Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:46:34.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Anomie: Patterns of Democracy and ‘The Governance of Britain’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Matthew Flinders
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘The Governance of Britain’ agenda represents Gordon Brown's attempt to respond to long-standing criticisms regarding the way in which Labour governments have since 1997 approached the topic of constitutional reform and democratic renewal. The central argument of this article is that the Labour Party remains afflicted by constitutional anomie and these recent documents, combined with the behaviour of politicians, have done little in response. This article is of methodological importance because it assesses the cumulative impact of recent reforms through the application of Lijphart's framework and reflects on the utility of this tool. It is of conceptual importance because the results of the systematic analysis add further weight to the accusation of constitutional anomie while also allowing the development of a new conceptual tool – bi-constitutionality – which offers a way of understanding long-standing debates. The article is of normative importance because it avoids the descriptive-prescriptive approach to constitutional literature that has dominated British political studies, and it is relevant for comparative politics because it replicates and takes forward a methodology that has been applied around the world. In doing so it provides a critical case of executive politics and statecraft vis-à-vis constitutional reform.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , 2009 , pp. 385 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Blair, T., ‘My Vision for Britain’, in Radice, G. (ed.), What Needs to Change, London, HarperCollins, 1996, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

2 See Evans, M., Constitution-Making and the Labour Party, London, Palgrave, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Norton, P., ‘The Constitution’, in Seldon, A. (ed.), Blair's Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 120. Google Scholar

4 See Seldon, A., Blair, London, Free Press, 2004 Google Scholar; King, A., The British Constitution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007 Google Scholar; Riddell, P., ‘Labour's Conversion to Constitutional Reform’, in McDonald, A. (ed.), Reinventing Britain, London, Politicos, 2007, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar

5 See Guardian, 27 February 2006.Google Scholar

6 See Marsh, D. and Hall, M., ‘The British Political Tradition’, British Politics, 2: 2 (2007), pp. 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 The phrase ‘New Labour’ in this paper applies to the period when Tony Blair was leader of the Labour Party (1994–2007).Google Scholar

8 P. Mair, ‘Partyless Democracy’, New Left Review, March/April 2000, p. 34Google Scholar

9 McDonald, Reinventing Britain, p. xi.Google Scholar

10 Bogdanor, V., ‘Our New Constitution’, Law Quarterly Review, 120 (2004), pp. 242–62.Google Scholar

11 King, The British Constitution, p. 352.Google Scholar

12 Riddell, ‘Labour's Conversion to Constitutional Reform’, p. 253.Google Scholar

13 Theakston, K., ‘Prime Ministers and the Constitution’, Parliamentary Affairs, 58: 1 (2005), p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 N. Johnson, Reshaping the British Constitution, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p. 308.Google Scholar

15 Gamble, A., ‘The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom’, Publius, 36: 1 (2006), p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Dunleavy, P., ‘Facing Up to Multi-Party Politics’, Parliamentary Affairs, 5: 3 (2005), pp. 503–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See A. Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

18 Flinders, M., ‘Majoritarian Democracy in Britain’, West European Politics, 28: 1 (2005), pp. 62–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Vatter, A., ‘Lijphart Expanded’, European Political Science Review, 1: 1 (2009), pp. 125–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Mainwaring, S., ‘Two Models of Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 12: 3 (2001), pp. 170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Power Inquiry, Power to the People, London, Joseph Rowntree Trust, 2006, p. 128.Google Scholar

22 Norris, P., ‘The Twilight of Westminster?’, Political Studies, 49 (2001), p. 881.Google Scholar

23 Quoted in J. Morrison, Reforming Britain, London, Reuters, 2001, pp. 509–10.Google Scholar

24 D. Marquand, ‘Populism or Pluralism?’, Mishcon lecture, University College London, 1999.Google Scholar

25 The term ‘statecraft’ denotes a critical-realist approach to decision-making that interprets the decision-making process as being driven by the interests of the incumbent political elite to remain in power. See J. Bulpitt, Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

26 See Flinders, M. and Curry, D., ‘Bi-Constitutionalism’, Parliamentary Affairs, 61: 1 (2008), pp. 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Dunleavy, P. and Margetts, H., ‘From Majoritarian to Pluralist Democracy?’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13: 3 (2001), pp. 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Independent Commission on the Voting System, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (Cm.4090), London, HMSO, 1998.Google Scholar

29 A. Giddens, The Third Way and its Critics, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., p. 69.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 61.Google Scholar

32 J. Mitchell, ‘Scotland’, in A. Trench (ed.), The Dynamics of Devolution, Exeter, Imprint Academic, 2005, pp. 23–42; J. Mitchell, ‘Evolution and Devolution’, Publius, 36 (2006), pp. 153–68; C. Jeffrey, ‘Devolutionary Dynamics’, in M. Flinders, A. Gamble, M. Kenny and C. Hay (eds), Oxford Handbook of British Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 384–404.Google Scholar

33 Evans, Constitution-Making and the Labour Party, pp. 101–3.Google Scholar

34 For a discussion, see Flinders, M., ‘Analysing Reform’, Political Studies, 55: 1 (2007), pp. 174–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 See Flinders, M., Democratic Drift: Constitutional Anomie and Majoritarian Modification in the UK, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 See Dunleavy, P., ‘The Westminster Model’, in Dunleavy, P., Hay, C., Heffernan, R. and Cowley, P. (eds), Developments in British Politics 8, London, Palgrave, 2006, p. 327.Google Scholar

37 King, The British Constitution, p. 352.Google Scholar

38 Lusztig, M., ‘Federalism and Institutional Design’, Publius, 25 (1995), pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 See Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. Google Scholar

40 Marquand, D., ‘Revisiting the Blair Paradox’, New Left Review, 3 (2000), pp. 73–9.Google Scholar

41 Mair, ‘Partyless Democracy’.Google Scholar

42 Norris, ‘The Twilight of Westminster?’.Google Scholar

43 Dunleavy, ‘The Westminster Model’, p. 341.Google Scholar

44 Hazell, R., ‘The Continuing Dynamism of Constitutional Reform’, Parliamentary Affairs, 60: 1 (2007), pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 See J. Freedland, ‘Brown and Straw's Best Chance is to Go Out Like Butch and Sundance’, Guardian, 26 March 2008.Google Scholar

46 Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, p. 210.Google Scholar

47 See R. Hazell (ed.), Constitutional Futures Revisited, London, Palgrave, 2008.Google Scholar

48 V. Bogdanor, ‘Conclusion’, in V. Bogdanor (ed.), The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, London, British Academy, p. 719.Google Scholar

49 King, The British Constitution, p. 345.Google Scholar

50 See M. Wills, ‘Kick Starting National Debate on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities’, speech given at University College London, 5 March 2008.Google Scholar

51 G. Brown, ‘Who Do We Want to Be? The Future of Britishness’, Fabian New Year Conference, Imperial College, London, 14 January 2006.Google Scholar

52 See R. Ford, ‘Scots Lead Rebellion Against Oath of Allegiance’, The Times, 12 March 2008.Google Scholar

53 Lord Goldsmith, Citizenship: Our Common Bond, London, Ministry of Justice, 2008, p. 96.Google Scholar

54 J. Citrin, ‘Constitutional Reform and British National Identity’, in McDonald, Reinventing Britain, p. 212.Google Scholar

55 King, The British Constitution, pp. 88–9.Google Scholar

56 See C. Hay and G. Stoker, ‘Who's Failing Whom?’, in Political Studies Association, Failing Politics? A Response to the Governance of Britain Green Paper, Newcastle, PSA, 2007.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., p. 8.Google Scholar

58 The Governance of Britain: Constitutional Renewal (Cm. 7342), London, HMSO, 2008.Google Scholar

59 Jeffrey, ‘Devolutionary Dynamics’.Google Scholar

60 Freedland, ‘Brown and Straw's Best Bet’.Google Scholar

61 Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement, London, Hansard Society, 2008.Google Scholar

62 Dunleavy, ‘Facing Up to Multi-Party Politics’.Google Scholar