Home
Kurdistan is not out of the woods yet
Tuesday, 06 January, 2015
Westminster is often cited as the Mother of Parliaments and the beginnings of its parliamentary model can be traced back to the Magna Carta – the Great Charter – signed 800 years ago in 1215. It curbed the power of the Crown and was described by the prominent British judge Lord Denning as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
Our Co-Chair Nadhim Zahawi MP often points out that our parliamentary model was work in progress for much of that 800 years. After all, it took 713 years to achieve universal suffrage for women in 1928. Other attractive aspects of British democracy are newer. The system of a formal Opposition only emerged in the late 1930s and select committees, which scrutinise government policies in each department of state, are a fairly recent invention.
One can argue that the process is incomplete because the second chamber of the British parliament, the House of Lords, is unelected. Many argue that it works well and fear that an alternative would mean gridlock along American lines. This has so far saved the Lords although the hereditary principle has been much reduced in recent years.
Republicans argue that there is something intrinsically undemocratic about the head of state being selected by birth rather than merit. But there is very little appetite for change, mainly thanks to widespread respect for the current Queen with whom most British people have grown up over the past seven decades.
The reference to the Magna Carta puts Kurdistan’s progress into historical perspective. Its voluntary embrace of parliamentary politics in 1992 was always likely to take time to develop. Democracy involves more than voting and requires a separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a free media, property rights and an active civil society. I should in all fairness add that the famous American philosopher, Francis Fukuyama believes the Danish model is best.
Britain was alone for many years. Even if there had been other models to follow then it would have been relatively hard to learn about them. The birth of publishing took about 240 years and amplified and accelerated the Reformation, the Enlightenment and industrialisation. We also had an Empire to plunder for economic development.
But the idea of having to wait several hundred years for the maturing of democracy in Kurdistan need not be taken literally. Perhaps 713 months or about 60 years is a more realistic timescale. Of course, that figure has the beauty of symmetry and could be shorter or longer.
Kurdistan’s desire to shorten the gap between decades of isolation and being an active part of the world is illustrated by its clear yearning for learning and international engagement. Five years ago, for example, myself and our other Co-Chair, Meg Munn MP led sessions in the Kurdistan Parliament explaining British lawmaking works and the role of the Opposition. About half its MPs took part. The European Technology and Training Centre (ETTC), of which I am a Director, has trained 9,000 Kurdistan civil servants in recent years. Much of this has been stymied by the crises facing Kurdistan in the last year. There was simply no money, for instance, for the Good Governance Initiative which funded training of public servants.
Kurdistan is not out of the woods yet but the need for global engagement with parliamentarians, policy-makers, and thinkers is ever more urgent so Kurdistan can learn lessons from elsewhere that enable it to leapfrog previously lengthy periods of democratic and economic transformation.
But this also means more Kurds visiting Britain, which raises the old bugbear of visas. Most people receive visas through a simplified application process but those refused cannot understand why. British policy is to reduce net immigration which means seeking information that assures independent assessors that applicants will return. My advice is that Kurdish visitors should correctly complete the forms and submit them in good time.
Back in Britain, the official anniversary of Magna Carta follows the general election in May about which there is great uncertainty. Some think the Conservative/Labour duopoly will survive. Others believe its demise will be confirmed. The latter could prompt a reassessment of the electoral system towards a more European form of proportional representation and potentially profound realignments within and between the parties. Any significant increase in the number of Scottish nationalists in Westminster would revive the momentum of independence and spark renewed efforts to formulate some new form of federalism to avert a break-up. A British departure from the European Union could also become more possible. 2015 may yet give1215 a run for its money.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tuesday, 06 January, 2015
Westminster is often cited as the Mother of Parliaments and the beginnings of its parliamentary model can be traced back to the Magna Carta – the Great Charter – signed 800 years ago in 1215. It curbed the power of the Crown and was described by the prominent British judge Lord Denning as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
Our Co-Chair Nadhim Zahawi MP often points out that our parliamentary model was work in progress for much of that 800 years. After all, it took 713 years to achieve universal suffrage for women in 1928. Other attractive aspects of British democracy are newer. The system of a formal Opposition only emerged in the late 1930s and select committees, which scrutinise government policies in each department of state, are a fairly recent invention.
One can argue that the process is incomplete because the second chamber of the British parliament, the House of Lords, is unelected. Many argue that it works well and fear that an alternative would mean gridlock along American lines. This has so far saved the Lords although the hereditary principle has been much reduced in recent years.
Republicans argue that there is something intrinsically undemocratic about the head of state being selected by birth rather than merit. But there is very little appetite for change, mainly thanks to widespread respect for the current Queen with whom most British people have grown up over the past seven decades.
The reference to the Magna Carta puts Kurdistan’s progress into historical perspective. Its voluntary embrace of parliamentary politics in 1992 was always likely to take time to develop. Democracy involves more than voting and requires a separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a free media, property rights and an active civil society. I should in all fairness add that the famous American philosopher, Francis Fukuyama believes the Danish model is best.
Britain was alone for many years. Even if there had been other models to follow then it would have been relatively hard to learn about them. The birth of publishing took about 240 years and amplified and accelerated the Reformation, the Enlightenment and industrialisation. We also had an Empire to plunder for economic development.
But the idea of having to wait several hundred years for the maturing of democracy in Kurdistan need not be taken literally. Perhaps 713 months or about 60 years is a more realistic timescale. Of course, that figure has the beauty of symmetry and could be shorter or longer.
Kurdistan’s desire to shorten the gap between decades of isolation and being an active part of the world is illustrated by its clear yearning for learning and international engagement. Five years ago, for example, myself and our other Co-Chair, Meg Munn MP led sessions in the Kurdistan Parliament explaining British lawmaking works and the role of the Opposition. About half its MPs took part. The European Technology and Training Centre (ETTC), of which I am a Director, has trained 9,000 Kurdistan civil servants in recent years. Much of this has been stymied by the crises facing Kurdistan in the last year. There was simply no money, for instance, for the Good Governance Initiative which funded training of public servants.
Kurdistan is not out of the woods yet but the need for global engagement with parliamentarians, policy-makers, and thinkers is ever more urgent so Kurdistan can learn lessons from elsewhere that enable it to leapfrog previously lengthy periods of democratic and economic transformation.
But this also means more Kurds visiting Britain, which raises the old bugbear of visas. Most people receive visas through a simplified application process but those refused cannot understand why. British policy is to reduce net immigration which means seeking information that assures independent assessors that applicants will return. My advice is that Kurdish visitors should correctly complete the forms and submit them in good time.
Back in Britain, the official anniversary of Magna Carta follows the general election in May about which there is great uncertainty. Some think the Conservative/Labour duopoly will survive. Others believe its demise will be confirmed. The latter could prompt a reassessment of the electoral system towards a more European form of proportional representation and potentially profound realignments within and between the parties. Any significant increase in the number of Scottish nationalists in Westminster would revive the momentum of independence and spark renewed efforts to formulate some new form of federalism to avert a break-up. A British departure from the European Union could also become more possible. 2015 may yet give1215 a run for its money.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
