Goodbye Democracy?

It has become a political fact of life that democracy onboth sides of the Atlantic is under severe threat.

The latest proof of this danger is the Senate acquittal ofDonald Trump in a judicial exercise that Stalin’s Moscow show trials look likeparagons of legal transparency and justice. The Conservative British governmentis going in the same direction, albeit by a different route.

The root of the problem is respect—or lack of respect—forthe rule of law. For democracy to work it needs clear legal parameters andelected political leaders who accept that their responsibility is to representtheir constituents within a legally binding constitutional framework.

The importance of working within the law is emphasised bythe fact that the American president, vice president, all cabinet members,senators, congressmen, judges, military officers, diplomats, civil servantsfrom middle-rank and above, and all local elected officials right down to dogcatcher are required by law to “solemnly” swear “to support and defend theconstitution of the United States.” They cannot start their job until they havemade the oath. And for the word “constitution” you may substitute “law” becausethe constitution is America’s legal framework.

Britain has a similar arrangement, although the monarch’sname is substituted for the word constitution. This is because the Queen is aconstitutional monarch and the UK’s constitution is unwritten. Therefore, theoath takers swear allegiance to the Queen and “Her heirs and successors” as thephysical embodiment of the nation’s laws, history, traditions and culture.Again, before an MP can take his seat in the House of Commons they must takethe oath of office. The same is required of judges, diplomats, militaryofficers, senior civil servants and most of the police. Newly naturalisedcitizens are also required to take the oath. Sinn Fein MPs do not sit in theHouse of Commons because if they took the oath they would explicitly recognisethe law that separates Northern Ireland from Eire.   

The US presidential oath has been around since the firstdraft of the constitution was written in 1787. It was extended to everyone elseduring the Civil War. The British oath of allegiance dates back to the MagnaCarta and has gone through innumerable variations. The current wording has itsroots in Victorian England.

At no time are American oath takers required to swear aloyalty oath to any individual, political party or ideology. In fact, thefounding fathers made it abundantly clear that was a definite no, no becausethey associated personal political loyalties with the monarchical-dominatedfeudal system from which they had crossed the Atlantic and fought a war toescape. The national interest and the law as set out in the constitutiontranscend all other loyalties.

The problem is that in today’s America, Donald Trump hasmanaged to conflate the national interest with his personal interest. And hehas dragged the Republican Party, the Christian Right and other conservativeAmericans into the same political quagmire. American conservatism is now tiedto an individual who is prepared to solicit foreign governments for hispersonal political advancement and to withhold US government money as if it ishis own to secure their cooperation. On top of that, he refuses to provideCongress with witnesses or documents so that they can properly investigate thisabuse of power.  Meanwhile, the SenateRepublicans, after taking another oath to act as impartial jurors, refused toallow witnesses to be called in the president’s trial so that a full andtransparent hearing can be held. Instead they acquit the president afterhearing from Trump’s own lawyers that he did what the House of Representativessaid he did. Their defense? So what, he is the president, and besides, itwasn’t that bad.

In Britain the issue was not one of personal loyalty. BorisJohnson is not the sort of person to inspire a faithful following amongConservative party ranks. Instead it is born out of frustration created by theinevitable restrictions imposed by the law. Brexit and the issue ofparliamentary sovereignty were the catalysts. Having gone down the referendumroute, the government was faced with a parliament who thought that the anti-EUreferendum result was a mistake and, constitutionally-speaking, parliament hadthe final say.

Boris Johnson tried to circumvent this constitutional nicetyby proroguing parliament so that he could use his executive powers to enactBrexit while the Commons was in recess. The UK Supreme Court declared the moveillegal.  His next move was perfectlylegal. He called an election and won it with an overwhelming majority. Brexitis done. Or at least the basic framework is. The sinews, muscles, tendons and vital organs of trade are yet to benegotiated. Johnson has set a tough deadline of 31 December for a trade deal.If it is not met, he will, as he has threatened before, go for no deal.

The Prime Minister’s 80-seat majority and total disarray inthe Labour Party means that parliament is no longer a problem. The onlypotential opposition is from foot-dragging civil servants, the courts and thepress. Johnson’s eminence grise, Dominic Cummings, is working hard topolitically castrate all these camps. He has replaced career civil servantswith political appointees; barred journalists from press conferences;threatened the BBC and Channel 4 over the renewal of their renewal of theirlicenses; banned from ministers from talking to the press and talked of curbingthe power of the courts. Constitutional protections related to freedom ofspeech, press, and the independence of the civil service and the judiciary areunder threat from an un-elected official who is more interested in pursuing apolitical agenda than protecting the rule of law.  

What value is a trade deal if our democracy loses theprotection of the law?

Tom Arms’s book on Anglo-American relations (“America: Made in Britain”) is due to be published by Amberley Publishing in the autumn. You can subscribe to his free weekly podcast by emailing tom.arms@lookaheadtv.com