Leadership

by

Constitutional Crises

Two of the foundational democracies in the Western world, both ironically containing united in their name, the United States of America and the United Kingdom are in the midst of constitutional crises. Here, where we famously have an unwritten constitution, the Supreme Court has declared the Prime Ministers prorogation of Parliament void. In the US, the country with probably the most famous written constitution in the world, the House of Representatives has begun impeachment proceedings against the President. In truth they are both responses to a similar issue.

In both countries there are leaders in power who are happy to override or ignore constitutional conventions and practices in the interests of getting things done i.e. delivering Brexit, or getting my way building a wall.

Boris Johnson has decided the country has expressed a clear view it wants to leave the European Union and therefore he is justified to do “whatever it takes” to secure this. More than three years on from the referendum, one indecisive election, two Prime Ministerial resignations, one year of unedifying Parliamentary manoeuvring, including three unsuccessful votes on a withdrawal deal, it is not surprising Mr Johnson can tap into a national mood of frustration.

A decisive strategy for dealing with the impasse must surely be welcome. The problem is Mr Johnson has been more decisive than strategic.

Mr Johnson has not attempted to build a consensus, or even a majority, in either his own party or Parliament, or thought of attempting to lance the boil with another referendum. He has in effect said the Parliamentary system is not working and so I will circumvent it. I will ignore Parliamentary sovereignty in order to return sovereignty to Parliament. Taking at face value what Mr Johnson says about his earnest desire to avoid a no deal Brexit, whatever was in his mind, proroguing Parliament and removing the whip from 21 tory members who voted against him looked like a concerted attempt to circumvent the democratic process. The Supreme Court seems to have viewed the latter in that light. So far so bad

However, when the news of the Supreme Court’s decision provides a cheap opening laugh in a speech to Business leaders in NewYork and the PM uses the opportunity to say how profoundly he disagrees with the Judges decision you have to be worried it is not just hubris that’s the problem. This concern is reinforced when there is talk of a “Constitutional Coup” and Number 10 start briefing about an election fought on a “people against the establishment” ticket. An establishment composed of the members of the Supreme Court and Jeremy Corbyn. You only have to say it out loud!

Across the Atlantic, after two years of continuous challenge the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has eventually moved to impeach the President. The straw that broke the resistance of the Democratic leadership arose out of a whistleblowers complaint which has still to be provided to the Chairman of House Intelligence Committee.

Despite its not having been provided there seems to be a clear picture emerging the issue revolves around a conversation between President Trump and the Leader of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. It is alleged Mr Trump tried to pressure Mr Zalensky into providing political dirt on Joe Biden (current frontrunner in the Democratic primaries) and of his son. It is further alleged that military aid, approved by Congress, was used as a bargaining chip.

In truth, it is difficult to keep up with the “high crimes and misdemeanours” of the current President of the United States. Appointing a secret foreign agent to the post of National Security Advisor; using his office to secure financial advantage for himself and his family; lying about his business dealings in Russia; paying $280k in hush money to women he had affairs with; refusing to release his tax returns; lying daily about everything from the economy to the weather; denigrating the free press and the judiciary. This is just a brief list of some of his deplorable actions. They contain a mix of offences against the the constitution, the constitutional  separation of powers, the conventions of political behaviour, and black letter State and Federal laws.

Whether the impeachment action is successful will depend on whether the current whistleblowing issue gains traction with the public. If not the President could likely shoot someone on 5th Avenue and the Republican Senate would still back him.

Whatever the outcome of Brexit or impeachment, on both sides of the Atlantic we have leaders surrounded by small groups  of ideologues determined to get their way whatever the cost. They don’t just challenge those who disagree with them, whether press, politicians or judiciary, they denigrate them as anti-democratic traitors.  In doing this they are undermining the foundations of constitutional practices within which democracy has operated for over 100 years.

Whilst it is important leaders project confidence it is always a worry when they claim certainty. Here the Prime Minister claims he knows what the British people want based upon a referendum held three years ago. The President has a view that when he was elected he became boss of US Ltd. He thinks his authority runs across all arms of government including the judiciary and  legislature. They should accept what he says and do as they are told. That includes locking up his opponents e.g. “crooked Hilary”.

What is happening on either side of the Atlantic is similar and profoundly dangerous. When you mess with precedents as a politician your self interest might tell you what goes around comes around. If the precedents don’t constrain you then they may not constrain the opposition when they move into power, as they will at some point. But worse if you undermine conventions and ignore precedents you strike at the credibility of the rules of the game. If this undermines public faith you may create a wholly different scale of problem.

The Supreme Court has blown the referees whistle and cried fowl. A sensible leader in a democracy would treat this seriously and temper their behaviour. Politics with rules is very demanding, difficult and frustrating, without them it’s war.

by

In Harms Way

In the current debate about whether or not to bomb Syria, beyond the substantive issue, much has been made about the issue of leadership and particularly the way the Leader of the Opposition tried and failed to whip his party on the vote. His actions have been contrasted with the decisive leadership shown by the Prime Minister.

However on the issue of Syria I am not sure the Prime Minister has exercised the leadership one might want on an issue of this magnitude and urgency.

Everyone seems to agree that the first duty of government is to provide an effective defence of the country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his top priority in government is the protection of UK citizens. Their physical safety trumps even the obsessive objective of dealing with the deficit.

When considering ways in which to maintain the security of the nation recourse to military action has to be a final resort. Putting our armed forces in harms way is something no Prime Minister should undertake lightly. Indeed Mr Cameron has made this point many times over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister must be convinced that there is a clear and substantial threat to the country that must be dealt with. What is more a threat which cannot be dealt with in any other way than by taking military action.

Given all this you might have thought the Prime Minister would want to act with all urgency to protect the citizens of the UK. Take the issue to Parliament as soon as possible. But no, he did not want to take the matter to Parliament until he was absolutely certain of a majority. But that begs the question what would he have done if no majority looked likely or indeed if he had lost the vote.

No one seems to have questioned why, once he was convinced of the threat, he did not go immediately to the House of Commons to press for the to extension of the war into Syria. Further, if he lost the vote why would he not go to the country. If the threat is grave enough to put soldiers in harms way then should it not be the first first duty of the Prime Minister to secure action as soon as possible.

It could well be said by supporters of the war “Well he got there in the end”. His delay was a carefully devised strategy to get the support he needed and now we have commenced the bombing he wanted. It feels however a bit like an exercise of leading from behind. Wait until the case is won and then go and make it.

I can’t help thinking the Prime Ministers’ very commendable commitment not to put troops in harms way is underpinned by an equally strong commitment not to put his job in harms way either. Even if he believes the country faces a clear and present danger.

by

Fight, fight and fight again…

The Parliamentary debate on Syria has been an unedifying spectacle of incompetence and the scramble to secure the support of public opinion. Nowhere amongst the leaders of any of the main parties has there been a whiff of integrity. The prime minister has spectacularly misjudged his own party but has also failed to provide a compelling vision. A vision of how a limited strike against Assad, for acts of state sponsored terrorism against his own citizens, will improve matters for ordinary Syrians.

Mr Milliband has dithered to a position, which in the short term seems to be benefiting him. Starting from surprisingly strong support for the Government to a second position of significant caveats through to whipping his party to vote against an intervention. At best you can say he has read the mood of his backbenchers and tacked accordingly.

Considering the gravity of the issue neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition have adopted a position of principle and stuck with it. In 1960 Hugh Gaitskell lost a vote at the Labour Party conference on unilateral nuclear disarmament. He Did not say that he now “got it”. He did not extol the virtues of debate and the benefits of Party Conference democracy. His response was that he would “fight,fight and fight again…”

At the time it was an incredibly divisive debate and did have implications for Britains defence posture. However it was not about immediately committing the UK to military action in a foreign theatre. If the PM comes to the view that  that there is sufficient reason to contemplate this then he should not accept a defeat in the Commons as the end of the story. He should fight to reverse the decision or resign. Acts of war, which this would be are probably the most significant single decisions a prime minister makes. When they come to that decision, putting British lives in harms way, they need to be certain that what they are proposing is critical to British interests.

Britain is a Parliamentary democracy, not a democracy run by parliament. Parliament is a safety valve, a way of voting down a government which is doing something they deem unacceptable. When voting down a government MP’s minds are focused by the reality of a consequent election. It is said the House was stunned when the vote was announced. Clearly the result was not expected or wanted by David Cameron. We will never know but one suspects it was neither expected nor probably wanted by Ed Milliband.

I do not know whether we should have engaged in the current action to deter Assad in the use of chemical weapons against his own people. However, it is probably only a matter of time before we (the West) has to intervene in the Middle East. Syria is not an isolated problem, it is part of a region which is being torn apart by the religious schism between Shia and Sunni Muslim believers. Behind them are global powers with their own agendas and interests. There are a wide range of economic and security interests the UK has in the region which means almost inevitably we will have to engage.

The poor judgement of a Prime Minister casts a long shadow. The Iraq war was an unmitigated disaster albeit its citizens were subject to the same oppression by an odious tyrant, one who incidentally used nerve gas against his citizens in the Al-Anfal campaign in the 1980’s with impunity. Accepting Mr Blair acted in good faith then he is guilty of making one of the worst judgement calls in British Foreign policy, one which has reverberated through the current debates and one which may have fatally undermined Britain’s ability to develop an effective foreign policy for years to come. Mr Cameron’s judgement call was almost as bad and has compounded the problem. Many would argue that his handling of domestic policy is not right but it is at least arguable. His handling of foreign policy and defence is a disaster.