Posts
 |
| Britain's last "man on a white horse." |
I get the idea that the British have made a terrible hash of their constitution. I find it disturbing, in the wake of its recent decision against Boris Johnson, to hear people refer to the UK Supreme Court, as “the highest court in the land.”
Until now, under the Westminster system, the highest court in the land was Parliament itself. The people’s will could not be overruled.
The danger, as was fully understood, was that effective control of government could be hijacked by an unelected elite pursuing its own class interests. This is increasingly happening in the US and Canada. Once it was large landowners; now it is judges.
This judgement now looks like a lunge for absolute power in the UK as well. The point seems to have been to put down a marker: the judges get the final say on any law. In this judgement, they asserted their primacy over both the executive—the monarchy—and the legislature, who choose the prime minister as their representative.
Or they used to. Under the true Westminster system, the prime minister and cabinet serve only so long as they have majority support in parliament; and that support can be withdrawn at any time.
Unfortunately, this too has been recently compromised. Leaving a dangerous power vacuum for the judiciary to rush in and fill, like the proverbial man on a white horse.
It has become a deepening quagmire. Perhaps it can be fixed if and when Britain Is permitted to go to the polls again. But what if a new government passes legislation to abolish the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court then declares it illegal?
Perhaps Canada has a better chance to escape this descent into oligarchy; although it is already further along the downward spiral. The Canadian Constitution is canny enough to include a “notwithstanding” clause, allowing the legislature to overrule the courts if necessary.
We need a leader with the will to use it.
Until now, under the Westminster system, the highest court in the land was Parliament itself. The people’s will could not be overruled.
The danger, as was fully understood, was that effective control of government could be hijacked by an unelected elite pursuing its own class interests. This is increasingly happening in the US and Canada. Once it was large landowners; now it is judges.
This judgement now looks like a lunge for absolute power in the UK as well. The point seems to have been to put down a marker: the judges get the final say on any law. In this judgement, they asserted their primacy over both the executive—the monarchy—and the legislature, who choose the prime minister as their representative.
Or they used to. Under the true Westminster system, the prime minister and cabinet serve only so long as they have majority support in parliament; and that support can be withdrawn at any time.
Unfortunately, this too has been recently compromised. Leaving a dangerous power vacuum for the judiciary to rush in and fill, like the proverbial man on a white horse.
It has become a deepening quagmire. Perhaps it can be fixed if and when Britain Is permitted to go to the polls again. But what if a new government passes legislation to abolish the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court then declares it illegal?
Perhaps Canada has a better chance to escape this descent into oligarchy; although it is already further along the downward spiral. The Canadian Constitution is canny enough to include a “notwithstanding” clause, allowing the legislature to overrule the courts if necessary.
We need a leader with the will to use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment