Good Government
A Pragmatic Approach

26th September 1991; revised 14th April 1996

On 5th May 2011, on the day the UK voted against changing its electoral system to Alternative Vote, Mark Longair drew my attention to this brilliant suggestion: http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/04/a-perfect-voting-system/. It’s a much better idea than mine, but, I fear, even less likely to be adopted, which is familiarly distressing.

Aims and Assumptions

Introduction

Since before Plato wrote The Republic, people have tried to define the perfect system of government. Aims and ideals have varied, ranging from the elitist society of Plato to the equality of Marxism. There are two major components to any society: its structure, and the people which compose it. In this essay I will consider these and the problems they represent when trying to construct a system of government, with particular reference to making a new constitution for Great Britain.

Perfection and Pragmatism

Many treatises on government have been written from a purely philosophical point of view, considering the perfect society. In reality, there is no such thing, because, as Montesquieu noted in De L’Esprit des Lois, people vary throughout the world in their culture, temperament, the land in which they live, their material resources, and so on. Rousseau, in Du Contrat Social, deduced that there is no one perfect government or society, but that government must be fitted to the situation of those to be governed: different governments suit different people at different times in different places. Therefore, as I am attempting to draw up a constitution for a specific country, I must needs be pragmatic, and consider the country and its people as they are, rather than as I would like them to be, as Rousseau wrote at the beginning of Du Contrat Social, “…taking men as they are, and laws as they might be.” In this essay I will concentrate largely on problems he raises in Du Contrat Social.

The purpose of government

The purpose of government stems from the purpose of society, which in turn comes from the purpose of being human. I believe that the best thing anyone can aim for is to live a life of humanity. I will not try to define humanity, as it is a thing which everyone recognizes when they see it, but no-one can quite define. Society is a means through which to express our humanity, and government is the organization of society. Therefore, the purpose of government should be to make people happy and comfortable, so that they can develop their humanity to its fullest potential.

It was stated above that a government must be suited to the people governed. During the last century, the opposite possibility has been raised, that of instead shaping the people to the laws. Terrifying depictions of the possibilities have been given both in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Whether this is allowable is a moot point, and morally difficult. I will address it only circuitously, in the way I answer other problems.

People and Stupidity

When constructing a system of government, it should always be borne in mind that it is being done for people, and thus the culture and social characteristics of the people must be considered. I will not review the British character in depth here, but consider facets of it when dealing with particular problems.

However, there is one characteristic common to all races and cultures that affects considerations of how best to govern them: stupidity. This characteristic was studied by Carlo Cipolla, who formulated the Five Laws of Stupidity. The most important of these laws are the third, which defines a stupid person: “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses”, and the fifth: “A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.” This last law means that people should be considered to be illogical. Because stupid people are more harmful than people who act to cause harm to others while benefitting themselves, they are the dominant destructive force in any society, and therefore must be dealt with successfully if the society is to last. This illogicality as distinct from selfishness has rarely been considered heretofore, and here I hope I will be able to provide some new insights into the problems of government and their possible solution.

The current constitution of Great Britain

Whilst I firmly believe that the British constitution is one of the best in the world, few people would say that it cannot be improved. I hope here to outline its main strengths and weaknesses, and thereby propose changes which improve what can be bettered without destroying the good qualities it already possesses.

Disadvantages

The main problem with the British system of government is the strength of the civil service. On the one hand citizens often find it impossible to cope with an unhelpful bureaucracy which resists challenges to its suzerainty simply by invoking the letter of the law and ensuring that regulations are turned to its advantage. For example, making the civil service corporately admit that it has made a mistake often takes years of legal wrangling, making the life of the person whose livelihood may depend on the admission of guilt on the part of officialdom a misery. On the other hand, politicians find it hard to enact legislation which is carried out with the same fervour with which they envisioned it: it is diluted by the executive to the point of uselessness. The dynamics of large organisations has been studied by C. Northcote Parkinson, who noted that their main tendency is to grow and ensure their power and survival. Evidently, something must be done to curtail the power of the civil service to slow down and weaken the legislative and judicial functions of government.

Another problem with most democracies is the system of political parties. Politicians grouped into parties tend to work for the success of their party rather than for the success of good government, which they falsely equate. This attitude carries over into personal ambition, and the good of the country ends up third in importance behind the politician’s and his party’s importance. Taken to extremes, this attitude turns politics into show business, which was done very successfully by Ronald Reagan, who was after all an actor, in the USA during the 1980s. As Garrison Keillor commented, “When Reagan retired from the field, he left his opponents covered with dust, discouraged. Few had the heart to argue that he was [dishonest and disastrous] because the ones he was most dishonest to…and most disastrous for…supported him in droves…” Even without such extravagances, party politics wastes much of the time and energy of those who are supposed to be ruling the countries of the world.

A third problem is that Britain’s constitution works largely on “unwritten” precedents. This system has its advantages, being more adaptable than a written constitution, but it can also be abused to devastating effect, as was shown in Canada, which has only recently introduced a bill of rights, in the early 1970s, when civil liberties were suspended under the War Measures Act to crush the Quebequois uprising. On a more mundane, but no less important level, a written constitution makes clear, automatic judgments in many commonly occurring cases that eliminate a lot of trouble for the citizen, the police, and the judiciary.

Advantages

The fundamental strengths of the British constitution are its age and history, of which the British people are so proud. As our constitution has evolved gradually over many centuries, it contains few gross errors, and people feel comfortable with it. Because of its constitution, Britain has a certain immunity to political trends elsewhere: it remained relatively liberal in an age of absolutism during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and relatively conservative in an age of sweeping changes earlier this century. Admittedly, this stability stems largely from our isolation from Europe, and the fact that we have not been invaded successfully since 1066, but as has been pointed out above, the resources and geography of a country must be considered when determining its constitution.

What must be retained when considering a new constitution is a sense of continuity with the old, so that the British people do not lose their sense of belonging, and interest in politics; hopefully, a new constitution will increase political interest and action, especially among those who have up to now felt powerless against a daunting Establishment.

A new constitution for Great Britain

A bill of rights

Most democracies have basic human rights enshrined in their constitution, and find them very useful; indeed, as mentioned above, Canada has recently introduced such rights into its constitution, and most Canadians are very happy with their bill of rights. Such a bill has been discussed and given wide support in this country for many years, and therefore I think that it would not be a controversial measure to introduce into the new constitution. I will not specify in detail what it should contain; authors such as Jefferson et al. (1789) have written at length on this subject. All the best elements of previous bills should be put together in a way appropriate to Britain, in much the same way as I have attempted to do with the constitution as a whole.

The monarchy and the House of Lords

Both the monarchy and the House of Lords have been fiercely criticized recently, but they also enjoy considerable support, especially from the public, and so should in my opinion be retained, indeed the powers of the House of Lords, recently curtailed, should be restored. As well as being a source of national pride, these institutions with their somewhat pompous associations, and even downright ridiculous procedures, such as the quorum of three in the House, help to keep a sense of proportion in British politics. As the incumbents serve for life, they promote a long-term view, something missing from other democratic systems. Also, the pomp and ceremony provide a spectacle for the public with which politicians find it hard to compete, and therefore do not try to as much as in some other countries.

The abolishment of political parties

Rousseau decried political parties for their enfeebling effect on politics. Their only advantage to a democracy is an organizational one, and in an age of information technology that has ceased to be as important as it used to be. Abolishing political parties frees politicians to do only what interests them, and more importantly, to remain within their sphere of competence. Defining exactly what constitutes a political party is difficult, and I suspect that it would consist more in its actions than its structure, but as with the bill of rights it ought to be possible to arrive at a reasonable definition which distinguished groups formed for discussing policies and political movements generally from parties.

The interference service

Frank Herbert in his books Whipping Star and The Dosadi Experiment envisioned a governmental system which had become far too efficient: as a result BuSab, the Bureau of Sabotage, was formed, to slow down the executive and legislative process. Its agents were empowered to interfere in anything which they felt endangered good government. The problem with our civil service is the reverse, that it is too inefficient, but the same solution might be useful: instead of curtailing executive and legislative actions, an interference service could force them, although it should have the power to prevent as well. To limit the possible damage which the service might do, but also to lessen the need for it to act, its members should be drawn from within the civil service for a tour of duty. Loyalty to their own departments would hopefully reduce foolish action to a minimum, and their interest and competence together with the chance to change something would encourage them to take positive action.

The Royal Dictator

As an adjunct to the bill of rights and interference service, the new constitution would give the monarch dictatorial powers for six months every twenty years. This is probably the most radical suggestion in this essay, and, as such, needs more thorough justification than the others. The dictator will fulfil two functions: one of dictator in the ordinary sense, and one akin to Rousseau’s Lawgiver.

Rousseau said that every people needs a Lawgiver, to determine their constitution. He cited examples of Greek city-states inviting prominent politicians and philosophers from other city-states to give them constitutions. Rousseau said that the Lawgiver must only have power over laws, and not men, and would therefore often have to invoke divine inspiration, as Moses did with the Jewish law, to give his utterances power. Rousseau said that the Lawgiver must not have power over men because he would then be corrupted, and deflected from the purpose of giving laws, rather than making judgements. Our need is not quite for a Lawgiver to give us a constitution, but still for someone with radical powers to change laws. In order to avoid the problem of impotence, our dictator has executive powers, and to avoid corruption, a short fixed term of office.

While dictators can undoubtedly cause a lot of harm and suffering, not only to their own populations, but to those of other nations, they are just as powerful a weapon for good, because they are absolute, and act unfettered by any moderating power except for the above-mentioned diluting effect of their executive. This was recognized by the ancient Romans, and used several times to good effect in times of disaster, when a dictator could act more quickly and efficiently than the Senate. Due to the somewhat more complex nature of modern politics, appointing a dictator in times of crisis is much less advisable, but a dictator still retains the advantage of being able to enact and apply legislation quickly and with no opposition. A short term dictator would be able to enact controversial laws, or laws which went against the interests of the government or civil service, but which might well have beneficial effects. Dictators could also repeal unfair legislation. Admittedly, the judgement would be that of the dictator alone, and I am sure that many people would laugh or even worry at the thought of what the current heir apparent, for instance, might do, but if any damaging legislation was passed, it could be repealed as soon as the House of Commons reassembled at the end of the dictator’s term. If the dictator did something grossly stupid, such as declaring war under ridiculous circumstances or ordering the massacre of the entire population, then it would be down to the good sense of the people involved in carrying out the orders not to do so. No constitution can allow for such actions, and if people cannot take matters into their own hands in that situation, they deserve the consequences.

There would be limits on the power of the dictator, however. He would not be allowed to violate the basic constitution, including human rights violations or extending his term of office. Being a dictator, he could not be prevented from doing anything during his term of office, but he could be put on trial after his six months ended. Similar penalties ought to apply to civil servants who fail to obey a dictator.

It is worth justifying the choice of the monarch as dictator. To elect a dictator is pointless, when he derives his power from himself alone, and because the whole point of having them is to be controversial. To choose someone at random from the population would be a waste of time, as he would spend most, if not all, of his term, familiarising himself with the apparatus of state; worse still, he might do nothing, or spend six months in extravagant luxury. The monarch on the other hand is not elected, is reasonably familiar with the machinery of government, although perhaps not so much so as to like it or try to defend it; the royal family is very well off, and has little incentive to amass wealth, and, because they are figureheads without power, hopefully have as much frustration with and interest in government as the present heir to the throne.

One further advantage of the dictatorship is that it would concentrate the minds of MPs and Lords legislating for the remainder of the time, knowing that bad legislation had a good chance of being annulled by the next dictator. It might seem that this would discourage long-term thinking, but this is not the case, because the dictator would be the same person over a long period, and would therefore be seen as intermittently providing a consistent influence.

It is worth considering what should happen if the country was in crisis when a dictator was about to come to power. Because of the problems in determining what constitutes a crisis, and the weakening of the position of dictatorship caused by any tampering, I think that the dictatorship should continue anyway: as mentioned above, dictators can be very effective in crises, and besides, good sense might result from someone coming to power who had previously been an observer on the sidelines.

In summary, the dictatorship would consist of a six month recess for both Houses of Parliament, during which all their powers, together with those of the Prime Minister would be transferred to the dictator. At the end of the six months, the powers would revert whence they had come, and Parliament would be recalled. The dictatorship is only six months long so that dictators only have time to cause confusion, and not to wreak havoc; the period between dictatorships is long so that there is time to repair any damage done, so that monarchs do not try to usurp power, and because the country remains democratic, and should be governed democratically most of the time. Despite its imperfections, democracy tends to produce better results for longer than almost any other form of government, and the only better governments are those which exist among small, primitive peoples, who have two great advantages over us: simplicity due to size, and equality.

Conclusion

In this essay I have tried to suggest ways in which the British constitution could be modified to improve the quality of government in this country. I have also tried to make some more general points: that radical thought is needed when considering political problems, that a little bit of confusion does no one any harm, and may be invigorating, that the past, and how people feel about things, are just as important as logic and the future, and that government does not exist to satisfy itself and ensure its own survival, but for the good and happiness of the people it governs. Whether my detailed ideas are valid or not, I feel sure that this at least is true, and that it is recognized by far too few of those who govern us.

Sources and acknowledgements

The following books and articles were used either directly or indirectly to write this essay.

I would also like to thank Jeremy Douglas, in whose company I first enlarged many of the ideas which have gone into this essay, and Susan Aclan-Hood, who caused me to revise it a little.

This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.