Constitutional conundrums

An article discussing the Hansard Society's recent publication, Audit of Political Engagement 5.

Constitutional conundrums

Susanna Kalitowski, Research Fellow, Parliament and Government Programme

Gordon Brown has made constitutional reform a centrepiece of his premiership. Less than a week after taking office, he unveiled a green paper which set out a dizzyingly wide range of options for enhancing the accountability of the executive, the power of Parliament and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. It promised to consult and involve ‘all the people of this country' in the formation of a ‘new constitutional settlement'.

The Hansard Society has welcomed the proposals, many of which have been central to our work for decades. However, our latest Audit of Political Engagement - an annual survey measuring public attitudes to politics - reveals that the government's task will be far from easy for two reasons: 1) most people know very little about constitutional issues and 2) there is a complete lack of public consensus on what should be changed.

Since the first Audit was published in 2004, we have consistently found that well over half the population professes little or no knowledge of politics; we were unsurprised to discover a correspondingly high level of public ignorance about the country's constitutional arrangements in this year's Audit. Only a quarter - or fewer - of the public say they understand key components of the government's constitutional reform programme, such as the prerogative powers exercised without Parliament's approval or changes in the composition of the House of Lords. The Ministry of Justice is about to launch a major public consultation on whether Britain should adopt a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, but a massive 68% of people have never heard of or know hardly anything about this issue.

This is entirely understandable. Britain's constitutional arrangements are hardly straightforward. The unwritten constitution, with its mysterious mix of statute and common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority, has long been the sole reserve of a small elite group of constitutional lawyers and academics, as has the royal prerogative, which is even more nebulous. These issues are rarely explained to politics undergraduates, let alone anyone else.

To complicate matters further, there is a complete lack of public consensus on priorities for reform, with even the most popular choices identified by only a quarter or less of the population. Many of the public's top preferences are not covered in the government's proposals. The Audit has found that the constitutional issue that the greatest numbers of people are dissatisfied with by far is Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues in the House of Commons - the so-called West Lothian Question; however the green paper has nothing to say about this subject. Other key areas of public concern which go unmentioned in the government's proposals include political party funding and Britain's membership of the European Union.

On the plus side, the public's top priority for change - how the Human Rights Act works in practice - is discussed, albeit in reference to a new Bill of Rights. Reform of the prerogative powers - a cornerstone of the proposals - is also cited as a top priority, although it is also one of the least understood areas.

Several of the other matters on which the government proposes to consult are areas where the public are largely content with the status quo, notably lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, reforming the electoral system and introducing fixed-term parliaments. These issues are comparatively well understood and do not even concern most people who are unhappy with the present system of governing. The Audit has established little or no correlation between attitudes to these issues and political engagement.

What is more, the Audit reveals that people's views of constitutional arrangements are greatly affected by their views of the government of the day. Supporters of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are far more likely to express dissatisfaction with current constitutional arrangements than Labour supporters.

In the past, constitutional reform was almost entirely an elite project, and therefore potentially much easier for a government to undertake. However, in a modern democracy, it is essential that the views of the public are genuinely taken on board, particularly at a time of marked public disenchantment with politics, when nearly three quarters of people agree that government does not spend enough time listening to the views of individual members of the public (another Audit finding).

Nonetheless, the lack of public understanding and consensus will make it difficult - if not impossible - for the government to meaningfully consult people on its reform plans in the short term, let alone establish support for them. The consultation risks being dominated by a small minority - or dismissed as a sham - unless serious efforts are made first to educate the broader public about the political system and proposed reforms.

It is vital that the government has a clear strategy for responding to the views of the public and managing their expectations. The constitutional reform proposals will require a far more detailed form of consultation, response and consensus building than is usually the case.  The effective dissemination of information will also be crucial. Government and Parliament - and indeed all those with a commitment to a healthy democratic system - should use this opportunity to inform the public on the principles and operation of parliamentary democracy and build consensus for reform. Just don't expect it to be easy.