As somebody who is interested in governments and electoral systems, I am sometimes asked which system I think is the best one. My answer is usually 'It depends' - it does! If we are discussing a new, young democracy, then it is important what the circumstances are. There are historic, cultural and current political factors which affect the answer to the question. As far as old, established democracies are concerned, a system of government should reflect the institutional framework of a particular country.
The reason I am writing this is due to a bizarre debate which took place at the London Assembly on January, 25th. It was discussed whether it is appropriate for a member who is simultaneously a Deputy Mayor to vote on the mayor's budget.
The very possibility of such a debate is due to the fact that in London, there is (at least theoretically) a Mayor-and-Assembly system with separation of powers, whereas UK is used to a system of fusion of powers, where the Executive is formed by the Legislature and is comprised of its members. It is that way on the national level, and until recently, used to be that way in local government. Most of the local councils still have a Leader (usually the head of the biggest group, unless there is a coalition of small parties) and a Cabinet, all councillors themselves. The mayor wearing a big chain (something we occasionally see in a movie) is similar a president in a parliamentary republic - more of a ceremonial figure, usually one of the more experienced councillors.
In London, the situation is different. The Greater London Authority was created after more than a decade and a half of London living with no central city government at all. It was understood that most of the powers would stay with 32 boroughs, and the GLA would be responsible for those areas which need coordination. But the prospect of a single elected mayor with no check seemed somewhat horrifying and undemocratic, so a check was created in the form of London Assembly.
The London Assembly is pretty impotent, because the only way for it to reject a mayor's budget is for 2/3 of its members to vote against it. 'By default', the budget passes. Quite a strange way to control a Mayor, isn't it?
Returning to my second paragraph, the very situation that an Assembly member is also a Deputy mayor could only occur in a country which does not understand separation of powers (my tone is not critical here - I am merely saying that every country has a different political culture). In Westminster, all ministers are MPs (or Lords) - but neither can they question the Prime Minister, because of the convention of collective responsibility - in other words, a cabinet should be monolithic, all its members should publicly support it and all debates should be resolved from within unless a minister wishes to resign. London is, supposedly, using separation of powers. In this case, it should most certainly not be possible for a member of the Assembly to hold a position in the mayor's administration - he or she should immediately resign the seat if such an appointment is made. Otherwise, he would be scrutinizing himself, and if a Deputy mayor can be an AM, why can't the Mayor?
No Mayor has tried to get elected as an AM, but the so called 'double-jobbing' is not uncommon in UK. Ken Livingstone became mayor in 2000 but did not resign as an MP, staying full term until 2001; Boris Johnson himself stayed as an MP for a few weeks in 2008; there are numerous examples of people being an MSP (member of Scottish Parliament) and MP; in Northern Ireland, there were even instances of triple-jobbing, when people like Ian Paisley were simultaneously an MLA (Member of Northern Ireland Assembly).
This is actually very libertarian - let the voters decide if the politician is capable of doing three jobs, and if he is, why stop him/her? I have no objections. But what it clearly shows is that separation of powers is something which does not strike roots into the British soil.
P.S. There is actually another interesting discussion related to Boris Johnson. Supposing he wins the 2012 election, his term would expire in 2016. Should he want to get on to national politics, he would probably need to be an MP. Counting on a by-election in a winnable seat in 2016 is risky, so he would probably have to become an MP in 2015. The interesting thing is that if he does stand for election in 2015 (especially in a London seat), I expect there won't be much outrage. After all, he continued as the editor of The Spectator after he was elected as an MP!
No comments:
Post a Comment