by
R J Higginson
I beg your patience with an idea in political philosophy, concerning two forms of "democratic legitimacy".
The House of Lords (which Mr. Blair is so keen to reform) acts with an authority which exceeds that of the present Government.
That is, The Lords usually takes note of what the people actually want on any particular issue. This confers the Democratic Legitimacy of PRAXIS.
The Government has the Democratic Legitimacy of APPOINTMENT, which it then takes to mean authority to do whatever the Cabinet wish to do, with no regard for what the people actually want.
Thus the Government act as a dictatorship, claiming authority of election although this may be through the votes of a minority or the electorate. Dr. Aidan Rankin (in a Comment in The Times last autumn) put it very neatly when he observed that people often vote for the candidate they dislike least.
On the other hand, The House of Lords on many issues follows the actual wishes of the electorate. Thereby it gains a "democratic legitimacy" of far higher standing than the Government.
This was obvious about 18 months ago following the debate about the age of consent for homosexuality. The Lords had responded to the overwhelming wish of the majority of ordinary people. But Mr. Blair's reaction was to get rid of the Peers.
The Lords also has an authority of expertise, but that is not my main theme here.
One can only hope that a reformed House of Lords will retain both the expertise, and the ability to listen to the people, that the House has shown in recent years.
R J Higginson
28 January 2000
copyright.