Old-World Political Stasis and US Democracy

There is a huge difference between British and Chinese politics, on the one hand, and US democracy on the other. The difference  is stark, but its fundamental nature is often unrecognised even by students of politics, and it does not usually feature in economic discourse. That difference is, however, very important in the formation of economic policy: and it is even more important in the political rhetoric that wraps around the economic data.

The partisanship and pettiness of American politics shock unsuspecting foreigners when they are first exposed to it. While the vituperation against President Obama that has characterised almost the whole of his presidency is somewhat more vicious than in any previous incumbency, it is merely the latest stage in a progressive demystification of the office.Nixon became reviled, Ford was pitied and Carter became despised; then Reagan - with superb showmanship and a well-practised voice - raised the prestige of the office and forced his many opponents to raise their rhetoric against his policies while treating the President with almost old-time deference. The first Bush began in office with Reagan's legacy, but his relative lack of showmanship and his bad luck [largely the consequence of poor decision-making] set him up for defeat by the exceptionally able and charismatic Bill Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton was conscious of the dignity of his office: to a degree that allowed him the hubris to assume that the media would turn a blind eye his exploitation of the White House for sexual adventurism. Instead the press and TV channels reverted to the mode that had brought down Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter: and only the self-interested loyalty of the Democrats in Congress saved Clinton from impeachment  As with all known sexual predators who also have political charisma and real power, Clinton was hugely popular and it is widely reckoned that he would have won a third term if that were constitutionally possible. It was not allowed, so his party selected a candidate for the next election who lacked both the charisma and the racy reputation: who duly lost.

When Clinton left the White House, the whole staff left; except for the housekeeping team. To show their hostile contempt for the incoming President - George W Bush - the members of Clinton's court removed the 'w' keys from keyboards. The entire archive from the Clinton Administration had been removed. The whole cabinet and many other offices in the state were vacant, and the new incumbent had to present all his new senior ministers for confirmation by the Senate. Each new President brings in a total new Administration which [at least in principle] can set its own policies in each area: and drop any programme from the former Administration that they do not wish to keep. The Administration needs congressional assent for new expenditure and to make [or repeal] laws, but otherwise it has a free hand.

In China, by contrast, any change in the personalia at the top of the government is always presented as a means of continuing and refreshing the status quo. The Communist Party has led the state in unbroken succession since 1948 and it is presented as the carrier of a single and unchanging truth, Chairman Mao's enhanced version of Marxism-Leninism. Everyone in open political life and in journalism is required to adhere unconditionally to the myth that everything that happens is in a continuum. The wild changes that occurred under the 'Great Helmsman' from mass nationalisation to the 'great leap forward' [which set the economy back for more than a decade] to 'let a thousand flowers bloom' to 'cultural revolution' to the reviling of the 'gang of four' to the cautious introduction of Deng's liberalising reforms and on to the recent amazing success of industrialisation and export-led economic growth are simply not admitted in any official record. Children learn about the truth anecdotally in the family circle or from friends whose families are more frank, but they also learn the unwisdom of denying the official line in public. Through most of 2012 the party will be finalising the distribution of authority between the present high officers of state, who will step away from centre-stage at the end of the year, and the rising stars who have been prepared to follow. There is a great deal of speculation whether the balance of the new front-of-house team will be more or less liberal than its predecessors'; but it is unpredictable how far the new leaders will feel able - or be willing - to signal significant changes in direction that could unleash unrealistic expectations among business managers, bankers, local government officals or the tiny minority of advocates for more western-style democracy and human rights.

The Chinese Communist Party has managed a phenomenal task of socio-economic change without surrender of any political muscle; and naive commentators in other parts of the world have vainly hoped that the system would eventually implode. Economic risks such as allowing banks to fund a property boom have been greeted cheerfully by doom-sayers as 'unsustainable'; yet so far control has been maintained, often by the deployment of significant devices that have been used effectively by western monetary and fiscal authorities. The great majority of intelligent western-educated Chinese claim to be broadly satisfied with the lack of western-style human rights so long as it is in combination with the success of the economy.

It is likely that Chinese party officers have taken comfort from the British example; and understood it better than British commentators recognise the context in which the embarrassing idiocy yaah-boo political gaming takes place. The ruling power in Britain is not Parliament, and does not attribute authority to politicsl parties. The Council - usually meeting as the Privy Council - has continual succession since 1661 and its role was consolidated after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. All acts of state are executed by - or with authority of - the Crown in Council. Any level of emergency powers can be created and enforced by Order-in-Council and most routine legislation [which is only granted parliamentary time by assent of the Council] demits to the Council the authority to modify, extend or defer its provisions. The Cabinet is a committee of the Council; and however different one government's policies may be from its predecessor's, after an election has changed the ruling party, the new Cabinet must work on the basis that it is continuing consistently to give advice the The Queen. Even if a new government wants fundamentally to change major policies, they must proceed slowly and continue with all existing laws and regulations. King George V was keen to bring in a minority Labour government after the collapse of the Lib-Con coalition after the First World War, provided its members took the Privy Council oath [and leading ministers even kitted themselves out in antiquated Council uniforms]: and it worked so well that no group of politicians with any chance of power has subsequently questioned this bizarre system of rule. The rhetoric in parliament and in the media may be extreme and contrarian but the reality is that all the Civil Servants [from the Clerk to the Privy Council and Cabinet Secretary downwards] continue in office regardless of the change of Cabinet level personnel. The populace are deluded by myths that play up the pretended power of the electorate to 'change' the political map; in fact, the British almost certainly have less influence over the direction of policy than do the Chinese.

The British system is suddenly placed under threat, however, by the egotistical master-tactician Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party. He is sworn of the Council - he would not have been allowed to become Scottish First Minister without that - but he now appears to seek a popular mandate to create a new constitution. It will be fascinating to see how the Privy Council - as such - will react to this potential threat to its hegemony.

Council and Congress

One of the most important aspects of the present economic crisis, though it has had little media coverage, is that the most-troubled countries are 'parliamentary democracies'. The resolution of the crisis will   be as important in terms of politics as it will be in the economy: and it will be harder to resolve in some countries because the workings of their democracies may generate stalemate that will be extremely difficult to dissolve.

The German Chancellor has become much more constrained by Bundestag reluctance to opening the coffers to the rest of Europe than she would have been in the first half of this year. The obvious fury of many millions of Germans at the mere idea of keeping the Greeks on their fantasy feather-bed will surely be reflected in the voting in the elections early next-year, so deputies seeking re-election have clamped down on the government. German democracy has limited the options for a resolution of the Euro crisis.

In Britain a more complex situation is being illustrated today by a parliamentary vote on the question as to whether or not there should be a Referendum on Britain's future membership of the European Union. The politics of this matter are clear: a Sunday Times opinion poll published on 23 October showed that about two-thirds of the electors in the sample would have favoured the Referendum, which was called for by a Petition of more than 100,000 people. If Britain were a 'real' democracy the way forward would be clear. But Britain is not such a democracy. Britain is governed by the Privy Council, of which most voters have no knowledge at all. After each General Election the Sovereign invites the party leader who is most likely to command a majority of votes in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister: and a member of the Privy Council if he or she is not a member already [which would be most unlikely as it has not happened since the improbable emergence of Labour as the leading party in the Commons in the early 1920s]. The Prime Minister then invites colleagues to become members of his/her Cabinet, which is a Committee of Privy Councillors: so any chosen members who are not sworn of the Council are quickly admitted. Any Cabinet is bound by all the decisions and commitments of its predecessors, however far apart the political stance of successive Cabinets may be.

For reasons that are not disclosed to the electorate at large, the Council is determined to suppress any real debate on Britain's membership of the EU. It may be the consequence of a major pledge to the USA: it is clearly not driven by the Monarch herself, whose preference for Commonwealth links has been unequivocal for the whole of her reign. Whatever the cause of the ban, it is very firm. Privy Councillors Clegg and Milliband {Ed] have joined Councillor Cameron in insisting that their Members of Parliament must ignore the manifest preference of the electorate and vote against the idea of a Referendum. Cameron has even descended to the old rogue's argument of 'unripe time' to escape the fact that he has made his career by indicating a general Euroscepticism. Other conspicuous issues are also placed beyond democratic resolution: 'human rights' legislation, immigration, energy policy and capital punishment are prominent among them. This pattern of suppression has seemed to be the constitutional norm for so long that the dominance of the Privy Council seems unshakable: but an economic collapse could suddenly precipitate the end of the charade. Councillor Cameron could just have allowed a minority of Tory MPs quietly to enjoy their day, with no urgent threat to membership of the EU: foolhardily, he has drawn attention to the sham of democracy.

In the USA, where the Constitution reigns supreme, the division of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial wings of the Federation is seen as essential to the functioning of their democracy. Such a system requires effective articulation between the Congress and the White House, and between the two Houses of the Congress. That is now failing, and may freeze into rigid incompatibility. As unemployment remains stubbornly high, and massive state spending.appears not to be stimulating the economy sufficiently to change the situation, the basic economic policy pursued by the Obama Administration is increasingly incredible. The hugely expensive but functionally questionable Medical Care system that the Democrats have introduced is increasing costs on employers and on taxes. The level of vituperation between increasingly-radical tendencies in both Democrat and Republican parties is reaching historically exceptional levels. The Democrats face a huge dilemma as to whether or not to support Obama for a second term, or look for a candidate who might better achieve a national consensus. The risk of loosing the black vote may well secure Obama's selection: but however much money Obama might raise for his campaign his overall failure to galvanise the country must count against him. The Republicans' problem in finding any satisfactory candidate has been painfully obvious: but that does not affect the fact that around half the electorate is open to persuasion that the Republicans cannot be as disastrous as Obama has proved over the past four years. There is all to play for in the 2012 General Election: in that sense, democracy will triumph. But in the important area of achieving functionality of Government in concert with Congress, there is no clear indication that either of the eventually-selected candidates will be able to succeed sufficiently to create a new economic environment in the USA.

It is too soon to pronounce the end of democracy: but the threat of dissolution is palpable.

Cameron's constitutionality

In quashing the members of his Party Conference who want to challenge Britain's status in the European Union David Cameron is bang in line with his predecessors.

Prime Minsters and their Cabinets have their massive power because they are the active members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. After each election the Queen is advised whom to ask to be Prime Minister: that Privy Councillor then invites members and candidate members of the Council to come to Cabinet meetings, and all the other Councillors stand aside. Some Councillors in 'loyal opposition' parties speak against individual proposals to change, or even to keep, policies that they enacted when in government; but the underlying reality is the commitment of all Privy Councillors to the continuity of Her Majesty's Government.

Cameron is resisting a challenge to that continuity.

This position is reinforced by the fact that the United Kingdom's immersion is Europe has been made by a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers:
Treaty of Rome - Heath;
change from Economic Community to European Union - Thatcher;
 Maastricht - Major.

No Labour Prime Minister has such explicit responsibility [or culpability]. The EU is essentially a Tory gift to the British people, and to turn away from it would be a denial of the past that it would be extremely hard for any Conservative Leader to risk.

As to the democratic wish of the people: when has that really mattered?