The Constitution Unit Blog

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Constitutions and Constitution-Making
  • Deliberative Democracy
  • Nations and Regions
  • Elections and Referendums
  • Government
  • Judiciary and Human Rights
  • Monarchy, Church and State
  • Parliament
  • Parties and Politicians

Category Archives: Public Engagement and Policy Making

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts→

Monitor 79: Is this what democratic backsliding feels like? Constitutional developments under the Johnson government.

Posted on November 10, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

The latest edition of Monitor, the Unit’s regular news update on constitutional issues, was published today. The Brexit vote happened more than five years ago, but many of the the worrying constitutional trends that characterised the years that immediately followed the referendum remain a part of public life. Here, in the lead article from Monitor 79, Unit Director Meg Russell and Deputy Director Alan Renwick express serious concerns about a repeated lack of parliamentary scrutiny, proposed changes to the way elections are overseen and conducted, standards in public life, the proper role of government, and the effect of all four on the perception of our public servants.

Each new issue of Monitor for the last three years has reported on torrid developments in UK constitutional politics. Brexit, the 2019 general election and COVID-19 all raised new and difficult questions about democratic governance and the balance of power between our institutions. As the political dominance of the pandemic fades, and matters tentatively approach something closer to ‘normal’, constitutional controversy nonetheless remains centre stage.

A major question raised in the previous Monitor, and bubbling for some time before that, is whether the UK is witnessing a kind of ‘democratic backsliding’, whereby elected politicians gradually dismantle the checks and balances that constrain their power. The UK government’s legislative programme, and its wider activities as reported in this issue, have done little to soothe those fears. A valuable new online tracker, launched in October by the Public Law Project, allows for systematic exploration of constitutional developments throughout the period of the Johnson government. 

The action that achieved greatest cut-through was the government’s extraordinarily ill-judged attempt to change how allegations of misconduct against MPs are dealt with, in response to dissatisfaction with the outcome of a given case – that of Conservative former cabinet minister Owen Paterson. The mechanism proposed for the review – a Commons committee with a government majority – was also entirely inappropriate. The ensuing controversy was still raging as Monitor went to press.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Print & PDF (Opens in new window) Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Devolution, Elections and referendums, Europe, Government, Judiciary and human rights, Parliament, Parties and politicians, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Alan Renwick, backsliding, citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, Committee on Standards and Privileges, committee on standards in public life, Culture Secretary, David Amess, Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, Dominic Raab, Elections Bill, Electoral Commission, first past the post, House of Commons, Independent Human Rights Act Reviww, Judicial Review and Courts Bill, Justice Secretary, Lord Frost, mayoral elections, meg russell, Monitor, Monitor 79, MPs, Nadine Dorries, Northern Ireland Protocol, online harms, Online Safety Bill, Owen Paterson, parliamentary scrutiny, Police and Crime Commissioner elections, public appointments, retained EU law, Suella Braverman | 2 Comments

Implementing the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK  

Posted on October 22, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit is currently running a Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK as part of its Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. As the Assembly nears the halfway point in its deliberations, the project’s Research Assistant, James Cleaver, describes the principles that have shaped its design.

The first two weekends of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK – which met online on 18–19 September and 9–10 October – have concluded successfully. These initial weekends focused on introducing assembly members to the Assembly process, to the principles of democracy and to the operation of democracy in the UK today. This weekend it will start to focus in on more concrete institutional questions. So now is an appropriate time to review how the Assembly has been designed and how it is going so far.

Recruiting members

As the project lead, Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick, outlined in a previous post, we have recruited the Assembly’s 74 or so members to be representative of the UK population. That matters for two main reasons.

First, diversity of membership means that individuals from all walks of life across all parts of the UK are involved in the discussions. Such a broad range of personal perspectives should lead to more considered and holistic conclusions. Second, representativeness is essential to the legitimacy of the Assembly’s conclusions. The Assembly offers insight into what the country as a whole might think if all citizens could participate in this process.                                                       

Bringing together a representative sample of the UK population has not been without its challenges – we saw an unusually high number of individuals withdraw from the process between initial recruitment and the opening weekends. This likely reflects in part the circumstances of this moment in time: as society reopens following months of restrictions, many may find the prospect of spending six weekends on Zoom unappealing. It may also be an inherent feature of running an assembly online: members do not have to plan for a weekend away from home, so the exigencies of their personal lives may be more likely to intervene. In addition, this Assembly is not connected to an official implementing authority, such as government.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Print & PDF (Opens in new window) Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, citizens' assemblies, deliberative democracy, Democracy in the UK after Brexit, Involve, James Cleaver, Sortition Foundation

Launching the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK

Posted on September 17, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

The Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK – part of the Unit’s current research project examining attitudes to democracy in the UK – will meet for the first time this weekend. The project’s lead, Alan Renwick, here answers five key questions about what the Assembly will do, how it will operate, and why it deserves attention.

This weekend, 75 members of the public, from all walks of life and across the UK, will gather online to begin examining the question ‘How should the UK’s democracy work?’. This Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK is part of the Constitution Unit’s wider research project Democracy in the UK after Brexit, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) through its Governance after Brexit programme.

1. What will the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK look at?

The assembly will focus on how people think democracy in the UK should work. What principles do assembly members think the democratic system should uphold in its design and operation? How do they think power within the system should be distributed – in particular, what roles do they think should be played by core parts of the system, including parliament, government, courts, and members of the public? And what behaviours do they expect from politicians and their fellow citizens?

A citizens’ assembly is designed to enable informed discussion, so we cannot cover everything – we have had to make hard choices. We can’t get into the detail of institutions such as the voting system or House of Lords. Nor will we address the territorial dimension of democracy – how power should be distributed between UK-wide and devolved levels, or what powers local councils should have. These matters would require multiple assemblies meeting across the country.

Nevertheless, the discussions and recommendations will be as relevant in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as at UK level. The question of how democracy is best configured and practised applies equally in all these settings.

2. Why do these questions need attention?

Democracy works best when public confidence in its functioning is high. Yet confidence in the operation of the democratic system in the UK (as in many other long-established democracies) is low. Various surveys – including the British Social Attitudes survey and the Hansard Society’s Audit of Political Engagement – have mapped this problem over many years. But there has been little attempt to dig deeper into people’s thinking. The project will help fill that gap.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Print & PDF (Opens in new window) Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Brexit, Europe, Events, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Alan Renwick, Alex Salmond, Audit of Political Engagement, British Social Attitudes, citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, citizens' assemblies, citizens' assembly, Coronavirus, deliberative democracy, democracy, Democracy in the UK after Brexit, democratic engagement, Extinction Rebellion, Hansard Society, Involve, Ireland, Irish abortion referendum, Irish Citizens Assembly, policy making, same sex marriage, Sortition Foundation | 1 Comment

The momentum behind climate assemblies

Posted on August 4, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

Following an increase in the use of citizens’ assemblies to aid policymakers in seeking solutions to the problems posed by climate change, Robert Liao asks why this particular subject is so commonly the theme of citizens’ assemblies, before analysing whether such processes produce recommendations that genuinely inform policymaking.

The so-called ‘deliberative wave’ of recent years and months has seen citizens’ assemblies convened by a number of national and local or regional governments. Of these assemblies, climate change is the most popular topic. In the past year, high-profile climate assemblies in the UK, France, Scotland, Denmark and Germany have made recommendations for policymakers, while further assemblies have been convened or announced in Austria and Spain. Local democracy is seeing a similar surge in climate assemblies: a January post on the Unit’s blog found that nine out of 13 recent local citizens’ assemblies in the UK focused on climate change or air quality.

This post explores two questions: Why, exactly, is climate change so popular as a topic for citizens’ assemblies? And do these deliberative mini-publics actually produce recommendations which inform green policymaking?

Why Climate Change?

The most obvious answer to this question is that climate change is, arguably, the biggest threat facing humanity, and we are already feeling its devastating effects. The climate plays an ever-bigger role in global politics: over 100 countries have pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Given this, it is to be expected that green policy would be an important issue to put to citizens’ assemblies.

But citizens’ assemblies may be especially well–suited to finding solutions on an issue such as climate change. In an age of unprecedented division and polarisation, it is increasingly difficult to reach a political consensus. This is particularly true for what are sometimes called ‘wicked problems’: multi-faceted dilemmas[DB1]  that resist solution through conventional channels. It is precisely these problems that cause politicians greatest difficulty: politicians know that action is needed, but they fear being punished at the polls for whatever actions they opt for. Rebecca Willis, one of the expert leads for Climate Assembly UK, has identified a ‘dual reality’, in which most politicians acknowledge the growing danger of climate change but carry on with politics as usual. In a study following a series of interviews with MPs, she determined that climate action is still seen as an issue outside the political mainstream, and so few MPs consider it in their interest to act decisively on the climate.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Print & PDF (Opens in new window) Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 2004 British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, Austria, British Columbia, Canada, Climate Assembly UK, climate change, deliberative democracy, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Jersey, oregon, oregon citizens' initiative, robert liao, Scotland, Scotland's Climate Assembly, South Wales Valleys, Tees Valley | 1 Comment

Monitor 78: Constitutional uncertainty on multiple fronts

Posted on July 6, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

The latest edition of Monitor, the Unit’s regular news update on constitutional issues, was published today. In this lead article from Monitor 78, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick discuss the continuing uncertainty about the future of the Union, government plans to change how and when we elect our political leaders, the rolling disputes about the Northern Ireland Protocol, plans to rebalance the constitution and reform the judiciary, and the increasingly relevant debate about ministerial standards.

There has been no sign of let up in the pace or breadth of constitutional developments since the last edition of Monitor in March. Voters across Great Britain went to the polls in a bumper crop of elections in May (following cancellation of last year’s round due to COVID-19). In the Queen’s Speech a few days later, the government promised several major constitutional bills.

Two overarching themes have dominated: significant uncertainty about the future of the UK Union; and pressing concerns around the risk of democratic backsliding – associated with declining constitutional standards and a weakening of checks and balances. Both themes were explored in depth at a major online conference on the Johnson government’s constitutional reform agenda co-organised by the Unit in June.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Print & PDF (Opens in new window) Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Brexit, Constitutions and constitution making, Devolution, digital democracy, Elections and referendums, Europe, Events, Government, International, Judiciary and human rights, Parliament, Parties and politicians, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Alan Renwick, boris johnson, Electoral Commission, Electoral reform, England, judicial review, Lord Faulks, meg russell, ministerial code, ministers, Monitor, Monitor 78, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Union, Wales

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts→
About the Constitution Unit
Sign up to our mailing list

If you are having problems subscribing to our blog, sign up using our form hosted in MailChimp, selecting 'Blog'.

Copyright
Powered by WordPress.com.
The Constitution Unit Blog
Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Able.
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d