Democracy 'requires dissent'

By Andrew Mackinlay MP

We are used to hearing that the president of the United States "has called in congressional leaders to the White House". Similar consultations have not, hitherto, been a feature of our own parliamentary system.

The presidential system is now a reality in the UK and the sooner we change our institutional and constitutional arrangements to reflect this, the better

Soon after the New York-Washington outrage, Tony Blair innovated (and arguably reinforced his presidential style by a further notch) in summoning members of the key House of Commons select committees to Downing Street - to share some of the strategy and dilemmas being considered in his "No 10 White House".

I welcome this development. I hope it sets a constitutional precedent for future relations between those in the UK's executive branch of government and Commons backbenchers.

The presidential system is now a reality in the UK and the sooner we change our institutional and constitutional arrangements to reflect this, the better.

No constraints on Blair

Arguably, President Blair has even greater unfettered powers than George W Bush.

Although the US president is "commander in chief", his actions are constrained by his duty to defer to congress, and by legislative restrictions imposed on him by such measures as the War Powers Act.

President Blair has even greater unfettered powers than George W Bush

No such tradition or constraints exist in the United Kingdom.

British prime ministers commit our armed forces to dangerous "peace keeping" and combat roles without any endorsement of parliament.

This deficiency not only diminishes our parliamentary system, it is also a flaw that makes us almost unique amongst the democratic club of nations.

Two years ago the Commons' foreign affairs committee included in their report on Kosovo a recommendation that, in future, there should be a confirmatory resolution of the House of Commons endorsing the deployment of our troops into peacekeeping or overseas conflicts - even if the circumstances dictated that it should be done retrospectively.

Of course, this was ignored.

None of the recent emergency sittings of the House of Commons concluded with a division. The debate on New Labour's stewardship of the current crisis was conducted on a notional and archaic motion "that this House do now adjourn".

This doesn't seem very new or modern to me.

Let MPs vote for - or against

It so happens that I think Tony Blair has played a blinder internationally since 11 September. However, there are others who would not agree.

In my view, in any democracy, we should jealously safeguard the rights of legislators to record their dissent. That would have happened if MPs had been allowed to vote on a war resolution.

I also think that at these times of crisis it is important to demonstrate the united and inflexible resolve, across parties, that the war should be prosecuted with the utmost vigour.

This is what congress did and if the Commons had overwhelmingly approved a resolution endorsing Tony Blair's strategy and deployment of our armed forces there would have been a very powerful message sent not only to Bin Laden and his Taliban supporters.

More importantly, it would have sent very positive and encouraging signals to those nations that are still hesitant in joining the "coalition".

Andrew Mackinlay is the Labour MP for Thurrock