Search

This article explores the relationship between crises and democracy through a focus on the unfolding coronavirus pandemic. Its central argument is that to interpret the current pandemic purely in terms of its epidemiology and public health implications risks overlooking its potentially more significant socio-political consequences. This is because the challenges posed by the coronavirus crisis have themselves become overlaid or layered-upon a pre-existing set of concerns regarding the performance, efficiency and capacity of democratic political structures. The aim of this article is to try and understand and warn against what might be termed a rather odd form of cross-contamination whereby the cynicism, negativity and frustration concerning politicians, political processes and political institutions that existed before the coronavirus outbreak is allowed to direct, define and automatically devalue how democratic structures are subsequently judged in terms of how they responded to the challenge. As such, this article focuses on the link between the Coronavirus crisis and the democratic crisis; or, more precisely, the risk that the Coronavirus crisis may mutate into and fuel a broader crisis of democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the singular importance of the work of national politicians in creating legislation, representing constituents and holding government to account, relatively little work has been done concerning their wellbeing and psychological health. There are unique, as well as universal, stressors that impact upon politicians; a neglect of these issues has profound consequences for those individuals and wider democracy. We propose a 'taxonomy of stressors' as a starting point for further inter-disciplinary and comparative research, and argue that it offers analytical leverage vis-à-vis a far broader set of debates concerning the future of representative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the concept of 'meta-constitutional orientations' to understand the New Labour's bi-constitutionalism. The New Labour's consensual approach is discussed and evaluated.

The rapid growth in the role, responsibilities and size of the British state has challenged constitutional processes of accountability, notably individual ministerial responsibility to Parliament, as many functions are delegated to organizations that enjoy a degree of autonomy from direct ministerial control. These bodies are playing a valuable role in the governance of Britain, most notably through the alleviation of ministerial overload.

An extensive literature on aversive constitutionalism and elite blockages outlines the manner in which embedded political elites will generally reject or dilute reform agendas that threaten their privileged position within a constitutional configuration. It is for exactly this reason that the same seam of scholarship frequently highlights the role of crises in terms of providing a 'window of opportunity' through which a significant or fundamental recalibration of a political system may be achieved. 'The Palace of Westminster' the Joint Committee on Restoration and Renewal (R&R) concluded in September 2016 'faces an impending crisis which we cannot possibly ignore'. Their recommendation was that the Palace be completely vacated for five to eight years so that a multibillion-pound programme of rebuilding work can be undertaken. This article offers the first research-based analysis of the 'Scoping & Planning' stage (2012-2016) and reveals the 'hidden politics' of R&R in the sense of how it threatens both the British Political Tradition and the position of the two main parties. This explains the nature of the very closed and secretive decision-making processes that have characterised this stage and why a number of formative decision-making points that have been deployed to frame and restrict the reform parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There can be little doubt that of all the great 'enduring ideas' there can be few so central to modern life around the world as 'democracy'. Indeed, an ongoing academic monitoring project has so far catalogued over 500 variants, forms or sub-species of this model of social organisation. It is therefore both a concept with adjectives and also a concept with something of an image problem and this is reflecting in a vast literature that revolves around the perceived growth of 'disaffected democrats'. So what is the problem with democracy? This article responds by identifying not one but seven 'problems' with democracy which, when woven together, reveal a withering away of our capacity to re-imagine a different way of living; to re-connect with those around us; to re-interpret challenges as opportunities or to re-define how we understand and make democracy work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charter 88 was committed to achieving one central aim—shifting the nature of British democracy from a highly majoritarian polity to a more pluralistic or consensual model of democracy. This article argues that New Labour has not demonstrated a clear commitment to a more consensual or pluralist model of democracy but has instead implemented a bi-constitutional system whereby a system of ‘modified majoritarianism’ has been retained at the national level while at the same time creating more consensual and pluralistic polities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However bi-constitutionalism within a unitary state is unlikely to prove unstable in the long-term. A focus on future dynamics opens up space not only for the assertion that it may still be too soon to comprehend the legacy and impact of Charter 88 (because the organisation's work planted certain seeds that may in the long-term indirectly lead to systemic change of the nature it campaigned for) but also because there exists a contemporary need for groups like Charter 88 in providing a new narrative in the form of a holist approach to understanding and shaping the constitutional configuration, thereby providing a form of constitutional morality and ending the current situation of constitutional anomie. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]