Into the democratic unknown

David Butler looks at Labour's urge to both centralise and decentralise.

This is a wonderful time for constitutional voyeurs. There are so many novelties to watch. Because it is difficult to make constitutional writing sexy, however, constitutional voyeurs are few in number. It is true that the demise of the House of Lords has romantic overtones, as does the rebirth of the Scottish parliament. But the complexities of the d'Hondt system, the insolubility of the West Lothian question, and the legal niceties arising from the domestication of the Strasbourg convention all leave politicians and journalists cold - let alone the person on the Clapham omnibus. The changes in the British constitution that Tony Blair's government is pursuing will demand much space in future textbooks, but they arouse little excitement outside Westminster.

In Constitutional Futures , Robert Hazell - whose constitutional unit has done so much over the past four years to prepare the ground - and others try to assess where the revolution is taking us. What difference will a reformed upper chamber make to the efficacy of parliament? Can the House of Commons be rendered more successful as a check on the executive? Will freedom of information inhibit civil servants? Will human rights developments provide safeguards for citizens or more power and wealth for the lawyers? Will devolution lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom or will it produce a written constitution? Will Edinburgh, Cardiff and London leapfrog each other in demands from the exchequer? Will elected mayors give new vitality to local government? Will electoral reform bring about the end of one-party majorities and the permanent establishment of coalition governments? And will developments in the European Union undermine national sovereignty?

It is easy to depict Blair as a sorcerer's apprentice, a sower of dragon's teeth. Certainly, the consequences of the current proposals are unforeseeable. None of the Blair government's reforms, except perhaps Scottish devolution, has been justified by an imminent crisis. All emerged as theoretical blueprints for a better Britain, as expressions of impatience with traditional ways of managing affairs. And a lot of hard research from the new generation of think-tanks and policy advisers has gone into devising these new procedures for a new world.

There is a paradox in the current situation. The Blair government has simultaneously centralised and decentralised. We hear much about how Downing Street and Whitehall have drawn fresh powers to themselves and about the control freakery that intimidates members of Parliament into uncritical silence. At the same time, however, the government has legislated for chief ministers in Scotland and Wales, for a mayor of London and for an independent Bank of England, each with a strong inducement to demonstrate its autonomy from Downing Street. A reformed upper chamber will have every incentive to use whatever powers are left to it. The judges will have more scope to develop a bill of rights and to interpret the multiplying constitutional dilemmas. The new regulators and quangos will be partially beyond the control of Whitehall. Brussels will have more authority in the field of industrial relations. And a proportional representation system, if it ever comes about, will ensure that no future Blair will ever again secure a clear parliamentary majority. Even without PR, however, the effect of the developments must mean that the centre will be less powerful at the end of this parliament than at the beginning.

Does the government know where it is going? The advisers who wrote the specialist chapters of this book are not certain about the consequences of change. This is not to disparage what is happening. As Cromwell said: "That man goes farthest that knows not where he goeth." Although some innovations may produce unexpected disadvantages, others may yield surprise benefits. There are already signs that the new thinking imposed in Edinburgh and Cardiff will be copied in Westminster. Devolution will cause some tension, even chaos. But since the pluralism inherent in any federal system encourages experimentation, a diversity of approaches is bound to liberate fresh ideas. Civil servants and politicians can show themselves wonderfully adaptable in making imperfect systems work.

The reforms offer a jumbled check-list, not an advertisement for the "joined-up" government that we are being promised. The innovations suggest an aspiration for change rather than a coherent vision of the new Britain. Their success will largely depend on the government's continued enthusiasm (and its sustained support at the polls). When an administration gets bogged down by some immediate international or economic problem, the easiest way to lighten ship is to postpone or abandon institutional reforms; they are time-consuming, they cause trouble and, at best, they will bear fruit only years hence.

Hazell's argument perhaps pins too much on the Jenkins reforms to the electoral system; these now seem most unlikely to be realised. It is in the regional field that pending changes seem more likely to affect our lives. When the Scottish parliament gets going later this year, the West Lothian question will come to the fore. We shall hear a lot about the paradox of Scottish MPs running England while English MPs have no authority over Scottish matters.

There is another problem overshadowing all constitutional reform - the democratic dimension. Does the public want to get involved in more elaborate representative structures? Turnout has declined. The Scots may vote in considerable numbers on May 6, but grave fears are being expressed about Welsh enthusiasm - and even greater fears about the number who will cast their first PR ballot in the European election on June 10. And despite all our democratic rhetoric, does the elite have faith in the masses' ability to vote in a discriminating way for the London mayor?

Whitehall, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party mistrust local councillors to tax and spend wisely, and all are concerned that electors are perceptive enough to reward and punish local government performance. Democracy is, of course, the worst of political systems - except for all the others. And, alas, neither Blair nor Hazell has fully revealed how far they think democracy should be encouraged to go.

Constitutional Futures deals with the matters put forward by the Labour government. Large parts of the reform agenda - the disestablishment of the church, the powers of the monarch, the selection of the prime minister and the authorisation of other appointments that involve royal patronage - are left virtually untouched. The book, however, does offer a systematic and informed summary of developments. It may not provide an exact map of the unexplored territory into which we are being transported, but it throws light on many of the little-understood problems that will make the next decade's headlines.

David Butler is emeritus fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford.