Radical departure or opportunity not taken? The Johnson government's Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission.

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE British Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1057/s41293-022-00206-x
Petra Schleiter, Thomas G Fleming
{"title":"Radical departure or opportunity not taken? The Johnson government's Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission.","authors":"Petra Schleiter,&nbsp;Thomas G Fleming","doi":"10.1057/s41293-022-00206-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In its 2019 manifesto, Boris Johnson's Conservative Party pledged a <i>Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission</i>, to consider far-reaching constitutional change. This appeared to signal a radical departure from UK precedent in approaching constitutional reform. In this paper, we examine the Johnson government's initial proposals and subsequent actions, placing them in comparative context and contrasting them with UK precedent. We show that the government's explicit pledge to appoint a single Commission to develop the reforms along with its emphasis on restoring public trust in politics through the constitutional reform process, reflected several internationally recognized principles and models for constitutional reform. In practice, however, the government abandoned these potentially radical procedural ambitions, and instead appointed several issue-specific elite-led reviews. We argue that the government's procedural approach has so far closely followed recent UK precedent, and that the Commission turned out to be an opportunity not taken rather than the radical departure that initially seemed possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":46067,"journal":{"name":"British Politics","volume":"18 1","pages":"21-39"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-022-00206-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In its 2019 manifesto, Boris Johnson's Conservative Party pledged a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission, to consider far-reaching constitutional change. This appeared to signal a radical departure from UK precedent in approaching constitutional reform. In this paper, we examine the Johnson government's initial proposals and subsequent actions, placing them in comparative context and contrasting them with UK precedent. We show that the government's explicit pledge to appoint a single Commission to develop the reforms along with its emphasis on restoring public trust in politics through the constitutional reform process, reflected several internationally recognized principles and models for constitutional reform. In practice, however, the government abandoned these potentially radical procedural ambitions, and instead appointed several issue-specific elite-led reviews. We argue that the government's procedural approach has so far closely followed recent UK precedent, and that the Commission turned out to be an opportunity not taken rather than the radical departure that initially seemed possible.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
彻底离开还是没有抓住机会?约翰逊政府的宪法、民主和权利委员会。
在2019年的竞选宣言中,鲍里斯·约翰逊的保守党承诺成立宪法、民主和权利委员会,考虑影响深远的宪法改革。这似乎表明,英国在进行宪法改革方面彻底背离了以往的先例。在本文中,我们研究了约翰逊政府最初的建议和随后的行动,将它们置于比较背景中,并将它们与英国先例进行对比。我们表明,政府明确承诺任命一个委员会来开展改革,并强调通过宪法改革进程恢复公众对政治的信任,这反映了几项国际公认的宪法改革原则和模式。然而,在实践中,政府放弃了这些可能激进的程序野心,而是任命了几个针对特定问题的精英主导的审查。我们认为,到目前为止,政府的程序性做法与最近的英国先例密切相关,而欧盟委员会最终被证明是一个没有抓住的机会,而不是最初看似可能的彻底离开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Politics
British Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: British Politics offers the only forum explicitly designed to promote research in British political studies, and seeks to provide a counterweight to the growing fragmentation of this field during recent years. To this end, the journal aims to promote a more holistic understanding of British politics by encouraging a closer integration between theoretical and empirical research, between historical and contemporary analyses, and by fostering a conception of British politics as a broad and multi-disciplinary field of study. This incorporates a range of sub-fields, including psephology, policy analysis, regional studies, comparative politics, institutional analysis, political theory, political economy, historical analysis, cultural studies and social policy. While recognising the validity and the importance of research into specific aspects of British politics, the journal takes it to be a guiding principle that such research is more useful, and indeed meaningful, if it is related to the field of British politics in a broader and fuller sense. The scope of the journal will therefore be broad, incorporating a range of research papers and review articles from all theoretical perspectives, and on all aspects of British politics, including policy developments, institutional change and political behaviour. Priority will, however, be given to contributions which link contemporary developments in British politics to theoretical and/or historical analyses. The aim is as much to encourage the development of empirical research that is theoretically rigorous and informed, as it is to encourage the empirical application of theoretical work (or at least to encourage theorists to explicitly signify how their work could be applied in an empirical manner).
期刊最新文献
The media, terrorism, and censorship in the UK: conflicting imagined audiences in British parliamentary debates in 1988 and 2018 Whatever happened to Tory Liverpool? Success, decline, and irrelevance since 1945 by David Jeffery What kind of discipline are we? A network analysis of British Politics ‘The first, but not the last’: women’s descriptive and substantive representation in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election Remind you of anyone? Comparing the gendered heroic leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1