Well we certainly have a functioning democracy now, but it is far from perfect. Our legislation is still read and amended by the unelected House of Lords, composed of hereditary peers born into power, chosen lobbyists and trade unionists and archbishops etc. The prime minister still possesses unprecedented powers through the ‘Crown Prerogative’ to appoint ministers and even take us to war without consulting the people.
Additionally and most importantly, the role of parliament has slowly been eroded to the point where vast amounts of legislation no longer come from elected representatives but instead from a network of government organisations, a web of state bodies that exercise power outside of the democratic system.
*
Quasi-autonomous non-Governmental Organisations (Quangos) have been an integral part of the UK public sector for many decades. There are lots of them. You probably know of a few by the acronyms, the FSA, the FCO etc. Most of them are worthwhile organisations that fulfill a necessary function. Many of them however, perform a function with no real need or duplicate functions that could be performed by other existing quangos. However, the most crucial aspect of the quango is the lack of accountability to the people who are affected by the quango’s decisions. This means that they have little incentive to do their job especially well.
Many governments have promised a quango cull and so far this government has at least made a start. As part of the deficit reduction plan, and as part of their broader localism agenda, the current government has pledged ‘a bonfire of the quangos’ to cut spending and abolish many of these unessential organisations, while simultaneously giving power back to local people and local authority figures. For example, RDAs (regional development agencies) promote economic development by enhancing business competitiveness and skills application. There are currently eight of them, for different regions of England excluding London which has its own development organisations. The government plans to reduce spending by dismantling these regional agencies and encouraging the formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to carry out some of the functions currently carried out by RDAs.
The QCDA, Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority, that once monitored the national curriculum, and the GTCE, General Teaching Council for England, that once regulated the state school system, will too both be consigned to history. The government plans to reinstall their functions and responsibility with school headmasters and directors, giving them the power to set curriculums and regulate their own testing procedures. The idea is that the people responsible for the decision making should be in direct contact with the people affected by the decisions. This way when a headmaster is approached by an agitated group of parents demanding something be done about the school curriculum or testing, they can no longer reply with “I’m sorry, nowadays that’s all dealt with by the associate board for whatever, or the national council for whatever.” With power, should come responsibility and accountability to the people.
The quango ‘argument,’ i.e. the question of their usefulness and effectiveness stems from the age old left vs. right debate. Free marketers will proclaim, as demonstrated in history, that in general, government is poor at business; that public sector organisations are slow, wasteful, driven by compliance targets and lacking the fundamental incentive of personal profit that drives efficiency. Advocates of state interventionism will reinforce the necessity for centrally planned regulation and standardisation to ensure fairness and coordinated oversight of public issues. Both arguments have their merits but there is also a deeper underlying democratic issue that needs to be considered.
The delegation of power to these organisations and the growth and reach of their influence has allowed ministers to distance themselves ever further from responsibility and accountability by effectively passing their executive power to the quangos. Even without consideration of the economic benefits of a more competitive landscape for the people and organisations that run our country, one can at least appreciate how the existence of these organisations, and the wide range of responsibilities delegated to their control, separates the voter even further from the source of the decision making, undermining the democratic legitimacy of the regulations passed by these organisations. In other words, the law makers are not accountable to us. They have no obligation to the people. We cannot sack them.
In many ways, for reasons outlined here, the European Union is the biggest quango of them all, if you like, the quango to end all quangos. It proceeds to suck the decision making capabilities from accountable elected parliaments to unaccountable institutions funded by the EU itself.
We cannot let the democracy of the United Kingdom be constantly undermined by unaccountable bodies led by unknown unelected bureaucrats, legislating over the British people from the shadows. We need to transfer power back to elected representatives, those that are accountable to the people. We need to make sure that quangos are only created in cases where they are absolutely necessary, and even then, that their agendas and budgets are monitored and approved by parliament and that their continuation in the future is re-evaluated each year.
But this is just the first step, if you will, in establishing a better functioning democracy. Once the power is back in the hands of the elected representative, there is then the issue of making sure that the elected representative is a true representative of the represented and not a pawn to the many other forces at work.
Here Douglas Carswell makes the case for more direct democracy and more open competition in politics:
No comments:
Post a Comment