The Sylvan democratic legitimacy debate considered the following motion:
This house believes the new government lacks democratic legitimacy.
The debate took place on Monday, 7th November. Apeike Umolu proposed the motion and Julian Meek opposed it.
The proposition arguing the UK’s new government does not have democratic legitimacy
The proposer opened with the context that we have had multiple political upheavals recently. Messy politics has happened before, yet this situation deviates from the norms that makes us the greatest democracy. We need to scrutinise an abuse of the British system. The Conservatives have held power for 12 years, and we need to think about democracy beyond the legal definition. There is currently no legal requirement to call an election, yet we never relied on statutes for democratic legitimacy. Legitimacy means something that is just in law, and yet it has been a long time since the country has given sanction through an election.
We face unprecedented leadership issues, with five prime ministers within ten years. Theresa May and Rishi Sunak received the premiership through appointments / anointments, not elections. Two years remain before the next general election. Sunak claims he will hold to the 2019 Conservative election manifesto, yet this goes against his summer leadership contest positions. Public sentiment does not sit with this government, who are controlled by extreme elements of the Conservative party. We have cruelty at the heart of government, which does not align with our values – we need an election.
The opposition against the democratic legitimacy debate motion
The opposer suggested that the proposer’s arguments formed a case against the motion. Perhaps Guy Fawkes had it right and we need a clean sheet. Our political system: feudalistic but guised in a democracy, with the pantomime of PM’s Questions. Representative democracy, representing the establishment, the cream. All governments in my lifetime have been undemocratic – only in 1931 did a government have majority support. This government is incompetent. A jumbled up constitution, and the party system tainted if not corrupt. Yet this government is no worse than any other one.
100 seats swing the election, yet we have the mirage of democracy, but without feeling and passion in Parliament. Labour need Scotland to have a chance to win yet they have no chance there. Parties have 1 million members out of a 50 million electorate, and MPs don’t represent their constituents. We need to up our game politically, and also to focus on bigger issues such as climate change rather than debating the government. The whole system is corrupt.
Floor speeches from the audience of the democratic legitimacy debate
Floor speakers added a wide variety of perspectives. Parliamentary candidates should represent their constituencies and not parachute in from elsewhere. We need to consider stability, otherwise elections would occur frequently. Several speakers pointed out that in our system, we vote for parties, and parties choose their leaders, who become PM. Yet others argued that the people need to choose our leaders. Having an election for a moral reason would be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because both parties have ineffective policies.
Sticking to the election manifesto provides the only way for an unelected leader to maintain legitimacy. Replacing a PM for a colossal failure without sticking with the manifesto does not provide legitimacy. Yet no one reads or remembers manifestos, and they can’t anticipate every development, such as Brexit. The opposer actually made the case for the proposer, with this and every government illegitimate.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer reiterated that the proposer agreed that the Conservatives have a constitutional right to switch leaders. The system is as it is, this is part of the process. Parties lack any kind of vision, and corporations control the governments. Blair got rid of Labour’s soul. The alternative is the Sermon on the Mount. Care for each other, live for one another. Distribute the earth’s resources better, live within our means, grow sustainably. Take what I say, nourish it and live it.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer pointed out that we did not hear from the opposition why the government are legitimate. The motion is not about reforming the system, not whether an election is required. The constitution does not say when a government ends, only a maximum time before an election. It anticipates that they end when they lose legitimacy. On the points about needing stability and the cost of an election – simply not how it should work. Regardless of the timing of an election, the government lacks legitimacy. The government tossed its manifesto in the bin. We can’t force an election but they are not legitimate. They’ve committed crimes, and have had multiple resignations, an unprecedented five leaders in ten years. If you don’t like the system, abstain.
Result: in close final vote, the democratic legitimacy debate motion did not carry
The Sylvans concluded through the democratic legitimacy debate that the new Conservative government does have democratic legitimacy.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.