In Unchecked Power?, Alison L. Young scrutinises the impact of Boris Johnson’s government on British democracy, specifically its strained relationship with the courts and constitutional reforms. Although it lacks an in-depth examination of populism and its effects, the book provides an important perspective on a tumultuous period in politics and poses some timeless questions for British democracy, writes Richard Berry.
A book that has as its primary focus the period in British politics in which Boris Johnson was Prime Minister (2019 to 2022) might be seen as somewhat behind the times, given that 10 Downing Street now has its third new occupant since Mr Johnson left office. Such has been the pace of change in this tumultuous era. Nevertheless, Alison Young’s Unchecked Power: How Recent Constitutional Reforms Are Threatening UK Democracy provides an important perspective on this period and poses some timeless questions for British democracy.
Although presented as a book about recent constitutional reforms, it is in fact more concerned with behaviour and policy choices pursued by the Government in this period. The “reforms” that are considered are important, but relatively minor in constitutional terms. These include modifying the way the Electoral Commission is overseen by Parliament 178-184), and a weakening of the right to protest (184-191). Other reforms discussed would more accurately be described as a continuation of previous practice, particularly the use of delegated legislation (72-76), while others were never implemented, in the case of the privatisation of Channel 4 (174-178). Young also discusses the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (151-159), which may count as a substantive constitutional change, but was largely a repeal of another recent reform rather than a new reform in itself.
the focus on behaviour and policy choice provides an often fascinating lens through which to assess this period in British politics. Young defines the central question of the book as being whether recent events and changes have made the UK ‘ more populist, or more democratic’
This is not necessarily to the book’s detriment, because the focus on behaviour and policy choice provides an often fascinating lens through which to assess this period in British politics. Young defines the central question of the book as being whether recent events and changes have made the UK “more populist, or more democratic” (xi), and pursues that line of thought through accounts of events such as “partygate” (2-24), the Owen Paterson lobbying case (99-105), changes to the Ministerial Code in 2022 (105-109), the introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill (112-115), and the 2019 prorogation of Parliament (87-99).
There is little doubt from the beginning that Young is concerned about populism and believes that it has had a detrimental impact on the quality of democracy. She sets out her view firmly in Chapter One, stating that while there is no evidence of an undermining of the key principles of the UK constitution:
“There are, however, indications of the more subtle effects of populism. More worryingly, there are signs that some of those in government do not accept that their actions should be limited by standards of good constitutional behaviour. Integrity gets in the way of getting things done. Self-restraint is not needed if you are charged with implementing the will of the people. Why worry about the rule of law if it stops you from doing what the people want?” (26-27).
Arguably, given that so much of this book is devoted to considering the impact of populism on British democracy, it could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of populism, its relationship to democracy, and the other ideological trends in British politics.
The author does devote space to discussing populism as an ideology, engaging with the notion of populism as a “thin-centred” ideology (37), propagated in recent years by Cas Mudde and colleagues. The core of this notion is that populism is almost always allied to another ideological perspective, because it doesn’t on its own contain a prescription for how to organise society. In the cases of the recent British political leaders Young focuses on, the dominant ideology is almost certainly a form of neoliberalism, arguably infused with nationalist elements. Yet neoliberalism is not discussed at all in the book, despite being at least as convincing an explanation for the choices and priorities of recent governments, as much as their alleged populism. This feels like a significant omission.
The book is strongest in those sections where the author focuses on the Government’s relationship to the courts, bringing a perspective that may be less familiar to political scientists.
The book is strongest in those sections where the author focuses on the Government’s relationship to the courts, bringing a perspective that may be less familiar to political scientists. Chapter Five goes into detail on several recent cases, all of which arguably showed the Government seeking to push the balance of power in its favour, and away from courts. One case was a judicial review of a Government policy of seizing mobile phones from migrants arriving in the UK on small boats; this was ruled to be unlawful, and the Government was also found to have breached its duty of candour in the case (137-138). Another case – described by Young as “the most troubling of all” – centred on the Government’s decision to disobey a court order by imposing stricter bail conditions for a convicted criminal than had been determined by the court (138-143). As Young concludes:
“There is evidence of examples where [constitutional] guardrails have been severely mangled. It should never be the case that government departments think they can disobey a court order, rather than challenge a court order they believe to be wrong through the courts. It should also only rarely be the case that the duty of candour is ignored in such a dramatic way…” (145).
However, Young goes on to say that these examples may not demonstrate a loss of respect for the courts, but instead a “series of unfortunate events” (145). Young does not elaborate on this point, but it can be taken to mean that the choices made by the Government in these cases were a result of its particular circumstances, electoral tactics and/or ideological beliefs, and would not necessarily be repeated by others.
Such sentiment is typical for the book overall, which provides a powerful account of how the UK’s custom-based and uncodified constitution has come under strain in recent years, but fails to find the smoking gun of democratic decline to prove the author’s case. To Young’s credit, she is upfront about the ambiguity in the meaning of these events, suggesting that we cannot say definitively that the UK’s democratic constitution has been permanently altered. Only time can tell whether we will come to see this period of British political history as being an aberration, or a turning point towards a new normal.
Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: I T S on Shutterstock.
