The Failure of British Democratic Institutions
A salient feature of the Brexit crisis in Britain is the failure of any British democratic institutions, including elections, parliamentary debates, votes and proceedures, to sort out the contradictions within the ruling class over control of Britain’s economy and political power, including control of northern Ireland. The government of Boris Johnson now once again says it has reached an 11th-hour agreement with the European Union (EU) if only it can get it agreed to. In recent weeks alone, there has been tearing up constitutional norms and conventions with such brazenness that it is causing serious disruption to the status quo itself.
The faction which is now dominant in the ruling Conservative Party has swept aside any dissenting voice and has ejected the old guard from their posts. The government is now so far in the minority that in no way can it be said to command the confidence of the House of Commons, to use the jargon of parliamentary democracy. The developments have cast aside the pretense of strength and stability in which former Prime Minister Theresa May wrapped her tenure. “We Will Get Things Done,” the ruling faction now cries. This declaration that now anything goes is rife with foreboding of more chaos to come. Lacking any legitimacy and already in conflict with other sections of the establishment such as that represented by the Supreme Court and demands for constitutional government, the Boris Johnson backers seem ready to set themselves up as a Civil War government but even this is crisis-ridden because it has nobody to back it.
In this situation, the people of Britain are organising to bring into being new forms in which they not only express opposition to what the establishment is trying to impose on them but also voice their own concerns. More and more people speak about the need to empower themselves so as to be able to make the decisions that favour them. They want to themselves participate in setting the agenda and create new forms in which they speak in their own name.
“People cannot afford to get embroiled in the call that parliamentary democracy must be restored to resolve the situation, or to get divided on the basis that the fight is parliament versus the people,” Workers’ Weekly, the newspaper published by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist, wrote.
A change from sovereignty residing in the monarch to sovereignty residing in the people is required, a radical departure from the rule of the few in their narrow interests over the many, to the rule of the many in the broad public interest. It is only possible to be consistent with the aspirations and demands of the people at this time in history if there is a clear affirmation and definition that the decision-making power resides with the people; and society is no longer divided between those who rule and those who are ruled. The crisis in Britain shows that the current institutions, processes and practices act as a block to the empowerment of the people, to a realisation of their right to govern themselves which is consistent with the modern requirements of democracy. This situation has led to a widespread discontent among the different sections of society, particularly with politicians and the political parties and the growing demand for changes which favour the people. A modern democratic personality emerges from the striving of the people for empowerment.