Stuart Weir

Democratic Audit in Comparative Perspective

The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the work and development of Democratic Audit, a loosely-knit consortium of scholars, lawyers, journalists and others, organised around the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, and the Centre for Democratisation Studies, Leeds University. Democratic Audit was initially established at Essex in 1992 by the Democracy Panel of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as the Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom. The idea, which originated with Professor Lord Smith of Clifton, formerly Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster, was to provide an annual check upon the state of democracy and political freedom in the UK to meet concerns which were being increasingly expressed during the late 1980s about the erosion of both under Conservative governments. However, the group1 which developed the idea decided that the Audit should become an instrument for providing more rigorous evidence and systematic evaluation of the “the British way of doing things“2 — that is, of its long-standing informal arrangements for democratic government and the protection of political and civil rights. How democratic was “the British way“, actually? Providing an authoritative answer to this question, through a systematic audit of democracy, could serve to demonstrate if, and how far, the concerns of the time were justified, and help identify where reform might most be needed. Such an audit could also provide a benchmark against which any future reforms could be evaluated.

The Uncertainties of the Rule of Law in Britain

The political class in the United Kingdom is proud of what is known as ‘British exceptionalism’. Its members have for several centuries hymned the organic untidiness of Britain’s governing arrangements and the flexible and decisive way in which the executive can respond to events. This article seeks to assess the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the rule of law in the UK and sets out the context within which its codified expression of positive human rights is being absorbed into the bloodstream of a common-law system built around the idea of ‘negative’ rights. Our main emphasis will be on the ability of a generally conservative judiciary to hold the executive to account. We discuss the weaknesses of the constitutional settlement in the UK and their effect on the rule of law and ‘judicial review’, the main instrument by which aggrieved individuals and groups can seek redress against public policies and decisions. The Human Rights Act, which at last incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, will over time have a profound impact on public life. It is perhaps the most significant enactment of the Labour government’s first term in power. However, further constitutional and judicial reforms will be required before executive power is truly accountable.