An elected Senate barely works in the US, so why would we replace the House of Lords with it?
A few months ago, I wrote a piece for The New Republic about how the British were aping the American constitution. There is a sense within the UK’s political establishment that the US “got it right” in the 18th century, and that only a mix of pride and vested interest has kept us from catching up. Finally, thanks to Nick Clegg, we might have a chance to bring the democratic revolution home by creating an elected second chamber. "Liberals of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your ermine…"
I suspect that the piece interested Americans a) because they always assumed the Brits liked their Ruritanian constitution (who wouldn’t want a Queen and her Lords?) and b) they were surprised that we would want to replicate the gridlock of the US settlement. For there are good reasons to be sceptical of the democratic dividend of an elected second house. It can prove to be a governmental nightmare – here's why:
1. People can get elected on a protest vote … and then you’re stuck with them. Many US Senators are elected on their individual merits, but some are elected as part of an electoral cycle of protest against the incumbent president. In 2006, several Democrats were returned from heavily Republican states in protest at the Iraq War. That’s democracy and it’s a great thing, but it can also mean that voters end up with a legislator a little to the Left of what they really want. Some of those Democrats have frustrated voters back home by proving to be ultra-liberal; others have led a double life – telling constituents one thing and then doing another in Washington. The benefit of the American system is that in order to get re-elected, many have subsequently dumped their liberal idealism and distanced themselves from Obama – joining the firewall against his jobs plan. The proposed UK reforms don’t include re-election, so we wouldn't even benefit from such low principle.
2. An elected Senate comes with a democratic mandate, which has often been a recipe for gridlock. Many of the most successful (in programmatic, not necessarily ethical terms) presidencies have enjoyed control of both Senate and House. Those would include, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. By contrast, the worst presidencies have often coincided with a period in which one or more branches of the legislative felt it had a democratic mandate that trumped the President's: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton. In the case of Nixon and Clinton, the Senate actually tried to remove the incumbent from office. One of the reasons for the colossal debts mounted up in the 1980s is that both Reagan and George HW Bush faced a divided Congress that refused to cut welfare. Both men also saw the Senate try to block their Supreme Court picks. In short, a president might get elected in a landslide (Reagan 1980, 1984 or Clinton 1996) and see their own mandate undone by an elected chamber that defines its role as purely oppositional.
3. The democratic form of the Senate has evolved over time, often at the expense of the Founding Fathers’ original vision. The Fathers were admirers of Parliament and were keen to recreate it, with certain improvements. They wanted a much wider franchise and to root power in the legislature (it’s a tragedy of history that it has wandered to the executive), but their goal was less to create an energetic, powerful democratic government than a limited one legitimised by popular participation. The distinction is important. The idea behind the Senate was that a) it would provide equal representation for the states (seats were not apportioned by population, unlike in the House) and b) it would act as a check on the government. Its makeup smacks less of popular democracy than of responsible statecraft. Key to this is that in the Senate’s earliest form, Senators were nominated by state legislatures rather than elected by the direct vote. Some hoped that this might provide an outlet for both state and aristocratic interests: a House of Lords in all but electoral procedure and name. Interestingly, there’s actually a demand among some Tea Party people to return to this system. They believe that the Senate has been corrupted by direct elections, reducing it to a body elected on popular whim.
Critics will note that a lot of these points are contradictory. Sometimes the Senate stonewalls legislation, other times it empowers populist governments by giving them the votes and legitimacy of democratic support.
But the point is that democratic constitutions evolve awkwardly and imperfectly. They are rarely, successfully re-imagined overnight and the addition of new layers of democratic participation doesn't necessarily create a better, more just government. The American model developed according to the needs of the American people, adapting against the context of civil war, westward expansion, the need to create a stronger state and, in recent years, executive overreach. The way the Senate sees itself today is still influenced by the contingencies of Watergate and Iran/Contra. The resulting tension between branches of government has created gridlock – a gridlock that some blame for America's stagnating economy.
Such a complex organ cannot be casually grafted onto the UK’s constitution. The foreign body will surely reject it. For close to two centuries, it has been understood in Britain that the Commons is the voice of the people and the Lords is a constitutional tool to check its power. Invariably, populist politicians have hated the Lords not only because it lacks a democratic mandate but also because it frustrates their power. But if they imagine that by importing the model of an elected second chamber they will solve all their problems, they are mistaken. The lesson from America is that they’ll just be creating a second body of power with all the problems of corruption, demagoguery and ego that come with it. We have the compromise that we currently enjoy for good historical reasons. The example of America offers little reason to undo it.
Doctor Who just came out – as a pro-life Christian conservative
October 9th, 2014 13:03
Why Ukip will win Clacton: Carswell and immigration
October 8th, 2014 7:00
'Baby Doc' Duvalier, the man who put a curse on Haiti
October 6th, 2014 6:00
Why Thatcherism without Margaret Thatcher might have been more popular
October 3rd, 2014 16:42
If you have to choose between being liberal and being Christian, choose Christian
October 3rd, 2014 14:22