The Forums of Glennain

[doHTML]Our Constitution
A Discussion from the Democratic Monarchist Party
By Sir Kieran Evereste[/doHTML]


One of the arguments presented in favour of the passage of the Bergen constitution was that it brought Hanover more into line with Westminster constitutional theory, which was important due to Hanover's borrowing of British constitutional tradition.

What defines the British constitutional model is the existence of a broadly unwritten constitution, a series of conventions, or understandings, on how the whole edifice will work. With the imminent conclusion of our first election under the Bergen constitution, I think it is time we had a much-needed discussion of how our constitution works in real terms.

I would like to take this opportunity to advance some ideas on understanding our constitution.

Is there a government?

In the Westminster system formal executive power is vested in the Monarch. The Monarch delegates this power to a cabinet of ministers headed by the Prime Minister, who reach a decision and then present unanimous recommendations to the Privy Council. The Prime Minister and the other ministers in cabinet are the 'government' (in the US the term 'administration' might be used). Does such an arrangement exist under our constitution? Does the King govern, or is this function delegated?

Under our constitution the Prime Minister is defined as the King's "Chief Advisor".

Our constitution establishes a cabinet, defined as a committee of the Privy Council, defines the Prime Minister as its leader and gives it the role of "coordinating the actions of the Ministers." Within Chapter IV: The Executive, the Prime Minister and Cabinet are not defined as the government; in fact the word is not used. However Article 40 states, “On the advice of the Prime Minister, the Monarch may appoint a Lord Advocate to defend the Government in legal cases brought against it.”

Whilst not overtly stated, I am sure we all agree that it is clear that the intention of the Bergen constitution is that executive power be delegated to a government of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. What remains now is for our monarch and his ministers to enshrine this in convention through common practice.


Who is the Prime Minister?

Article 21 ensures that the Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament. In a Westminster system the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who achieves a majority in the lower house of Parliament, s/he is also a member of that house. It is through this measure that democratic accountability of the executive is achieved.

In Westminster systems measures concerning the raising and spending of money originate in the democratically elected lower house. When it comes to enshrining this convention in a constitution it usually takes the form of “money bills must originate in the lower house” or some such wording. The reason for this is that money and taxation is integral to governing, money and taxation are a monopoly of the house of government because the government must have a monopoly on such measures.

Article 29 e. states “The House of Lords may originate any Bill or Resolution not involving the taxation of the people.” And Article 30 e. states “The House of Commons may originate any Bill or Resolution.”

The Bergen constitution gives this essential power of government to the democratically accountable house of government, just like the Westminster and various Westminster modelled systems this constitution seeks to emulate.


Who in the Commons should be Prime Minister?

In the Westminster system the Prime Minister is appointed from the party or coalition in majority in the lower house. The purpose of this is two-fold. For a government to govern, they must have reasonable ability to get the money measures so essential to government through the house of government. But there is a second reason, and far more important reason for this. It is through this requirement that democratic accountability of the executive is achieved.

In the Westminster system members are elected to represent a seat, a group of citizens in a defined locality. They in turn support a government, and if people disapprove of the governments actions it can be held to account, as the members it relies upon for support are replaced at the next election.

In adhering to the principles of Westminster systems that drove the establishment of the Bergen constitution it would appear that the Prime Minister should be appointed from the majority in the commons. Without this how can there be any democracy?

Consider the importance of the second and third articles of our constitution. The third mandates that our nation shall be a constitutional monarchy, and the second mandates that “sovereignty of the state emanates from the people.”

What does the “sovereignty emanating from the people” mean? It means that the exercise of state authority, be it by the King, parliament or government derives its legitimacy from the people who comprise the state.

There exists a chain of accountability. People elect a parliament, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament (by requiring the support of its majority to pass money-tax bills and thus govern) and the King formally exercises the sovereignty that emanates from the people by acting on the advice of those bodies ultimately accountable to the people.

Without this chain of accountability, the exercise of sovereignty would not ultimately have emanated from the people.

The Westminster system and our systems require a chain of accountability. Unless the Prime Minister is accountable to the Parliament, our constitution’s most basic precepts have been violated.


In Conclusion

Sometimes the Bergen constitution appears vague, it does not explicitly state every minor detail about the day-to-day operation of the Kingdom of Hanover. However the intent of the constitution is clear. Formal power is vested in the King, but this power emanates from the Hanoverian people. There is a government, lead by a Prime Minister, who is appointed from the majority within the House of Commons. The entire system is bound together by a chain of accountability. I look forward to seeing this system applied.

Sir Kieran,

Thank you for this analysis: I think it is very useful for those of our citizens raised under the US Constitutional tradition to realise that convention is an important part of constitutional monarchy, and how these conventions usually apply.

I agree with the vast majority of your discussion. I think the crux of the matter is this paragraph:

"People elect a parliament, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament (by requiring the support of its majority to pass money-tax bills and thus govern) and the King formally exercises the sovereignty that emanates from the people by acting on the advice of those bodies ultimately accountable to the people."

This is of course is meant to apply to both the UK and Hanover under the Bergen Constitution. In terms simply of Hanover, I would add that the idea of "sovereignty emanating from the people" is particularly true, because unlike in the UK, all Hanoverians are completely free to be part of Hanover or not. That situation means that the king has the implicit support of his subjects, simply because they choose to be here.

The one point with which I do take issue is the idea that it is vital the Prime Minister come from the lower house (the Commons). In fact, this is not the case, and it is only relatively recently that British Prime Ministers have begun to come exclusively from the Commons: up to the end of the 20th Century, Prime Ministers were almost exclusively from the Lords.

The fact is that government is accountable to the people through their elected representatives - without the cooperation of these, no government can function properly. As you point out, the Commons controls taxation.

The Prime Minister is responsible to the MPs who back him or her (usually through a Parliamentary Party), and these MPs can withdraw their support without any kind of national vote, as was the case with Margaret Thatcher's downfall. The Westminster system does not therefore, either in the UK or in Hanover, rely on the idea that the Prime Minister is accountable directly to his constituents.

Nevertheless, on the whole your post is a very concise and accurate picture of how the Bergen Constitution is designed to work, and how I, too, hope to see it working very soon.

The Prime Minister must be democratically accountable to the commons, otherwise the chain of accountability would be broken. Whilst it is only in the last hundred years or so that the Prime Minister has been drawn from the commons, it is now unthinkable that a Prime Minister would be a peer. As democracy has become important in the system, the system has evolved to be more democratic and the PM has become a member of the commons.

I would argue that at the very least, to ensure an unbroken chain of accountability and to hold true to the second article of our constitution, no member of the peers could be Prime Minister without the support of the majority of the commons.

It must remain convention within Hanover, as it is in every other Westminster system, that a Prime Minister is only Prime Minister so long as he holds the confidence of the lower house of Parliament.

Friends,

It is good that the national dialog begins to work with the finer details of the new Organic Law. We find it still a bit in the rough and by lots of constructive discussion we might arrive at a best answer.

While it has been Our intention to move in the direction of a Westminster style democracy, it has never been Our intention to impose every detail of that system in Hanover.

The UK system addresses a different set of problems, although there is much overlap with those and the issues faced by Hanover.

Our primary goal has always been to construct a system which best serves HANOVER and in the name of such a quest We shall take and leave those things which suit the pruposes of Hanover.

Our Duke is correct in that Our reign is ALWAYS subject to popular consent as, unlike the UK, people can simply depart.

Insisting that Hanover adopt the system of any other nation is silly on the face of it. If that were acceptable to Us we would have long ago imposed an American system as it is what We are most comfortable with. BUT, Our personal preference cannot be allowed to stand in the way on such a critical decision.

The need to restrict the Prime Minister to the House of Commons does not serve the same purpose in Hanover as it does in the UK.

These are the exact discussions we need to be having and it is good to see them happening.

Regards,
HM Alexander of All Hanover

Sir,

I think it may not be essential to restrict the PM to the lower house, but it is certainly preferable. In order to ensure some form of democratic accountability the Prime Minister must ultimately be accountable to the elected house of parliament. In Hanover there are no taxes, the lower house can't force the effective end of a government. However unless the lower house can end a government there is no accountability, teh whole concept is meaningless.

I think we need to enshrine accountability in the conventions that we develop over time. No Prime Minister should be Prime Minister without, at bare minimum the confidence of the Commons.

I agree that we need not, nor in fact can we, copy a system entirely, however I think that without establishing a westminster style chain of accountability the actions of government would be illegitmate.

Ultimately yes, people could just immigrate if things got bad, But that shouldn't happen. We need to establish a better, more responsive and less extreme method of accountability and thus establish the legitimacy of government actions in a way that is benificial for Hanover.

Gentlemen,

This is certainly going to be a very interesting debate. I tend to the view that whilst Hanover may draw on ouside influences in constructing its form of government, it does not base itself exclusively on any one model. I think that it is perfectly right that it should not. We are our own country after all.

In form, we have opted for a Westminster style but the content may not neccessarily be so. There is nothing in the constitution for example which prevents a peer from being Prime Minister. It is perfectly within the competence of His Majesty to re-appoint Count Durham if he so pleases. There is nothing to say that the role of the House of Lords is akin to that in the British model. The Hanoverian House of Lords could well develop into something like the United States Senate.

Whilst it is clear that certain gaps in the constitution will need to be filled in by convention and accepted practice, it is not a foregone conclusion that those conventions will be taken from the British, American or any other system. They will be developed in accordance with the needs and requirements of ourselves in Hanover.

Sir Kieran,

I agree that the government should be accountable to the House of Commons. I do not believe that means the Prime Minister must be from the Commons.

The Constitution requires that both Houses agree (either independently or in Joint Session) to any Bill. So, the Government cannot pass any law without the consent of the Commons. Clearly, this would mean that any government without the support of the Commons would be severely crippled.

I think it might solve your dilemma if we were to agree to establish a convention, whereby the Government (i.e. the PM and his Ministers) will resign if the Commons passes a vote of "no confidence" (in the form of a resolution) in the government. That would result either in the King choosing a new Prime Minister from the party of majority in the Commons, or in a new General Election being called. This convention, combined with the already existing convention that the Prime Minister is chosen from the party of majority, should assure the accountability of the Government.

I believe Count Durham and my Unity Party colleagues in the Commons will agree to establish this convention, and I think it would also have the support of independent Lords and MPs.

This presents a good solution, as long they are adhered to, such convention would result in a reasonable chain of accountability.

I would remind all interested parties that constitutional conventions are created by general consent. Not the preference of certain individuals.

And this is a discussion where various conventions are being discussed and put foward as suggestions for people to follow.

Convention is not however created by general consent, but rather the consent/intent of those involved in governance. Without discussion, proposal and the achievement of this desired consensus cannot occur.