Vol. 22 No. 20 · 19 October 2000
pages 10-11 | 3202 words
Bugger everyone
R.W. Johnson
- The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 by Peter Hennessy
Allen Lane, 686 pp, £25.00, October 2000, ISBN 0 7139 9340 5
Peter Hennessy’s new book hasn’t persuaded me that its central preoccupation, the current dispute over prime ministerial power and its extent, is not sterile and, indeed, rather boring – yet it is a splendid read. The truth is that the Westminster system is quite inadequately democratic and transparent, and Hennessy is, if anything, too respectful and conventional in his proposals about how the office might be reformed. Party discipline, a weak Parliament, quasi-presidential power, great secrecy and the fact that the PM, invariably gifted with a safe seat, is insulated from direct electoral pressure all mean that the system is just not accountable enough. The most disappointing part of Blair’s constitutional reforms is that he hasn’t faced up to the problems of the central edifice itself. There is no separation of powers, there are far too many MPs, secrecy makes it much too easy to hoodwink Parliament and the public, the second chamber remains a patronage-based absurdity and so on.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
- print this article
Letters
Vol. 22 No. 22 · 16 November 2000
From Ron Haggart
In his review of Peter Hennessy's The Prime Minister (LRB, 19 October), R.W. Johnson tells us that when 'the American republic was young', the Presidency produced, among others, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was never President, and indeed was not strictly eligible for the post. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (ratified in 1788) states that no naturalised citizen can become President, and the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804) extends this prohibition to the Vice-President. The politicians of the day knew how to look after themselves, however, and so the restriction was 'grandfathered': those who were citizens at the time of ratification were allowed to stand for office. This meant that Hamilton (born in Nevis) was eligible for the Presidency, but it was an office he neither sought nor held.
Johnson's error is useful in reminding us how fiercely Americans cling to ancient Constitutional restrictions. These prohibitions mean that J.K. Galbraith, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and John Shalikashvili may sit in the innermost councils of their country, but may never share in the honours which it bestowed on George M. Dallas, Hannibal Hamlin, Garret A. Hobart and Spiro T. Agnew.
It is possible only to speculate why Johnson elevated Alexander Hamilton to Presidential status. Perhaps he is attracted by Hamilton's view that the American head of state should be President for life, and the Senate 'a permanent body', consisting of 'the rich and well-born'. I wonder where Hamilton got those ideas.
Ron Haggart
Toronto
Vol. 23 No. 1 · 4 January 2001
From Ron Haggart
My letter about Alexander Hamilton (16 November 2000) originally stated that Hamilton would not be eligible for the post of President were he alive today. It is not correct to say – and I did not say – that he 'was not strictly eligible for the post' during his lifetime. The passage that followed made it clear that Hamilton (born in Nevis) was eligible for the Presidency, but naturalised citizens after his time were not.
Ron Haggart
Toronto
