thanks for this Richard. I like the approach you’ve taken in making some principles the centre of it. And they seem to me, at least, good principles. I’d love to see some further discussion of the forms that might embody these principles. Do you have any suggestions for good further reading and reflection on this approach?
I’m aware of discussions about PR, about codes of conduct for legislators, I think I’m most interested, though, in the suggestion about a constitutional requirement about not prejudicing the interests of individuals or groups unless … Do we know if there are any examples of such a clause in a constitution?
I made these up, although as I note they are based on the thinking of John Rawls.
I am not sure where else to look.
Mike – I hope that you read Michael Hudson’s ‘The Collapse of Antiquity’.
Even in Greek times, violence was common when frustration and abuses concerning inequality got out of hand, and it was ruthlessly put down – those promising to share land equitably etc., more widely were accused of being populists and threat to the status quo. And it got out of hand quite often – human beings have been involved in a battle between wealth and the rest of society well before the advent of Christ. Before Greece we had the efforts in the near East to have debt jubilees on and off.
I mean even Socrates whose observations and critiques of these problems was condemned to death by those whose lives and means of rule in the ‘democracy’ he examined. The book also reveals that the Spartan state was almost a precursor of Rome – it too was nowhere near as democratic as was made out and also relied on war for its sustenance, and a cabal of rich as part of its social order (they merely banned ostentatiousness to look less rich and more equal). What emerges for me is the use of violence in the maintenance of the status quo.
Hudson’s book is well referenced.
Democracy eh? What a word. And what did Thomas Hobbes talk about? It was about the abuse of language, of words. He is so right, even now.
Look I’ll say it right? Democracy does not exist in reality. It is a fallacy. It’s an absurdity actually in the Hobbesian scheme of things. And the only means by which it may become a reality makes the blood of many a Liberal run cold. But that means itself, is embedded in the archaeological record going back years (read Graeber and Waingrow). And it is not always the ‘v’ word. Sometimes oppressed peoples have simply walked away from bad rule. As I have done, not wishing to vote – the only possible form of control I can exercise in this situation. I would walk further if I could – even to the Mauritius.
For government to become bearable, we have to re-discover authentic democracy, kick out its absurdities, learn how to control the rich, the fascists, the far left in equal measure. We have to accept that some human beings want more than others, they covet what is everyone’s and they should not be tolerated. At all. Then the many would find government tolerable, I wager.
Quite a lot to agree with
Government would be tolerable if it represented the people first.
The many before the few.
Forgive me, Ian, but I really hate the “for the many not the few” meme. It implies an “us versus them” approach to government which I think is totally inappropriate. Why not “for us all, not just the few”?
I think the ‘for the many, not the few’ works far better because it is pointing out the current disparity in representation.
@Cyndy I agree it’s more ‘catchy’, but isn’t it time we returned politics to a less confrontational, more inclusive mode? ‘One nation’ Tories had the right idea, they were just hopeless at delivering on that vision. Words matter, they set the mood of our country.
I’d rather we taxed the wealthy not for vindictive reasons (which will inevitably invite pushback), but simply because it is the right thing to do for us all.
by the people, for the people
“I really hate the “for the many not the few” meme”
Accepted, we should be inclusive.
Kim (and Ian Tresman, “we should be inclusive”.)
Your generosity does you credit but is perhaps misplaced.
Are you sure that the few want to be included?
The few, it could be argued, have abdicated from membership of the society of the many.
The few choose not to live as the many live. They hide their identities, their wealth and their ownerships in secrecy jurisdictions. They send their children to schools that the many cannot afford. They make use of those essential services that cannot be privatised (such as air traffic control), and they use the NHS when and only when their expensive private medical support results in failure.
How the few spend or don’t spend their wealth has vastly more power to influence the way things are than how the many cast their “democratic” votes.
People – we need to get beyond mere slogans in my view. ‘For the many not the few’ is something I am not comfortable with. It has fascist undertones, and seems to be pitting one group against another, rather than looking for common ground.
Common ground needs to be based in reality.
The common ground we seem to have now is based on dreams and one of them is that ‘we all want to be rich’ apparently – and is a ‘shared’ dream of the rich who effectively stop that become reality because much of their wealth is actually your wealth that they have transferred to themselves in some way.
What would a new reality of common ground look like? Tough question to answer.
Well, it would have to be based on the fact that the rich exist for sure, and that that was OK but what was not OK was that this state of affairs somehow means that others have to be desperately poor or what little wealth others have should be exploited by the rich.
The buffer zone between the two? Why the State of course, with the rich effectively banned from funding it and influencing it, the State with a reinforced sovereignty using taxation to curb the rich in order to curb inflation and left to produce the money it needs for everyone else not to be rich, but to be happy and meeting their potential – including the rich who need to be reminded that they live on same planet and whom use the same water works, sewage and roads as everyone else.
The sad fact is that we could all live together – rich and poorer a like if there had not been so many lies created that have only gone on to create fear. It will be a hell of feat to solve this idea that we want to make the rich poor. Because that is what they are scared of. That’s what we need to have an honest conversation with them about. And if that does not work, then true political democratic order has to be asserted.
We don’t have politics anymore, all we have is acquisitions and mergers between the rich and the State with the results that we have now where the majority of people think that nothing works. This can only end in violence. Surely the common ground is that no one wants that. History is littered with it – be warned.
Amen.
Noted
“Make the world a better place (for everyone). Its the only fair thing to do.” ??
I know – too long.
“Are you sure that the few want to be included?”
Yes, we should be setting an example. Do they deserve it? That is another question.
Otherwise we provide a reason for criticism.
This is an excellent and thought-provoking piece — it courageously asks the kind of fundamental questions that too often get swept aside in day-to-day political discourse. Your analysis cuts to the heart of the modern democratic paradox: the presence of formal democratic structures does not guarantee democratic outcomes, especially when those structures are so vulnerable to capture by vested interests.
The proposal to embed a constitutional requirement to prioritise the welfare of the least well-off is both radical and necessary — and echoes Rawls’ Difference Principle with striking clarity. It’s particularly powerful to frame redistribution not as an option, but as a precondition for legitimate governance. That would profoundly shift the assumptions underlying much of modern political economy.
Your call for a constitutional court with real teeth is equally compelling. Without such a mechanism, there’s little to prevent governments from acting in self-interest — or worse, in active harm — once in office. As recent events across several democracies have shown, we cannot simply rely on the good character of elected officials or the slow churn of elections to guard against abuse.
One area that could use even more development is how we might make such a court accountable in turn — so that it is insulated from political interference but not itself unassailable or prone to elite capture.
All told, this is a brave intervention that deserves wide discussion. We urgently need new constitutional thinking — not to patch up what’s broken, but to imagine what a genuinely just democracy might look like.
Thanks
Wouldnt it be lovely if there could be a Westminster Hall debate on this stuff?
There could be, if a carefully worded petition was put together, along with a campaign to inform and involve MPs of all parties, including independents, some serious PR to generate signatures using social media and indy press on left and right (maybe crossbench peers could help with some of the campaign) and an attempt to get some media action? Make sure it actively includes Scots, Welsh & NI MPs because they have some of this stuff already in their own national parliaments/assemblies. Make at least one of the proposals bold enough to provoke press interest.
I know they turned down your recent one about the orange one’s state visit but that’s easy to deal with.
Something along the lines of.. “Politics is broken” say many commentators. …that parliament should debate what fundamental reforms are needed within our parliamentary democracy, such as…. (insert reforms here including key new constitutional rights) to result in the better governance of our nation and to improve the social, environmental and economic welfare of the majority of our citizens, including their mental and physical well being.
Don’t have high expectations, Westminster Hall debates, although often of high quality, tend to attract no press attention whatsoever. But the right content at the right time, plus a small miracle or two…. and don’t rush into it.
This would be co-belligerency, so no petty factionalism about who can or can’t be involved. In fact, involving Reform UK could be a smart move, it would show them up for the demagogues (and/or liars) that they are.
Robert – do a draft and mail me to discuss it?
Okay, but probably after Easter, I need to research the successful petitions that got debates. Thx.
More of a US perspective, but some interesting points to help discussion: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/04/reimagining-democracy-2.html
For example, why do we need representative democracy nowadays, given the extent of instant communication. Or if we consider it still has some value, why keep it to a single person voted on once in a blue moon? What if we could chose one person for some policy, and another for other policy, each choice being closer to what we want.
I confess I do not follow your logic, at all. I think you should assume voters have limited capacity for engagement.
I was on my area committee of the Co-operative Society for the last 2 years that they existed. By that time it was clear to me that the system, numbering many area committees, was controlled by corporate interests. Dissident voices had been selected out over time. It might be worth looking into the history of the demise of its structure to build in safeguards against repetition in any new ideas?