parliament

As we tumble from one degrading political spectacle to another it is worth remembering that things that mattered were actually addressed periodically, even if the result was tumult. For reasons not worth mentioning here I am taking good look at English history between 1909 and 1911. In this case the tumult was triggered by a budget which was resisted by landowners and the House of Lords, and ended with a radical reorientation of power that left the House of Lords relatively toothless — although not, unfortunately, eliminated.

That radical budget was introduced by its major proponent, Lloyd George, as follows:

“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”

Even from our jaundiced position this is an audacious introduction. Only a few years later Europe was engulfed in catastrophe that led, in large part, to the introduction of meany of the measures within the budget. But Lloyd George and his Liberal colleagues could not have anticipated that.

The constitutional crisis that erupted as a consequence of the budget’s introduction lasted the following two years and involved threats of packing the House of Lords with compliant new members to ensure passage of the law. It involved two different kings — King Edward died in 1910 — plunging the new King George into politics from his first day on the throne. It involved a couple of snap elections, in each case called to bolster the democratic position of the House of Commons and the ruling Liberal party. And it was finally resolved after the House of Lords was cowed into submission and agreed to the passage of the so-called Parliament Act of 1911. This latter act heavily cut back on the House of Lord’s power to interfere in budgetary matters and introduced what we would now recognize as the supremacy of the Commons in fiscal affairs.

There are two points to reflect on in this episode of crisis:

First, it is possible to be bold in attacking social issues. The People’s Budget was the first wholesale attempt at redistributive policy as a weapon against poverty and inequality. It can be done. The social unrest of the early 1900s is very different from our current circumstance.  Our issues are the result of failed policy over a forty year long era of neoliberal homogeneity within our political elite, rather than a reaction to the long start-up of industrialization, the growing self-awareness and expression of the working class, and the rise of the women’s suffrage movement. These major issues all played a role in the crisis of 1909-1911, but it was the proposed attack on poverty that provided the spark for institutional upheaval and a willingness to recast governance in a more democratic mode.

Second, it is this institutional change that was the key part. The constitutional flexibility that Lloyd George and others could take advantage of was crucial in the progressive resolution of the problem and, ultimately, in the peaceful transition from Edwardian grandee government to a more democratic version. Yes resistance was very strong and well organized, but the Liberal’s ability and willingness to call elections in rapid succession to give full voice to the people is a stark contrast to the inability of any nation hobbled by a written constitution to do likewise.

Part of the current malaise throughout the western world is the disconnect between elite leadership and a significant part of the population. Cultural and technological change is occurring at a rapid pace. The effects are often radically bifurcated between the beneficiaries and those who feel left behind and/or ignored. If that second group is large enough, and if it remains or feels that it remains sidelined, it can rise up and threaten democracy itself.

Why is this?

Because in democracies the lack of response from the leadership to underlying social, economic, or cultural problems can make democracy itself appear an impediment. Once sufficient people feel that their voice is ignored through the normal democratic channels, they will become disaffected and search for alternative channels “to get things done”.

This is not to argue, though I would, that inflexible constitutional arrangements are inevitably doomed. Rather, it is to argue that in times of rapid change, those operating inside those inflexible arrangements need to be inventive in ensuring that they channel the will of the people quickly and effectively in order to stave off unrest. We know what happens if they fail. We know what happens if they allow inflexibility to become intractability and gridlock.

Trump happens.

Who knows what happens next?