Reimagining Parliament(s)
BY BEATRIZ REY
How would one go about reimagining the UK Parliament? The first step, write David Judge and Cristina Leston-Bandeira, editors of the recently published volume Reimagining Parliament, is to look at the present. Throughout ten chapters, the book presents a surprising list of reform possibilities, some of which are more concrete and feasible than others. Perhaps the book’s main contribution, however, is to initiate a much needed conversation and inspire us to think bigger about our institutions — and not only in the British context.
The editors structure each discussion around the notions of space (“attention upon location, architectural space, and purpose, and the symbols, performances and rituals of parliament”), connectivity (“the dynamics of representation, the identities of those to be brought together in parliament, and how citizens are included and engaged in parliamentary processes”), and interaction (“inter-institutional connections” and “politicized processes of effecting government responsibility and accountability and intra-institutional modes of administration and regulation, demarcated by procedures and processes of self-governance”).
Thinking about space, Alexandra Meakin makes a strong case for a hybrid parliament in which remote participation would complement physical participation. “Famously, neither the chambers of the House of Lords or Commons have sufficient space for all the members of each House to take a seat,” she writes. Another idea is for more shared working areas for legislators’ staff of all parties, with private meeting rooms for sensitive discussions (such as casework). Emma Crewe proposes abolishing the symbols of social superiority, such as titles and robes, to promote inclusiveness. “Using a designation like ‘Senator’ or the equivalent might convey a sense of being more like other countries,” she suggests.
The section on connectivity, includes electoral and non-electoral representation. David Judge blames Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system for disproportionality and distortion of voters’ choices, suggesting that the UK should adopt a proportional representation system instead. Another suggestion is the adoption of representation quotas, such as gender. Judge also asks how civil society and interest groups could be better included in legislative debates. Academics already have an answer for this question: legislative member organizations (LMOs), cross-partisan groups of legislators united around ideologies or policy issues which are usually funded by such groups. As LMOs exist in several countries, the correct question for me is rather how to regulate them in terms of transparency and accountability.
In a chapter on public engagement, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Didier Caluwaerts, and Daan Vermassen cite several examples from parliaments around the world to make the case that parliaments should act as “mediators” between society and government. Mediator parliaments “reach out,” are “open and accessible,” and “integrate participatory mechanisms which facilitate the involvement of people’s voices and lived experiences within decision-making processes.” The authors suggest that a reimagined parliament might take parliamentary business to local communities across the country, like Kenya’s parliament does on an yearly basis through its Senate Mashinani. The authors note that successful “mediator parliaments” use plain, non-jargon language in its daily activities, such as the New Zealand parliament has done with its Plain Language Act of 2022. Several parliaments, like New Zealand and South Africa, also have legislative offices in every constituency.
In discussing organizational culture, Hannah White argues that the UK parliament should see itself as an exemplar of, rather than an exception to, the rules it has established for other workplaces. She encourages professional development training for legislators and staff “from preparatory training as a prospective parliamentary candidate, through compulsory collective induction as a new member.” White also advocates for the breakdown of the hierarchies that characterize the legislative workplace – particularly those between members and non-members.
Of all chapters, my favorite was the one on parliamentary procedures (because it’s very well thought out and written but also because I’m a parliamentary procedure nerd). Paul Evans argues that current procedures are too complex, have been captured by the Executive, and do not resonate with human behavior. A more legitimate procedure, he argues, would capture the attention of lawmakers, allow for debate and decision-making, and be transparent. He proposes a complete reimaging of current UK legislative procedures from bills (which, to him, should be renamed as “draft laws”) to laws which includes public-participation in the pre-legislative stage, analysis from subcommittees drawn from members of standing committees, and reports produced by committees about bills.
All in all, the book provides general parameters for reimagining legislative institutions in the UK and beyond. Reimaging Parliament is a must read to those interested in modernization and a fundamental contribution to debates on the topic.
