Should we switch to Proportional Representation?

Does the recent election result give cause for concern about the current system?

When the King and Parliament fought in the 17th century in the English Civil War, they were arguing about how the best form of government could be achieved, not about the legitimacy of democratic rule.

This was the historic debate dating back to ancient Greece, who would do the job of governing best, a monarch, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or the ‘mob’, known to us as democracy? One of my favourite arguments in support of Charles I was that as heaven is a monarchy and God is perfect, monarchy must be the best form of government.

In contrast, modern debates are not generally about the way to achieve the best government, but about its legitimacy, which only democracy is seen to provide.

For instance, the current argument about Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords is entirely about inheritance being an illegitimate way to fill a chamber; it is not concerned about the job that they do or the contribution they make to good government. Indeed, even in the 1911 Parliament Act, the preamble states that it is a temporary measure until a democratic means of procuring a second chamber can be agreed. The current House of Lords is there on sufferance from the House of Commons, the democratic and hence legitimate chamber, and is always at risk if it challenges the Commons too much.

Even the Monarchy is careful to remove itself from any taint of actual government. It is now inconceivable that Charles III would play anything like the role George V did in bringing together a national government in 1931.

Elizabeth II was careful to divest herself of the most vestigial powers of monarchy in a democratic age, especially after her appointment of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister in 1963, which was unquestionably her decision, in a way that no future appointment of a Prime Minister was, or now could be.