CENTRE POINT
It is time for Mr Straw to prove he is a man of more than his name suggests
SIMON JENKINS
The former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev once considered standing in a real election. He was so exasperated by his party critics and so convinced of his popu- larity that he thought of challenging all corners to the test of a vote. That would show cynical westerners that Russia was a democracy. That would save him from his foes. He was ousted before such dangerous thoughts got the better of him.
If I were the Prince of Wales I would be sorely tempted to do the same. 'All right, Jack Straw,' he should say to Labour's consti- tutional expert, 'you believe heredity should carry no political or titular advantage. You say election is the sole conduit of legitimacy. I won't argue with that. I quit. You put up your candidate for heir to the throne. Choose your weapon — first-past-the-post or single transferable vote — and fix a date. I'll stand and beat your man to pulp.'
Prince Charles might go further. Since in Mr Straw's pseudo-republic he would be elected yet enjoy no power or prerogative, he might use the legitimacy of election to tell Mr Straw and his putative prime minis- ter exactly what he thinks of them. He might attack every concession to the unions, every failure to conserve the environment, every rotten treaty, every hideous building. Indeed, at each monarchical election, he could articulate all that is most unpopular in the government of the day — and probably win. He could say exactly what he liked whenever he wanted. He could tell Jack Straw to get stuffed.
Heredity is never far from the news. Last week the Labour Party revived its promise to ban hereditary peers from voting in Par- liament. The week before, the Govern- ment's Commons majority was threatened when the Earl of Selkirk died and his title fell on a Tory minister, elevating him to the House of Lords. Even commoners were not immune. A certain young Master Blair found his choice of 'opted out' school attacked because he is in direct line of descent from the leader of the Labour Party, which opposes such schools.
Does it really matter? Political stability is like economic affluence: nobody can tell which parts are necessary and which are mere luxuries. If hereditary monarchy is abolished, some say the British constitution will come tumbling down, others that there will be not a tremor. Idiots on one side of the argument scream at idiots on the other — and between them is fog. Since Bagehot's no less foggy account of the constitution, a useful principle has been that the more a leader enjoys political power, the more democratic should be his status. Conversely, the less power he enjoys the more relaxed we can be about that sta- tus. Where the status is based on parentage, no constitutional power can be justified. Like the ghost in Hamlet, the rationale for hereditary power dissolves as soon as it is approached. Yet like the same ghost it exerts an awful hold on those who see and believe it. There are still Austro-Hungarians who would die for the Habsburg succession.
British hereditary peers are in an inde- fensible position. Unlike the royal family, they do exercise power. They are members of Parliament. Their votes influence legisla- tion. True, they are seldom more popular than when they impede the Commons, as they did over the countryside, poll tax and police bills. Hereditary peers appear to be younger, more independent, more unpre- dictable, more likely to vote on the argu- ment, than life peers. Certainly they are not drawn so uniformly from the established political class. But it is a grim day when a democracy has to rely on the children of dead grandees to uphold parliamentary control over the executive. We should be able to do better than that. Good luck to the Labour Party in this search.
The royal family is a different matter. Historians regularly plunge into its entrails and pull out precedents for the Royal Pre- rogative being a subject of political contro- versy. They have to strain at a gnat. What- ever else the House of Windsor may be, it has been a model of political impartiality. Heads of state elected or appointed from a political background have far more trouble on this score, as witness the travails of Aus- tralian governors-general and Irish presi- dents. The Labour Party's obsession with all things Scandinavian, revived on Monday by Jack Straw, will not wash for the monar- chy. The forms and the cost may be slightly different, but the fact is that Britain and Scandinavia, along with socialist Spain, Bel-
gium and the Netherlands, all have heredi- tary heads of state. I am sure none would use heredity if they were starting afresh, but constitutions never start afresh. Scandi- navians take the view that the less utilitari- an a monarch, the less need there is to find utilitarian means of choosing him. Heredity is automatic, uncomplicated — and usuallY satisfactory in the outcome.
Genetics may be hard to defend as 3 basis for personal advancement. It is also ubiquitous. Half Britain's professions, are riddled with ties of blood. This especallY applies to jobs in which a name or a contact leading to a 'lucky break' can be crucial to the recognition of talent: journalism, telev sion, the theatre, diplomacy, stockbroking or property development. Leaf through the pages of this (or any) magazine and count the bylines of the children of the famous. The Corens and Waughs will plead irt unreasonably that professional talent is often 'in the blood'. I suppose that is vi1121 the royal family might say. Indeed, when it comes to claiming their now impotent inheritance, most heirs to the throne have a rougher time than the off' spring of any professional dynasty. The apprenticeship can be long and ghastlY. Parents have to be out of the way first. The British people can also be damnably choosY about their monarchs. The public decided that James III (to be) was the wrong fait!' and Edward VIII had the wrong taste women. When George IV was Prince 0.1 Wales, his life was a constant hell of public and media ridicule. By the time he takes, over, the present Prince of Wales caul° argue that experience on the job will have supplanted blood as the soundest qualifica" tion for his elevation. Besides, that mystic Aladdin's cave, thet British constitution, has an ancient gadge• to handle cases such as this. At the corona' tion banquet the Queen's Champion hY hereditary right — Colonel John DYntrtle,, of Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire — is oblige') to throw down the gauntlet to any vire might question the heir's right to t" throne. (Some Jacobites considered pielt„,fil( it up in 1761.) This is the moment for t 7, Straw to stand forward and prove hinisel: man of more than his family name sugges„t Tut it to the people,' he should 031. them decide. I still think the House ° Windsor, warts and all, would win.
Simon Jenkins writes for the Times.
Previous page
