Listening to interviews with candidates running to be the next Conservative Prime Minister, most journalists felt compelled to ask a question they already knew the answer to: Whether they would call a general election once they win. Unsurprisingly all candidates said that now would not be the time to call a general election, which often led to a follow up question about whether or not they ought to considering they were not elected to be Prime Minister. Boris Johnson is often credited as being a pivotal part of the Conservative victory in 2019, and with that an idea that he has a personal mandate which transcends the Conservative Party is relatively prevalent in our print press and on social media. Lots of politicos online and in the press have brought into question whether ousting Boris Johnson midterm was an undemocratic act by his parliamentary question.
Ultimately, the question of whether it’s democratic or not boils down to that instinctive thought within democracies of legitimacy in our government. For John Locke who wrote in the 17th century, legitimacy of rule relied on the active consent of the ruled. The importance of legitimate government has become almost subconscious within the way we view our government and other issues. For instance with Brexit the idea that parliament was attempting to sabotage the process undermined the perceived legitimacy of our parliament. In terms of governments, when the leader who led that party into an electoral victory is defeated, their mandate to rule does become challenged. Least not because of how personalized the Conservative Party has become around Boris Johnson as its leader, the notion of a Prime Minister who never won an election doesn’t sit well with people who fought for his electoral win, nor does it seem to sit easy with those who claim to defend our democratic values. The cynical, and frankly most supported view, is that prime ministers call elections not for democratic purposes but for electoral purposes. It’s because of this that it’s important to understand both the electoral aspect and democratic aspect within the debate around calling elections. The two questions to address are if it is electorally smart to call an election, and if it is democratically essential to call an election.
The Electoral Aspect
Historically, there is a very strong precedent for Prime Ministers to enter office midterm. Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson for instance entered office midway through a parliamentary term, however they both chose to call an election. This isn’t the norm in British politics however, Brown, Major and Callaghan – the three PMs before May to enter office midterm – did not go to the polls despite facing calls to do so. For May and Johnson, the need to call an election was pressing in part due to parliamentary arithmetic which made life difficult to pass legislation (for both Brexit being a huge factor in this). Ultimately this lends itself to the view of an early election needing to be called for electoral reasons. The idea of a ‘honeymoon period’ is often discussed by politicos which essentially argues that new leaders for whatever reason appear to get a boost in the polls for a short time. This idea however is not entirely borne out. May famously lost her majority in 2017 when she had huge poll leads at the start of the campaign and in contrast Johnson was able to attain a large 80 seat majority. Going back further, Brown initially polled well in 2007, but missing the early election call, the financial crash and successive political scandals sunk his premiership. Furthermore, Major, although he waited late to call an election, still faced his first election within 2 years and made a shock victory despite being behind in the polls.
This is all to say, there is no orthodoxy in whether a Prime Minister does or ought to feel inclined to call an election. The truth is that any ‘honeymoon period’ usually has more to do with the lack of support in the opposition, such as with Corbyn for Johnson, the lack of support in the previous leader, as was the case with Thatcher, or the political context of that period. Electoral incentives will be more important than any notion of legitimacy to those in power on whether they will decide to call an election. While it is tempting for anyone to jump to conclusions based on previous form of Prime Ministers electorally that it is right or wrong to call an election, frankly it takes a study of that particular moment in time to make that decision – there is no conventional wisdom. That said, from a nonpartisan standpoint, what ought to be the case for democratic reasons should guide whether or not a new Prime Minister takes office.
The Democratic Aspect
The model of democracy used in Britain is a representative system which follows what is known as Burkean model. Burke was an 18th century MP who argued that MPs are representatives entrusted by the electorate to use their own mind to make decisions on issues, as opposed to simply being elected to follow the opinion of the leader. In essence what that means is MPs have been individually chosen by their constituents to make decisions and serve their constituents how they feel best. This principle might appear natural or obvious, however it is essential to the way in which our parliamentary democracy works, and actually very relevant to the debate on whether or not MPs should have the right to change the party leader midterm because ultimately voters do not vote for a Prime Minister at the ballot box, they vote for an MP.
This mechanical way of looking at our democracy does draw some criticisms around being withdrawn from the reality of how voters’ approach parliamentary politics. It is true that you cannot divorce the fact that MPs are members of political parties, and people vote primarily for political parties informed by the messaging and charisma of the leader who all MPs pledge to make Prime Minister. Essentially this criticism is that MPs owe their jobs to the personal mandate of the Prime Minister. Yet this criticism can be brought down on several grounds. First of all sticking to that Burkean model of democracy, our system is designed to ensure that MPs have agency and are not simply enslaved to the will of any individual Prime Minister. If we adopt the stance that a Prime Minister ought to be put to the electorate when they’re replaced, we’re undermining the agency of these MPs to make that decision. We entrust MPs to uphold the integrity of public office, to fight for their constituents and that is not possible if removing Prime Ministers which no longer have the confidence of these trusted MPs would cause electoral harm to MPs. Secondly, the criticism assumes all MPs won their seats because of Johnson, whilst we know that in many so-called Blue Wall seats lots of Conservative MPs won their seats in spite of him. Unsurprisingly Conservative MPs in these often Lib Dem facing seats were some of the most vocal in calling for Boris Johnson to go. Thirdly, all MPs within a party run on the same manifesto. This means they’ve all made the same pledges to the electorate and not just beholden to the party leader.
Fundamentally, much of these questions stem from the fact we do not have full separation of powers in the United Kingdom. Both our legislature and our executive come from the House of Commons, and this creates a situation whereby there is a clash in the perception of where MPs get their mandate. We need to answer this question by what ought to be the case, which if we’re democratic maximisers is the legislature. In the United Kingdom we mostly have a two-party system which means our two parties are big broadchurches. This is problematic, because frankly, people don’t fit neatly into these binaries. Empowering the diversity of voices within those broadchurches allows more accurate representations of the party’s supported to be expressed which means that representation is improved in what would otherwise be a binary system.
Finally, quite simply circumstances change and thus so do the focus points for a Prime Minister and the interests of parliamentarians and the country. Focusing on the fact that any new Prime Minister wouldn’t have a mandate ignores the fact Prime Ministers always make decisions that go against their manifesto commitments because political life is rocky and unpredictable. Today a pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis have meant that what was pledged in 2019 has had to change in order to adapt to the new social and economic conditions. Prime Ministers must adapt to their circumstances, and thus so do parliamentarians.
Closing Remarks
A new leader of the Conservative Prime Minister is going to be elected and they will become the future Prime Minister. Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak have ruled out an election. Both will be plagued by the fact they’ve got to call an election by January 2025 and the argument that they do not have a mandate. This might prompt them to consider calling an early election, but to do so is not something that is necessarily smart. With the Labour Party ahead in the polls, any restoration of the Conservative lead in polling during a ‘honeymoon period’ may easily fall flat in a campaign as it did with Theresa May, or even within months as the leader settles into office as it did with Brown. It is true that many will potentially criticise Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak for being unelected up to the point of an election but levelling a criticism of being unelected is an unfair criticism. They have become Prime Ministers because our system has worked, with changing circumstances, MPs have had to step up to protect the integrity of our democracy and integrity of our government amidst challenging times in which the incumbent has demeaned the office of Prime Minister. They may not have a personal mandate, but the point of our democracy is we elect the people we think are best suited to react to events. The cost of living crisis, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine; these are all things that there was never any mandate for, but no one could question that the government were legitimate in responding to them.
The Next Conversation 