http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7859801.stm

- I know a few people like the BBC round here as a source, so may have seen this journal on the upcoming elections in Basra, but for those who haven't, I think it's an interesting micro look at local democracy during warfare.

As the British leave Basra, it'd be nice to see these go off smoothly as a sign as to how effective the training of local militia and police has been.

So far here in Baghdad it has been encouraging. Things have been quiet, although there have been the usual precautions. I want this to go well for my own selfish reasons foremost, as this is my last weekend here in Iraq and that whole short timer curse. It would also be great to see all the lives and resources expended on this whole war mean something.

If its one thing the British know how to do, its withdraw from an occupied land and not have it go to shit.

Most former British colonies did pretty well for themselves after the Brits left.

The Brits were pretty smart. Just because a newly independent state is not a colony any more that there is no business to be done. Its not any spirit of charity, but its better than the approach the retreating French practiced, which was to destroy all the infrastructure and leave the former colony in ruins.

Correct me if I'm wrong...and this isn't specific to Basra, haven't five candidates involved in the election been gunned down so far?

'If its one thing the British know how to do, its withdraw from an occupied land and not have it go to shit.'

- Let me correct that: we know how to withdraw *before* it goes to shit, India and Pakistan a case in point. Just kidding! (well, kind of)

But seriously, that is the exception. We spent a good thirty years setting up democracies before withdrawing, and though many in Africa fell to dictatorships within two decades, many more have remained remarkable nation states. Only Malaysia presented a problem for us, and though technically when we gave them democracy everything was A-okay, that period had been proceeded by eight years of jungle warfare.

I'm not a student of post-1945 British imperialism, but it is an area I know loosely. Success appears to depend on a coalition of the various factions within a society, the whole providing an appeal to the independent parties, even a necessity - perhaps in this case security; very rarely does success eminate from the support of one to the exclusion of the others.

Many people forget that Britain controlled Iraq for much of the first half of the twentieth century, and in such a modern setting I expect a lot could be learned.

While I am no fan of British imperialism, I cannot deny that its usurping of power is not without benefit to many of its former colonies. It's kind of ironic to call Britain democratic: while it is a "constitutional monarchy," most of its practices are based on unwritten practices and what has been followed by tradition. Even parts of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 are not guaranteed, and Britain has never been known for small governance--from my understanding of English law, England's Queen could exert her power, but because of precedence, she has chosen not to be directly involved with government.

However, as one who lived in Hong Kong for many years, a very effective system was implemented there (Chief Executive, Legislative Council, and Court of Final Appeal) when the baton was returned to China after its so-called 99-year lease (which was closed at gunpoint, after the Chinese emperor refused to entertain the prospect of allowing the British trade of opium).

If by democracy you mean setting up a parliamentary system, then yes, Britain is very good at that. I just have a problem with the phrasing of "setting up": as it was with the Iraqi people, most people who were former British subjects were coerced into their system of governance. I won't belabor the issue here, but I have a lot of ill-feelings toward British imperialism as well as imposition of the sentence of "transportation," a good euphemism for the movement of prisoners to British colonies. Should I remind you that your Prime Minister is NOT elected by the people, and that your Prime Minister can stay Prime Minister so long as the majority party remains in control? I know you bash the US much, but as my home and my country for many years, I do appreciate that a referendum is called on the Presidency every four years. As Winston Churchill once said: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing ... after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

I do agree Basra's change is nice. Do remember, though, Halo, that the people of Hong Kong had taxation without representation up until the handover. The Governor was appointed by the Queen on advice of the Prime Minister and the people of Hong Kong were disenfranchised during this period of 150 years of British imperialism. The people of Hong Kong did not have a say in their taxes, nor who their "Governor" was. Thankfully, the people of Hong Kong have chosen well, including no sales taxes, a general tax of 15% on income, no tariffs or duties on imports/exports, and no central bank that provides the issuance of currency (allowing HSBC--and don't get me started on HSBC's history--and other banks to tender legal currency). Oh, and did I mention they eliminated the Estate Tax via the Revenue Act 2005? And as it is with Hong Kong's embracement of free trade, there are no carrier locks on any cellphones, due to productive legislation.

I appreciate what Britain has done for Hong Kong, but to say they've done more good than bad, I will need more time to evaluate that. It may be to some people's chagrin that I lack a lot of love for Britain, but they do have a brutal history of colonizing many countries. And I also say this in the same respect to the French and Japan. (My girlfriend is Japanese, and we talk about World War II history all the time, including the 35 million Chinese who died at the hands of the Japanese.)

Rybit... many of your statements are rather painful 'black and white' observations. British parliamentary democracy is painfully complex and traditionalist, often very difficult for foreign observations to be made with any real precision.

I do apologise, I do not mean to sound condescending, not at all.

Unfortunately I'm off out in half hour and I wish to devote some proper time to this post. So please accept my apology for making the above blank statement without backing it up, but I promise tommorrow I will do so in full.

But for now, allow me to comment upon this, which is central to any argument of British democratic principles:

'Should I remind you that your Prime Minister is NOT elected by the people, and that your Prime Minister can stay Prime Minister so long as the majority party remains in control? I know you bash the US much, but as my home and my country for many years, I do appreciate that a referendum is called on the Presidency every four years'

- Prime Ministers are usually elected by the people, in that over half of those who come to power do so in a campaign at the head of their party that they represent, as the party is often elected on the agenda of the party leader, and thus it is the said leader who wins General Elections, very rarely the party.
This is a good example of the complexity of the British system. The Prime Minister can only hold power so long as he has the support of his party, who need the support of the people. Prime Ministers who suffer a remotely small loss in their majority within the House of Commons, even if it remains a majority, rarely survive a General Election, and often step down as a majority declines. Pressure from the Party, backbench rebels, or popular opinion means that a Prime Minister is often restricted tightly on what s/he can do without popular support - unlike in the US, where a President retains massive executive authority.
Which is my other point of contention with your statement. The problem with Republic's is that a President can remain at the helm for four years, it doesn't matter how unpopular the policy or decision he pursues - they have their full term, public opinion be damned, as far as constitutional rights are concerned. British Parliamentary democracy, however, means that an election can be called ANY time (though it is often four years apart, this is mere tradition, as an unwritten constitution the fliud British system is flexible and adapts to changing situations, it's success as three centuries of unbroken political stability has shown). Bush is a case in point - on leaving office he possessed historic low public opinion scores, and yet little could be done until he played out every last day of his legal four years in office. That kind of thing would not happen here. As the backbenchers rebelled against Blair, for example, especially in support of Brown as his successor, he could not remain at Number 10 long (though he did some tenacious clinging-on).

The key to the success of British parliamentary democracy is its unwritten nature - it is fluid, flexible, and adaptable. We have tradition, culture and precedent, and while it may seem to foreign observation that we are ruled by a monarch that could turn the whole thing on its head, the suggestion is laughable and its best. The written nature of the American political system means that it is often rigid and unaccomodating - not always advantages when comparing against a parliamentary democracy evolved over centuries which has successfully stood the test of everything thrown at it while the world has gone through war, revolution and modernity.

I'll comment on British Imperialism tommorrow, I promise. As a PhD in British Imperial History - I have a lot to say on the subject :P

Thanks Ryb.

As a PhD in British Imperial History

Who would win in a fight, Boudica or Gladstone?

Gladstone, he had a mental side you rarely saw on the Floor of the House.

He was a willy liberal, but one who ordered the bombing of Alexandria and the occupation of Egypt - so he had balls too!

Many people forget that Britain controlled Iraq for much of the first half of the twentieth century

LOL. I am reminded all too well of that every time I plug in one of these monster claw UK plugs and how no fun it is to have to plug in a 2 prong Euro plug into those. Yay for flat tip screwdriver in the ground receptacle.

As for Basra, it is by far currently the most dangerous place to travel to for those in my line of work. The criminal element rules that place, in the manner that thugs have ruled other dockyards in the past in other places. Trying to stomp them out last year resulted in 1 month of IDF attack on the US Embassy compound and the Palace area between last March and April, so their influence is pretty broad. If this goes peacefully there, then there can be room for hope in general for the elections.

'LOL. I am reminded all too well of that every time I plug in one of these monster claw UK plugs and how no fun it is to have to plug in a 2 prong Euro plug into those. Yay for flat tip screwdriver in the ground receptacle.'

- ROFL, I hate Euro plugs, long rule Britannia Claw Plugs!!

Correct me if I'm wrong...and this isn't specific to Basra, haven't five candidates involved in the election been gunned down so far?

Yes, read this in the paper the other day as well. But at the same time, people running for office are doing so openly and even doing the door-to-door routine and holding rallies. And there is a huge number of female candidates. Quite a change.

Yes but it's five out of 14,000.

The Sunni's are coming out strongly, as opposed to the boycot in 2005.

Democracy via Thunderdome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7862177.stm

- Truly a victory? It is certainly encouraging.

'LOL. I am reminded all too well of that every time I plug in one of these monster claw UK plugs and how no fun it is to have to plug in a 2 prong Euro plug into those. Yay for flat tip screwdriver in the ground receptacle.'

- ROFL, I hate Euro plugs, long rule Britannia Claw Plugs!!

Ugh, I bought my iPhone 3G in Hong Kong because carriers are not allowed to lock a subscriber to the purchase of a phone (you can even buy it unlocked online at store.apple.com/hk), but inside I had to reckon with the unwieldy power plug of Britannia... I'm sure the UK box of the iPhone 3G is the same size as Hong Kong's.

Back to your original post, I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints on American politics as rigid or too limiting. In theory, the American political system is designed to check any branch of power from becoming too powerful. You might say the US government is plagued with bureaucracy, but the design is--or was, until the Bush years--to prevent abuses of power. I believe the writers of the US Constitution designed it to rigidly so that power could not be used without limits (lending credence to the theory that an ineffective government is the best form of governance).

You might contend that the US President has massive executive authority, and while that is partially true, you have been watching the unfortunate example of what the President was not designed to do (Bush administration puppet'ed by Cheney). The Bush administration has blatantly violated constitutional checks on power and has a disdain the for the due process of the US Constitution.

You also need to remember the US Constitution provides for impeachment hearings to remove those who violate the US Constitution. In normal circumstances, the Constitution--when followed--is designed to prevent the abuse of power by any one branch. Which brings me to the point that when one political party is too powerful (Republicans), it is bad for the people. For example, Congress checks the Judiciary and the President (Congress need to approve all of the presidential/secretarial and judiciary appointments, and can hold impeachment proceedings against both branches). All three branches keep each other honest.

The whole point of written law is to avoid the abuse of power. The Romans in the Western world established codification of laws (as did the Chinese for the East). The US Supreme Court is entirely based on the system of precedent, but all landmark decisions are recorded and published to the Federal Register. I'm a little bit wary of anything unwritten due to its potential for abuse.

I may not understand parliamentary law well enough, but I am very wary of unwritten law, though it be practices through the ages.

So much so is the US designed to prevent an abuse of power by the Government that the right to arms to revolt against the Powers is granted to the people.

Of course, I will close with two of my favorite quotations from Thomas Jefferson:

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." (On the design of the US Constitution.)

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." (On why electing members of Congress is as much as a chore as it is every two years.)

Just also wanted to hear your say on these: -

1. What do you think of the House of Lords?
2. Damian Green, arrested MP, based on the UK version of the US Patriot Act?

I agree with a lot of what you said, Rybit, mostly because I never refuted those points. I merely wished to redress your theory that the British system is potentially undemocratic as it possesses no written constitution. Clearly, as you have not disputed this, you may agree that in light of what I had to say, your original argument is somewhat hyperbolic - at best dramatic.

Before I begin, I would though like to bring your attention to this part of your post:

'I'm a little bit wary of anything unwritten due to its potential for abuse.'

And yet, you readily concede:

'The Bush administration has blatantly violated constitutional checks on power and has a disdain the for the due process of the US Constitution.'

- How can this happen in a system supposedly superior for its written, and thus 'guaranteed' nature? I therefore argue that a political system need not be written to be effective, fair, just or democratic. Tradition or precedent is just as stable, perhaps even more so, than words of guarantee. Indeed, parliamentary democracy rests on what the people will, or will not, stand for, not what was written a quarter of a millenium ago, contemporary opinion be damned. Rybit, you need look no farther than the United Kingdom to see how well it works. To dispute the fact that Britain is a successful democracy (indeed, its modern birth-place), is to challenge perhaps an awful lot. I'm not sure it's wise, or possible.

Another statement you may wish to revisit:

'The whole point of written law is to avoid the abuse of power.'

- We have written law. We have statute books. We have legislative records, bound in books, volumes and archives. I think what you are guilty of here is ignorance, or arrogance. You are stating that if it isn't written down - it can't be abused. Well that is absurd, a glance at modern politics throughout the world will prove you wrong. An abundance of cases within post-1945 US history will also counter your point. Abuse happens in every political system. Sure, it goes mostly punished (I will not be bold, or stupid enough, to assume much more does not go unpunished) and yet it happens to begin with. The abuse is committed. Gosh, I'm not good with contemporary American politics, but what springs to mind in the past year are the charges against Palin for abuse of power in Alaska, the impeachment against Rod Blagojevish in Illinois, while Thomas DeLay (Texas), William Jefferson (Louisianna), and Randall Cunningham (California) were all charged with bribery, tax evasion, money laundering and even criminal conspiracy in 2008. These are just *some* examples of corruption and abuse achievable at the politcal level, despite possessing a written constitution.

To the constitution itself. What you are guilty of being arrogant over, as stated above, is the rule of precedent, for what English Common Law rests upon. Your system, of course, is built upon our own, as is much of your constitution, obviously. But what we prize here is precedent, which as a reflection of our political system, is both fluid, flexible and changeable. Judges will not remain long if they do not follow this rule of law, and where liable to deviate from it, must establish principle guidelines of English Common Law for which to formulate new precedents. These, nonetheless, can always be 'undone', if they do not remain legally logical or fit with the contextual nature of Common Law. All of this is built upon Precedent, which is then written in our statute books, Civil Procedure tombs, or Criminal Practice volumes. I'm on safe ground here - my fiance is a Barrister on the Southern Circuit. Precedent is no less effective than refering to a written constitution when maintaining a successful constitutional and legal system.
Indeed, one may argue that for all the guarantee a written constitution such as the US provides, it is just as liable to misinterpretation - or abuse, as you argue - than a parliamentary democracy with an unwritten constitution. One example springs to mind. The theory you are arguing rages in the academic and vocational world of politics and political science, so I think our time here is being spent well :P The theory of 'living constitution', which you are arguing for, dominates American jurisprudence, especially in the courts, through a kind of 'legal realism', wherein judges can interpret the law pretty much how they see fit. A good case in support of this is the US Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause, which was read so broadly as to allow by-and-large any decision one could extract from it, which as a consequence allowed federal government to intervene more-or-less into any matter of state law, in this case on the pretext that what happened inside the states would eventually affect other states, and the nation at large. You must agree that your constitution was put in place to avoid exactly this kind of behaviour - nonetheless it can happen, the exact breach of supposed constitutional democracy you believe is liable here in England, and impossible in the US. The Clinton administration used the open-interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to intervene on a state level with initiatives as broad as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, which sought to forbid firearms in or near all the nation’s schools, or the Violence Against Women act, which sought to expand further the intervention of the Federal authorities in state prosecution of crime. Indeed since the 1960s, your Supreme Court has pretty much evolved a 'balancing test' which gives the court almost complete discretion not only to create new rights but to limit others in the service of some purported Constitutional goal.

Your written system remains just as unguaranteed, in many senses, as our own unwritten one. And yet I think we can both agree that they nonetheless work with equal efficiency. You thus cannot judge a system based on its written or unwritten nature. It is a very proud thing here in England that our system, evolved as it was through the ages, is capable of achieving the stability most of the world only dreams of, and yet remains entirely unwritten. We are a nation of tradition, culture and political achievement - we build our system upon Precedent, not guarantees. In this way we succeed without kidding ourselves (*wink wink*). The Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights is equal to, or more, than the effectiveness born by the US Constitution, as I hope will agree in light with the above.

On to your questions...

'1. What do you think of the House of Lords?'

- I'm a big fan. This is a remarkable political institution, but then I am an historian and cannot help but admire its traditional and heritage. As a working, effective political organism, the House of Lords remains a bit of a dud, shorn of much of its power and subservient by the monstrous power of the House of Commons. I do, however, chuckle at its misinterpretation by foreign observants. Many people think it still remains a realm of Lords, representing the monarch and arriving each day with a retinue of servants and gold coaches. The reality - I must admit I am afriad to say - is a bit more sobering. I would view the Lords less an aristrocratic chamber (those days are long gone) than as a specialist house, complimenting the business of the Lords. On the advice of the Prime Minister, the Queen appoints many of those business, commercial, cultural or educational members of the public with experience, expertise or knowledge of areas crucial to the competent passing, ratification or modification of bills proposed by the Commons (although, in theory, Bills can originate from here as well). These are known as 'Life Peers', and remain in the house for life, obviously. In that they are sent 'up' (to the lords) by the Prime Minister is very much their democratic aspect, but in a technical sense they remain unelected. Again, this is very much the flexibility of the British parliamentary system in action. Nonetheless, they remain in the minority. Much of the Lords is taken up by elected peers and Law Lords, being practicing and sitting judges, again recommended by the Prime Minister (though legally appointed by the queen) often on the advice of the Chancellor. The Lords, then, has become increasingly democratic in the last generation. Nonetheless, its main purpose is as a complimentary chamber to the Commons, providing specialist opinions and expertise on matters that would often be lacking in a more rigid and formal political system. Some of the matters addressed by the Lords is truly spectacular, and they continue to provide much of the support for highly sensitive issues, all open and accessible to the public. Today, for example, the BBC are airing the debates in the Lords on how Brown's government could better support Unicef Rights Respecting Schools Initiative, whether they will alter their foreign policy as a result of the election of the new President of the United States, whether the government will renew their request to the government of Israel to release all detained Palestinian parliamentarians, with a view to establishing a permanent ceasefire and a single Palestinian negotiating platform, followed by questions as to what steps are being taken to ensure that all non-British citizens resident in the United Kingdom are provided with adequate benefits, housing, health care and education.
Sadly, I believe, the Lord's future is very much one of curtailment and reduction, increasing democratic elements at the expense of experience and expertise on fundamental issues.

'2. Damian Green, arrested MP, based on the UK version of the US Patriot Act?'

- Yeah I'm of two-minds about this. I think it is somewhat of an exaggeration to call Green's arrest something akin to the monstrosity that is the US Patriot Act - a blatant constitutional violation in all but name (as it is condoned by law) - especially, and crucially, as it was a police operation and decision, the Home Secretary, indeed the govdernment as a whole, not being informed of the incident until after it had taken place. Whether you believe that, of course, is a matter for conspiracy theory. If highly sensitive documents were being leaked, then I am of course thankful that swift operational action was taken, but again who knows? No one has yet to be charged and no clear conclusion has been taken. Should MPs possess immunity to the law? I'll let you answer that.

Sorry for the length. I'm very much enjoying the discussion!