International Best Practice and the Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

Petra Schleiter,Thomas G Fleming

doi:10.1111/1467-923x.12960

Abstract

AbstractThe UK government has pledged to establish a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission. This body will have a wide remit to recommend potentially sweeping constitutional change. This article draws on international experience and best practice to outline how the commission might best organise the process to produce proposals which are widely supported, fit for purpose, and durable. We argue that to achieve these goals the commission’s organisation should reflect three key principles: impartiality, expertise, and public participation. This would reflect international best practice and build on recent domestic developments. We argue that these principles can best be achieved if the commission works through a citizens’ assembly that combines members of the public with party politicians. This would be a new departure for the UK, but a necessary one given the scale of the government’s constitutional reform agenda, and its stated goal of restoring public trust in politics.

Highlights

The UK government has pledged to establish a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission
This would reflect international best practice and build on recent domestic developments. We argue that these principles can best be achieved if the commission works through a citizens’ assembly that combines members of the public with party politicians
This would be a new departure for the UK, but a necessary one given the scale of the government’s constitutional reform agenda, and its stated goal of restoring public trust in politics

Summary

International best practice and experience

International experience suggests that the organisation and process followed by constitutional review bodies affects the substance and success of the proposals they produce. International experience shows that constitutional reform bodies like the commission can be organised according to four broad types of models, each offering a different balance of these normatively desirable features.[12] First, constitutional reforms can be considered by elite commissions—small groups of experts and public or political figures with relevant experience and knowledge.[13] For instance, in 1985 New Zealand established a royal commission to examine electoral reform, which was composed of experts in law, statistics, and political science.[14] Second, reforms can be considered by representative conventions These are larger bodies, containing a broad balance of civil society groups, political parties, and institutional actors. This approach has recently been adopted in Ireland, where a Constitutional Convention combining party representatives with randomly selected members of the public considered various constitutional reforms between 2012 and 2014.18

Changing practice in the UK

Embracing best practice