4 ms·

Personally I favour an apolitical head of state, I’m not too fussed whether they’re a figurehead monarchy like the UK or some other form of selection but I thin

Personally I favour an apolitical head of state, I’m not too fussed whether they’re a figurehead monarchy like the UK or some other form of selection but I think giving a single politician kingly powers is a monumentally bad idea. I prefer a cabinet with collective responsibility making the actual decisions, preferably indirectly appointed by a democratically elected parliament rather than direct popular vote (which can only lead to deadlock eventually). The head of state not being a politician helps a lot with this. Politicians who reach the top tier are as a breed inherently untrustworthy, anyone who seeks power for its own sake is usually morally unfit to wield it. Concentrating all this power in the hands of a single man or woman is tempting fate with disaster, collective responsibility is like the “two man rule” on steroids. We’ve seen how dangerous a presidential style of government is here in the UK which traditionally uses a parliamentary system, we’ve seen Parliament sidelined in favour of unaccountable executive diktats throughout both Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic including really dangerous policies like the abolition of the right to protest. I think power in general is best made as diffuse as possible, the problem at least in the UK is that the system is based on gentleman’s agreements in a place that’s long stopped being gentlemanly. The system is designed on the premise that nobody ever goes into Parliament and lies, the idea that bad actors can exist among MPs is anathema. What we actually need is a system that admits bad actors are rife in politics and is actively designed to limit the harm they can do. We need a system that’s institutionally distrustful, a system that treats corruption like blasphemy rather than tacitly encouraging it, a system where political power is treated like plutonium - extremely useful but also extremely dangerous with plenty of safeguards to prevent disaster. I want a system of government that’s designed by cynics and pessimists, not a system that’s effectively a rabbit warren for the wealthy and powerful to protect their interests.

pasabagi 5y ago
>the right to protest. There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would need to be inferred from precedent. Second, the UK has no strong practice of allowing protests, especially on very contentious issues. The UK system is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic, because it was founded before the idea of a constitution was really a thing, and there have been no revolutions since, so it has essentially developed as an oligarchy which has slowly incorporated democratic elements when put under intense pressure (e.g the Chartist movement, the suffragettes, etc). All of these movements were violent, and the members were subject to extreme state violence. The UK is a liberal democracy today essentially because it became impossible for the state to contain the labour movement without democratizing - and the result is a bunch of systems (FPTP, the cabinet, etc) that are a compromise between an essentially undemocratic state and a society that's basically democratic in mentality.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  The UK grants a limited right to protest under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1953. The UK absolutely does have a constitution, but it (roughly) consists of all of the laws (including unwritten ones). What it does not have is a "documented" single constitution, like the US or France.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    I feel like this idea of a constitution (my wife, a lawyer, makes this argument) completely beggars the question. If you're going to say a constitution is just a gestalt of laws and norms, then there is no nation without one. I would rather restrict the notion of constitution to documents that lay out foundational principles from which all other laws derive. That's how a constitution works in France, the US, or Germany. That's also the traditional (18th C) meaning of the term. It's precisely because there is no such document that nobody can say that a law against 'nuisance' demonstrations is an invalid law. There is no essential conflict with a higher principle, because there is no higher principle - except parlimentary prerogative.
    - Y_Y 5y ago
      Your argument is persuasive, but I think it at least relies on a Common Law system and the jurisprudence of the English legal system and its descendants. In that context I would be inclined to agree. All the same the term "constitution" was in use in the UK sense by the 17th century, though one may argue that your narrower definition can be traced to Roman and Classical Greek constitutions at least.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

pasabagi 5y ago

>the right to protest. There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would need to be inferred from precedent. Second, the UK has no strong practice of allowing protests, especially on very contentious issues. The UK system is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic, because it was founded before the idea of a constitution was really a thing, and there have been no revolutions since, so it has essentially developed as an oligarchy which has slowly incorporated democratic elements when put under intense pressure (e.g the Chartist movement, the suffragettes, etc). All of these movements were violent, and the members were subject to extreme state violence. The UK is a liberal democracy today essentially because it became impossible for the state to contain the labour movement without democratizing - and the result is a bunch of systems (FPTP, the cabinet, etc) that are a compromise between an essentially undemocratic state and a society that's basically democratic in mentality.

Y_Y 5y ago
The UK grants a limited right to protest under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1953. The UK absolutely does have a constitution, but it (roughly) consists of all of the laws (including unwritten ones). What it does not have is a "documented" single constitution, like the US or France.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I feel like this idea of a constitution (my wife, a lawyer, makes this argument) completely beggars the question. If you're going to say a constitution is just a gestalt of laws and norms, then there is no nation without one. I would rather restrict the notion of constitution to documents that lay out foundational principles from which all other laws derive. That's how a constitution works in France, the US, or Germany. That's also the traditional (18th C) meaning of the term. It's precisely because there is no such document that nobody can say that a law against 'nuisance' demonstrations is an invalid law. There is no essential conflict with a higher principle, because there is no higher principle - except parlimentary prerogative.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Your argument is persuasive, but I think it at least relies on a Common Law system and the jurisprudence of the English legal system and its descendants. In that context I would be inclined to agree. All the same the term "constitution" was in use in the UK sense by the 17th century, though one may argue that your narrower definition can be traced to Roman and Classical Greek constitutions at least.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]