The revelations of Paul Burrell about the goings on in St James Palace are being reported around the world. The insatiable appetite of the British public for more about Diana and the royal family is apparently shared well beyond the British Isles. Leaving aside the story itself, what should non-British people make of it all? Is the scandal important constitutionally? Does it say something significant about the way Britain is governed now?
Walter Bagehot, the 19th century commentator on the British constitution, made a renowned distinction between the dignified and the efficient parts of the British constitution. By the dignified parts he referred in particular to the monarchy. By efficient he referred to the House of Commons. He was also warning against being taken in by the appearances of power when real power lay elsewhere.
Now, over a hundred years later, a contemporary Bagehot would assign dignity and efficiency very differently. Indeed, there are now three elements to be distinguished: the entertaining (for media charisma), the dignified (for traditional legitimacy), and the efficient.
The monarchy provides entertainment rather than dignity and the House of Commons sits in great pomposity and does very little apart from providing the government of the day with a majority. Both perform these tasks very well. The House of Windsor allied with the House of Spencer provides enormous entertainment not only to the nation but also, apparently, to the world beyond. The House of Commons also does nothing very well. If its behaviour is not always attractive, nevertheless its gothic setting is fortuitous. It now provides the functions of dignity.
Where, therefore, is the efficient part of the British constitution? One part is the House of Lords. It has the expertise to understand and make meaningful revisions to the type of legislation that governments have to deal with these days. And the fact that it cannot bring down a government is both a restraint on its behaviour not to carry its revisionist role too far but, at the same time, also frees it up to make revisions. So-called Westminster democracy, so long seen as epitomising a fusion of powers between government and parliament, has been developing its own form of a separation of powers.
Behind royal façade and Westminster pomposity
But the main part of efficient government these days is performed outside Westminster by the myriad of independent regulators who make the decisions that really matter in peoples lives. They are the ones who take decisions for good and for bad that have actual outcomes, which have an impact on people on a daily basis and at critical moments in their lives. The regulators operate discreetly, away from the self-importance of Westminster. Their real importance is revealed only when they hit the headlines for the wrong reasons when they bring the railway system to a halt, mess up exam results, decide that the health service cannot offer us the most effective and expensive medicines, or bring the electricity generators to the verge of bankruptcy.
The regulators operate in a new world that has developed over the last fifty years which is neither fully politicised nor fully judicialised. It is a world that has developed in part because it is the world of experts. It requires a level of specialised knowledge not to be found either in politics or in the normal courts of law. It has developed also because the independent regulator is better able to tap into the sources of knowledge and information that are needed in todays world. At one time it was a comparable invention of Bagehots era the impartial bureaucrat in Whitehall that could claim to be independent of political pressures and a source of relevant knowledge. But today the permanent civil service has lost much of its clout and standing. The relevant knowledge is in the private sector and is widely dispersed; its interpretation requires knowledge about how markets work. Little of this is to be found in the dignified part of the constitution.
The entertainment provided by the House of Windsor and its loss of dignity should not therefore concern us too much. To entertain, to amuse, and to stimulate fantasy are all valuable and unifying functions. The Windsor group may not have the brilliance of the Beatles but, like the Rolling Stones, they keep on going. Dignity has moved down Pall Mall, from Buckingham Palace to the Palace of Westminster.
Bagehot was right to emphasise the importance of distinguishing the appearance of power in the British constitution from the reality. In todays Britain we should not focus on the façades of power but look elsewhere to those who really exercise it. What should concern us, therefore, is the relationship between democratic norms and the efficient part of the British constitution the world of the regulator. This new regulatory space, partly shielded from politics and partly exposed to the processes of the law, is where the decisions are taken that do affect the life chances of everybody.
Possibly the answer to democratising this space lies in new forms of direct democracy rather than relying so much on the representative democracy of the past. If so, Westminster will become even more the dignified part of the constitution while the efficient part moves elsewhere. The one constant will be enduring entertainment from the House of Windsor.