Japanese experience

Lord Norton

In a previous post, I argued the value of undertaking comparative analysis.  Yesterday I chaired a seminar at the Lords addressed by Keizo Takemi, who has served as a Government Minister in Japan and was a member of the country’s elected second chamber, the House of Councillors, from 1995 to 2007.  Though he argued that election increases legitimacy, he explained that achieving a second chamber that fulfilled its functions effectively had proved difficult.  There had been two major reforms since an elected House was established after the Second World War.   Without agreement between the two Houses, legislation falls.  There were obvious problems resulting from opposition parties having gained control of the second chamber.  Looking at the UK, he argued that if one tried to create a part-elected chamber, the pressures for it to be wholly elected would be irresitible.

His talk tended to reinforce the findings of Meg Russell of University College London.  Her research of various second chambers found that it was common for the second chamber to be the subject of political controversy. 

15 comments for “Japanese experience

  1. ladytizzy
    17/05/2008 at 2:41 am

    Elections per se does not increase legitimacy, if the electorate is increasingly disinterested.

    The UK electorate has not voted for this government, or any other government. What we get is a vote for a constituency representative, then the numbers game begins. Before that, those who have chosen to *pay* to belong to a party get a *chance* to decide who is Leader who may, or may not, stay the course according to party rules, subject to abrupt changes.

    There is little chance of the three main party Leaders being in place if the entire electorate was given the ability to vote for them.

    I’m still trying to get my head around the USA system of giving/denying delegate voting rights, Democratic party caucuses, super-delegates…

    Democracy needs a make-over. Nobody voted for our current government, no matter how you dress it up.

    Tiz

  2. Adrian Kidney
    17/05/2008 at 7:35 am

    I agree with Keizo Takemi; a partially elected second chamber would quite swiftly become a full elected one. I believe election for the second chamber is completely undesirable. The very purpose of a bicameral system is for two versions of legitimacy, two ways of the country seeing itself, are consulted and give consent to changes in the law. In America, this is the population and the States (and I feel they made a huge mistake in passing the XVII Amendment). In Britain, it’s the population in the Commons, and the second chamber is (in theory, and mostly) peopled by our greatest minds. The assumption is also that gaining a peerage is at the end of any ambition to seek office or power, so the Lords is a less bribeable chamber.

    An elected second chamber would destroy effective parliamentary scrutiny as it would extend the control of the executive over party and state patronage, as the second chamber would be yet another hive of ambitious politicians.

  3. Stuart
    17/05/2008 at 1:55 pm

    Adrian – you could get around the power of the whips by legislating that someone could only be elected to the Lords for a single non-renewable 15-year term, which would also bar them from standing for election to the Commons for life. That way, once the ‘Lord’ is in then they owe the whips nothing.

    Let me also be the fly in the ointment: I can see the value of the Lords in its current form, but I also just don’t see what’s so terribly wrong with the idea of ‘the people’ electing those who make the laws that govern their lives.

  4. lordnorton
    17/05/2008 at 4:57 pm

    I am in agreement with Adrian Kidney on this one. Stuart: single non-renewable terms create problems in terms of recruitment and banning those who have served such a term from ever seeking election to the Commons may fall foul of the HRA. As to what is so terribly wrong with electing those who make the laws, election is crucial to democratic legitimacy but it does not follow that election is necessary for more than one chamber; indeed, there are strong arguments against in terms of ensuring core accountability to electors. On this, see:
    http://www.effectivesecondchamber.com/d/AddingValue.pdf

  5. Stuart
    17/05/2008 at 10:48 pm

    I guess with you and the Human Rights Act against me, Lord Norton, I am unlikely to win this one. I did accept that the Lords in its current form works (much better than the Lords of old with its in-built Conservative majority and its, shall we say, unrepresentative demographic makeup), but you must accept that it’s not unreasonable for a citizen to want to elect those who vote on the laws that govern them?

  6. Adrian Kidney
    18/05/2008 at 1:53 pm

    A completely understandable concern Stuart, which is why Lord Norton points out we already have an elected chamber. This chamber quite deservedly has the final say on all legislation. The Lords, being unelected, will acknowledge the superior legitimacy of the Commons.

    It’s a balancing act between consent of the people through election, and ensuring ‘sober second thought’ from a group of (mostly) acknowledged experts who are immune from the fads of this present-tense society we live in. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing after all!

    This hybrid system works well in addressing this.

  7. Adrian Kidney
    18/05/2008 at 1:58 pm

    Sorry, one more post as I just thought of something else…

    The problem with election as well is that it makes the assumption that intelligent, and able people are popular. This is not anywhere near close to reality. Election for a 15-year term would not prevent the electorate from looking at personalities first, and the bloody, disgusting smear campaigns which would be launched. The Appointments Commission (which should be made statutory in my eyes) does a good job of ensuring able people who wouldn’t necessarily be electable in any case are appointed.

    If this were extended to cover party political ‘working’ peers also, we’d be in a good position.

  8. Senex
    18/05/2008 at 5:46 pm

    A well presented concise critique on Second Houses. However, beyond its scope is the role of European Monarchy’s and democracy. They form an essential and enduring ingredient to the democracy mix in that they provide continuity and a sense of nationhood that is apolitical. Republics and federations have to work hard at this.

    America is a case in point. A child separated from its parents at birth and left to its own devises in a hostile new world. What a fine strapping youngster it has become. I say this tongue in cheek because Americans are fascinated by Monarchies with their nobilities, pomp and ritual.

    Their founding fathers had difficult choices in what to base their new democracy upon. They chose the Roman model. This is interesting in itself because the Roman Empire devolved from a republic to an autocracy.

    Can we sensibly expect to see an ‘Emperor Bush’ or the like at some time in the future? Will a returning army cross the Rubicon?

    The Spanish model is interesting too in that it devolved from Monarchy to dictatorship and then returned to Monarchy. Why did they do this? Continuity I suspect.

    Something else not alluded to is the role the House plays in international diplomacy. I don’t really know why this works but it must be something to do with the high respect that the House carries internationally.

    One rather scary thing you said was “It fulfils effectively the reflective role”. Does this mean that you have a doppelganger somewhere?

    As you say in your conclusion, “Second chambers will continue to be the subject of dispute” but as recently stated in the House, Lords Reform is not something that ordinary people necessarily have a view upon; least ways not down at the Dog and Duck or at the dinner table.

  9. Stuart
    18/05/2008 at 8:01 pm

    Hi Adrian. Yes, you have a point, given that the Lords can be, and is, overruled by the elected House. That way, ultimately, the democratic chamber is supreme.

    I am not sure I agree with you however on your criticism of democracy not necessarily rewarding able candidates. If I had to choose between, on the one hand, an efficient dictatorship of the most able, fair-minded and intelligent people in the land and, on the other, an inefficient democratic government made up of less able, less fair-minded and less intelligent people then I’d choose the democratic one every time.

  10. Adrian Kidney
    18/05/2008 at 10:40 pm

    And you’d be completely right in doing so, Stuart; the choice in our society is not, however, the one you demonstrate. Her Majesty’s Britannia Government is, and should always remain, comprised of those representatives from the elected Commons.

    This does not, however, mean that those that scrutinise the Government should also be elected. Scrutiny should be done by those most able, not by those most popular. In the British system, both the elected Commons and the unelected Lords do this – and it’s the Lords who do the best job.

  11. Stuart
    19/05/2008 at 1:28 pm

    Hi Adrian. The Government, including the Cabinet, does include unelected members of the Lords too. Indeed, peers would not be able to quiz ministers if that was not the case.

    Scrutiny of course can take place anywhere. It takes place on the Today programme, for example. Why not separate it from the legislative process? Lord Norton, does any country do this (i.e. have an arena for scrutiny made up of non-legislators)? Have I just happened across a novel idea?

    My concern is not with the unelected scrutinising the Government (I can scrutinise the Government and quiz ministers by getting into the Question Time audience, and I have never been elected to anything), but the unelected voting on laws… but I take your earlier point about the final word resting with MPs.

  12. Adrian Kidney
    19/05/2008 at 10:28 pm

    Peers are indeed in the government as you say, but they invariably fulfill minor roles which do not put them in the limelight and cannot be considered a show of great ambition on the part of the peer.

    The United States Congress is a legislature which is wholly divorced from the executive. It has its uses, but the main problem I see is that legitimacy and sovereignty in this case is divided between Congress and the directly elected Executive. In times of standoff between the two, despite the mechanisms in place for Congress to override the President (which are hard to activate), normally paralysis takes place as both refuse to back down. Equal legitimacy both divides and cripples good government.

    Most countries have parliamentary government, where the government is mostly or wholly comprised of members of the legislature. This has the benefit of allowing the rest of the legislature to question the government ministers directly. It also means the legislators have a direct stake in the contituity of good government. In times when Parliament is at loggerheads with the government, an election can be called. Whichever party wins the election has won the argument. The popular will wins.

    I understand your concern about the unelected voting on laws, but I feel such a strict interpretation of democratic theory is completely impossible. As Freud would say, logical worlds only exist in the mind.

  13. Benjamin
    20/05/2008 at 3:32 am

    I have always liked the fact the lords are unelected as it makes them more independently minded and less likely to go with party lines. It is also good that people who have made a name for themselves outside of politics can become part of the decision making process.
    To have elected peers will undermine all this.

    As for the Government in Japan my experience is one that even though there are elections it is a very undemocratic institution. The politicians act like parents to the general public. Telling them everything is in the best interest of the country. It is already been said that if the two houses disagree then nothing gets done and this is no way to run a country.

    Personally the only trouble with the Lords and the Commons is that people do not retire early enough. Countries should be run by young people who still have vitality.

  14. lordlucas1
    20/05/2008 at 5:08 pm

    I know plenty of young who lack vitality, and I was once defeated in the Lords by an alliance of 3 eloquent and clear-minded peers with a combined age of 286.

    Few young people can cope with the Lords as it is currently constituted – part time, unpaid. You need to have reached that stage of your career when you can choose what work you do and when, and to have abandoned or achieved work-related ambitions. Of course we could go back to that reservoir of the rich and unemployable, the hereditary peerage.

    The Lords is not a place which runs the country, but a place of advice and calm consideration. Ambition and command belong in the Commons.

  15. hifranc
    22/05/2008 at 3:41 pm

    I have long thought that one reform would be to have a bank of members chosen rather like the way jury service is chosen. Extremists would have their wings clipped by requiring every member to sign a document stating they would uphold the Human Rights Act.

    On reading the comments here I feel that any 2nd chamber should have experts appointed to it.

Comments are closed.