POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Parliament's own contempt
A UBERON WAUGH
The Government was being extremely cagey all last week about the timing of its orders to perpetuate the abolition of the death penalty. Somehow the rumour had spread that these orders were imminent after the publication of the Home Office report Mur- der 1957 to 1968, and spokesmen have since been at pains to deny this. The report must be studied at great length, we are told, before any decision can be made on such a weighty matter. Certainly the figures can be used to support either argument, as most newspapers have pointed out, but the deci- sion is nevertheless a political one, and the balance of opinion inside the Cabinet defi- nitely seems to favour getting the matter out of the way as long as possible before the election.
The danger for Labour is that any parti- cularly gruesome set of child murders be- tween now and October—or even a number of sensational murders committed in the furtherance of theft—might turn the matter into an electoral issue. At present the pub- lic's wishes are well known—in the last thorough survey of the matter which I can trace, only 23 Der cent, of the electorate favoured abolition of the death penalty, while 70 per cent, favoured its retention. This was Gallup's survey conducted for the Daily Telegraph in January 1965, when Mr Silverman's Bill was coming up for its first reading. Opinions may have changed a little since then, but they are unlikely to have changed all that much. Mr Callaghan might be able to swing the odds a little bit by granting any number of free pardons to murderers hanged during the Tories' thir- teen wasted years. For an abolitionist, he seems strangely reluctant to use this obvious weapon at his disposal—perhaps he is afraid of upsetting his friends in the police force and the Prisons Department. But the fact remains that orders is orders, and no government can hope to dissociate itself from one of its own orders, even if it leaves the decision to a free vote. Abolition of the death penalty is something which must be pushed through in defiance of the known wishes of the people and in the hope that they will either have forgotten about it by the time of the general election or at least not attach sufficient importance to it to allow their votes to be influenced.
The temptation to do nothing whatever about the matter until the five-year experi- mental period is over must be very great indeed. If nothing is done, hanging automa- tically returns on 31 July 1970. Although the Home Secretary could commute all death penalties, as happens in the France of President Pompidou and in most American states, and although the Government could easily wriggle out of the issue by promising to look again at the matter immediately after the election, and although the Tories will certainly gain whatever electoral advan- tage the issue is worth by seeming to oppose premature conclusions—nevertheless, in spite of all this, it begins to look as if the Gov- ernment might be going to act on a matter of principle for once in its miserable, oppor- tunistic existence.
If so the Government (and Parliament) wiN at last have clone something to give themselves 'a little moral stature. This is not
because the abolition of hanging is self-evi- dently right—of course there is much to be said on the other side, and the question must really boil down to a matter of personal preference—but because an overwhelming majority of the Parliamentary Labour party believes abolition to be self-evidently right and hanging to be self-evidently wrong. And the fact remains that although the Labour Government—and Parliament—will have done the square and upright thing by their consciences, pleasing in the sight of God and with the approbation of this column, they will nevertheless have alienated themselves still further from the electorate. And the electorate, at present, has a very poor opin- ion of its political leaders.
The Tories, of course, are in a slightly different position. A number of them genu- inely believe with Mr Duncan Sandys that hanging is logical, convenient and socially useful. They are merely planning to mock the popular will by implementing Sir Alec Douglas-Home's wild schemes for a mili- tary presence east of Suez (a suggestion which, according to Gallup, only 26 per cent. of the electorate support and 51 per cent. oppose) and by persisting, with bi-partisan support, in the application to join Europe (which 57 per cent of the electorate and 65 per cent. of Conservative voters now op- pose).
Some measure of the contempt in which politicians are now held is provided in the answers to three questions of Gallup's latest survey, for which we must all be eternally grateful to the proprietors of the Daily Tele- graph, the paper you can trust. In answer to the question: 'Do you think that British politicians are out for themselves, for their party or do their best for their country?'- 43 per cent, replied that they were out for themselves, 29 per cent, for their party and only 20 per cent. that they did their best for their country (12 per cent. didn't know). Some 57 per cent. thought that the parties were all much the same, against 39 who thought there were important differences (only 4 per cent. didn't know). Last, and most significant of all, 68 per cent, thought that all important issues should be settled by referendum, against only 20 per cent. who thought they should be left to the government (12 per cent. didn't know).
Political correspondents no less than poli- ticians are always at pains to point out on these occasions that politicians are fright- fully decent, hard-working chaps really. Perhaps alone among them, I would only seriously dissent from the last popular judg- ment, concerning referenda. Your political correspondent has sat through too many Biafra debates and votes to feel anything but mild loathing for politicians as a clan. However, there can at !east be no doubt of the extremely high opinion which Parliament as a whole has of itself, and the Commons of themselves in particular—so much so that they feel televising
ment would interfere with its unique atmos phere and thus prove a grave setback 11 the workings of our representational demo cracy.
There are two justifications for the risk whereby we are compelled to hold Parlia ment in respect, at any rate so far as tht printed word is concerned. The first k iht argument that Parliament's authorit■ derhe, from the people, is therefore lass ful and must be respected by each constituent unit of the people as part of the social contract The second is somewhat more mystical. whereby Authority becomes something re- quiring respect in itself, vaguely identified with God and deriving its aura from some holy trinity of Queen, People and Establish- ed Law. Always there is the implied threat that anything which tends to brings Par- liament into disrespect will endanger its very existence and effect its substitution by something very much worse, rather than encourage it to reform.
To talk of the sovereignty of Parliament-- especially the sovereignty of the House of Commons—in any context outside the rules of the game is surely meaningless. True, if one judged by some of the arguments p forward in defence of the Blessed Ni Fisher, it is Parliament's opinion of itsel that its Members are too sacred to allow o any popular interference in their choice Perhaps such action will soon be judged breach of privilege. But Mr Michael Foot argument against implementing the repo of the Boundary Commissioners was th this course of action had been urged by t House of Lords against the recommendatio of a majority in the House of Common ergo it was undemocratic, because the Hon of Commons represented the sovereign wi of the people. The sovereignty of the Hou of Commons is therefore unassailable. it has the right to frustrate the will of people by gerrymandering the boundaries.
Perhaps not very surprisingly, the peop have no particular feelings about M Callaghan's great gerrymander. If the Opp sition were more popular with the opinio formers—as it would be, if Labour sk in opposition—there might be considera indignation. Indeed, the abysmal failure the Conservatives to fulfil the role of opposition party (61 per cent of the elect rate agree with me, excluding those don't know) may well have contributed large part to the general contempt in %O. Parliament is held. In any case, Gall informs us that 23 per cent of the electora thought the Lords were justifed in thro out Mr Callaghan's gerrymander, 23 cent thought they weren't justified %; 55 per cent didn't know—nor, presumab did they care. Now obviously a government ha. right to deny the will of the people on issue it chooses. That is why we are governed by referenda, or by opinion po whatever the people may prefer. Neve less, such rights and privileges as it d possess have no basis outside the system which the people granted them ill first place. There is all the difference the world between frustrating the will the people until such time as they can redress, and denying them the chance redress. Mr Callaghan's gerrymander do just this, and it may well be the mea of the extent to which the people are in their judgment of politicians that few on his own side of the house been prepared to complain.
Previous page
