The Radical Constitutional Change Britain Needs
Opinion
Linda Colley
Just over a century ago, Lytton Strachey, a literary lion of the Bloomsbury Group, tried to sum up the impact of Queen Victoria’s death. She had succeeded in her 63-year reign in becoming profoundly “familiar,” he wrote, occupying “with satisfying ease a distinct and memorable place.” Consequently, when Victoria died in 1901, Strachey went on, it seemed to many — and not just in the United Kingdom — a “monstrous reversal of the course of nature,” a breach in the “whole scheme of things.” Much the same might be said of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Both women came to the British throne young, though Elizabeth beat Victoria in the longevity stakes, reigning for over 70 years. Both were global, not just domestic figures; and both wore the crown so long, that many felt tempted to believe that they would somehow go on forever. Yet, for all these similarities, the differences between Britain’s present situation and when Victoria died are fundamental and immense. By 1901, Britain was already tilting into decline, but its empire, navy, mercantile marine and financial system remained the biggest in the world. By now, these sources of global power and reach have long since been diminished. Moreover, some of the inner workings of this polity have fallen into disrepair and become progressively controversial. For all of Elizabeth II’s absolute professionalism, the second half of her reign witnessed a palpable rise in dissatisfaction with how the government functioned in a state with a far more diverse and far less deferential population. So might the queen’s death and the accession of a less popular Charles III contribute to increased levels of turmoil and lead to unstoppable pressure for radical constitutional change, even a new British Constitution? To a degree that is not always recognized, the rate of political change in Britain has been speeding up for some time, most conspicuously in terms of personnel. When Liz Truss was formally appointed prime minister by the queen last week, she became the third woman to hold that office. Ms. Truss’s new cabinet, too, is at once profoundly conservative and, in some respects, unprecedentedly diverse. Its four most senior ministerial positions are held by women and individuals of African or Asian ancestry. The institutions of government have also undergone change. Since 2009, the nation has had a Supreme Court. Scotland and Wales now each have their own Parliament, while Northern Ireland has its own Assembly with wide lawmaking powers. So far, you might think, so impressive. Yet the change has been partial and sometimes inadequately thought out. True, power has been devolved away from London, but not sufficiently or systematically so. Unlike Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, for instance, England — the largest of the four component parts of the United Kingdom — has no separate assembly of its own, and this has helped to stoke a resentful, inward-looking English nationalism. At the same time, resurrecting a Parliament in Edinburgh has not thus far succeeded in defusing separatist sentiment in Scotland, while the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently stalled and nationalist sentiment is rising in Wales. Most crucially, there has been no systematic reform of the Westminster Parliament itself. Nor have the necessary measures been introduced to monitor and regulate the growing power of British prime ministers, who have become ever more presidential in style and ambition, especially since the long tenure (1979 to 1990) of that other formidable woman Margaret Thatcher. All these divisions, dissatisfactions and only partly thought-out alterations have been further strained by the Brexit referendum of 2016, which widened and underlined divisions within Britain, rather than — as some had hoped — resolving them. In the referendum there were marked differences in voting between the young and the old, the highly educated and the less educated. Most conspicuously, a majority of voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland, along with most voters in London and the English big cities, expressed a wish to remain in the European Union. By a narrow majority, though, and substantially on the strength of opinion in rural areas and depressed coastal communities, the referendum resulted in the nation leaving the union. The resulting divisions remain raw, as do the economic repercussions of Britain leaving its biggest and closest market for goods. So, might the shock to the system that accompanies the death of a long-reigning monarch result in some kind of new and sustained thinking about the inner workings of the United Kingdom? Might this be the spur to what, historically, would be the second written British Constitution? Not necessarily. Not by itself. Beyond all the frippery, the British monarchy is a highly professional, very tough and resilient organization. Moreover, the new monarch, Charles III, is 73 years old. This is sometimes assumed to be a weakness. But it is middle age — when the early good looks have faded along with some of the illusions — that is frequently the most dangerous era for monarchs. Royal old age, by contrast, often works to increase mass reverence and respect. More important, though, the introduction of a brand-new Constitution has usually been the result of some existential shock: a revolutionary war as in the American case, or a bitter civil war, or a foreign invasion, occupation or defeat. Britain’s first written Constitution, the Instrument of Government of 1653, bears out this pattern. Its introduction followed the execution of a monarch, a civil war and the brief coming of a republic. The peaceful succession of a hereditary heir to the throne, which is what has just happened in Britain, is not remotely a change in the same league. But it might make a small contribution to other changes that genuinely would be existential. If Scotland in the near future should again call for a vote for independence, and if a majority of Northern Irish voters should decide they want to rejoin the rest of the island of Ireland, then the United Kingdom will shrink to a duopoly of England and Wales, with the latter already becoming more restive. Were such a breakup of the union to occur, especially if it took place against a background of protracted economic crisis, radical constitutional rethinking might come to seem a necessary solution, rather than simply alien and a threat. The New York Times
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3882206/linda-colley/radical-constitutional-change-britain-needs
No comments:
Post a Comment