Categories
Blog

Too Much Shredded Wheat? Leadership and the lessons of prime ministerial resignations

By Kingsley Purdam, Dave Richards and Nick Turnbull

On both sides of the Atlantic, the New Year has offered up contrasting but related events concerning the highest office of state. First, there was President Obama’s last State of the Union address, a constitutional nicety driven by the limits placed on presidential terms in the USA. For Americans, this valedictory tour de force has a familiar and predictable pattern to it; an opportunity for the incumbent to survey the highlights and narrate their own legacy, so focusing America’s mind on the issue of succession. It is notable that elsewhere and under different circumstances, some political leaders have sought to lead indefinitely, even changing their countries’ constitutions to allow them an extended period of office. President Robert Mugabe has held power in Zimbabwe since 1987. In Rwanda, President Paul Kagame has extended his right to rule until 2034. Similarly, one of the world’s longest serving leaders President Paul Biya of Cameroon has revised his country’s constitution to allow him to continue as president. President Putin served two terms and then stepped down because of Russia’s constitutional limits, only to return in 2012. During his interim, presidential terms in Russia just happened to be extended from four to six years! On this side of the Atlantic, the Prime Minister David Cameron has already, of his own apparent volition, opted to step down ahead of the 2020 General Election. Cameron mused that two terms as Prime Minister were quite enough, stressing the importance of retaining his sanity. Yet in January 2016, he suggested that in the event of a ‘Brexit’, he would seek to remain in office for a full term.

So what can we learn about politics and leadership from leaders who resign their roles when they could stay on? What is the optimum time for being a political leader?

Categories
Blog

Voting on Military Action in Syria (Part II)

Please note that this piece was published on the UK Constitutional Law Association’s blog on 01 December 2015, and is available here. It has been re-published here with the permission of the author.

By Hayley J. Hooper

This post is intended as a follow on to Veronika Fikfak’s recent post on the international law dimensions of armed conflict as they affect the role of the UK Parliament. Recent reports suggest that a parliamentary vote on extending military action against ISIS/ISIL from Iraq into Syrian territory may take place this week. However, the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament announced that: ‘there will not be a vote in this House unless there is a clear majority for action, because we will not hand a publicity coup to ISIL.’ So, it seems the ‘historic’ democratisation of the war prerogative via the Consultation Convention is already in doubt. But equally, we should caution against the view that any parliamentary involvement, even in the sense of legitimation which Cameron’s statement seems to suggest is the preferred option is an unqualified good. The availability of a vote in the House of Commons does not automatically signal a reduction in the ‘democratic deficit’ which exists in relation to the British control of armed conflict powers. Instead, this blog posits that any such engagement of Parliament must be both informed and principled before it can be worthwhile. Three barriers to such informed and principled engagement currently exist in the British parliamentary constitution which are perhaps under-discussed by constitutional lawyers. The purpose of this piece, then, is to bring them into the open to stimulate further discussion.

Categories
Blog

Voting on Military Action in Syria (Part I)

Please note that this piece was published on the UK Constitutional Law Association’s blog on 28 November 2015, and is available here. It has been re-published here with the permission of the author.

By Veronika Fikfak

Next week Members of Parliament will debate and vote on whether to support the Government’s proposal to extend military action against Islamic State (IS) to Syria. On Thursday, the Prime Minister made his case to the House, relying on the new Security Council Resolution to insist that the intervention would be legal. In this post, I analyse the limits of this argument, showing that the Resolution adopted by the Security Council does not unequivocally make the use of force legal. More importantly, however, I make the case that next week MPs should not limit their questions and therefore scrutiny of the Government’s proposals to international (legal) questions but rather turn their attention inwards – to domestic interest, concerns and implications of any future action.

Categories
Blog

After the election: Burma’s Pyidaungsu Hluttaw

By Liam Allmark

Last month’s election to Burma’s Pyidaungsu Hluttaw was an historic moment for the country and an important juncture in its ongoing political transition. Unlike the 2010 election which fell short of international standards and was boycotted by the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), the majority of Burma’s people were this time able to exercise a real choice.

Categories
Blog

The Petitions Committee’s first six months – paving the way for a new style of public engagement

Please note that this piece was originally published on the Constitution Unit blog, and is available here.

The 2015 parliament has seen the establishment of a new Petitions Committee and e-petitions system. Cristina Leston-Bandeira discusses the committee’s initial activity, arguing that it has achieved much in the space of six months and has the potential to pave the way towards a new kind of public engagement with parliament.

Categories
Blog

The Art of Oratory in the House of Commons

By Andrew Crines

The House of Commons represents one of the main arenas where our politicians seek to make a name for themselves. Be that in the feisty engagements at PMQs, or more generally through the normal deliberative debates, noteworthy MPs have used the Chamber to orate effectively when pursuing a particular line.

Categories
Blog

Select Committees Should Leave the Westminster Bubble

Please note that this piece was originally published on the PSA Insights Blog, available here.

By Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter

Following from yesterday’s launch of the report ‘Building Public Engagement: Options for Developing Select Committee Outreach’, Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter (The Crick Centre, University of Sheffield), discusses the findings from her, Prof. Matthew Flinders and Prof. Ian Marsh’s research. The research was commissioned, and published, by the Liaison Committee. You can access the report in full here.

Categories
Blog

Reforming the Italian Senate

Please note that this post was originally published on the UCL Constitution Unit‘s blog, and is available here.

By Roberta Damiani

The UK is far from the only country with a long-standing controversy over the composition and powers of its second chamber. In this post Roberta Damiani provides an update on the latest attempt to reform the Italian Senate. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is proposing to significantly reduce the Senate’s powers, and to move from direct to indirect elections, but it is far from certain that he will be successful.

Categories
Blog

Parliamentary Researchers: The unsung heroes of Westminster?

By Robert Dale

‘Much is written about the work of MPs, but comparatively less is written about their staff’ says John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, in the forward to my book How to be a Parliamentary Researcher.

Categories
Blog

The impact of academia on Parliament: 45 percent of Parliament-focused impact case studies were from social sciences

Please note that this piece was originally published on the LSE Impact Blog on 19 October (available here), and has been re-published with permission from the Impact Blog and the author.

By Caroline Kenny

The impact case studies, submitted as part for the REF, tell an interesting story about how UK academia interacts with policy at a local, national and international level. Over 40 per cent of cases mentioned impact on policy as part of their narrative.