For our penultimate blog in our series exploring Legislative Council reform, we're looking at the use of co-opted members as a means of improving democratic accountability and regional representation.
TL;DR:
A co-opted Legislative Council would see representatives from the Island’s Local Authorities (or appointed by them) sit on Legislative Council.
It is likely that the role of the Legislative Council would change, with other countries who make use of this system limiting the powers of the chamber or the chamber taking on different responsibilities (constitutional etc).
A possible way that this could be implemented would be through the sorting of Local Authorities into Sheadings, with 2 representatives appointed or elected through an electoral college.
Supporters of this system argue that it provides a stronger public mandate for Councillors when compared to appointments, maintains regional input into policy scrutiny, increases the relevance of local areas into national policy-making and if operated as a ‘part-time’ chamber may save money.
Opponents argue that it does not increase the democratic mandate, as councillors are elected on a different mandate, provides unnecessary regional representation as the locally elected MHKs also offer this, may cause ‘petty blocs based on local disputes and may give unnecessary weight to local authorities who have a different remit and may fail to create a diverse chamber, as many local authorities have older memberships.
Examples of countries which use (a version) of this system are, Belgium, Austria and France.
Another option which is not often discussed in the context of Legislative Council reform is a form of co-option or indirect election, whereby Local Authorities either elect or appoint their own or external members to serve in the second chamber. Often done to provide a voice to the regions of a country this system, a version of it is used in a number of different countries including India, Belgium, Austria, France, and despite being unicameral, as well as Jersey, whereby Connetables representing each of the 12 parishes sit within the States Chamber.
This form of second chamber is generally regarded as a more part-time affair, with limited powers to amend or bloc legislation but in some instances (such as Belgium) plays a key role in constitutional matters.
Applied to the Isle of Man it is possible that a Legislative Council would see representatives from the Local Authorities, most likely grouped by sheading.
Applied to the Isle of Man it is possible that a Legislative Council would see representatives from the Local Authorities, most likely grouped by sheading. Whilst these representatives would (sometimes) hold a democratic mandate in their own Authority, in line with Lisvane’s recommendations around appointed members it is likely that their responsibilities would be limited - possibly only able to accept or reject legislation but not to amend or initiate it, in line with the Dutch Senate.
Whilst this proposal may serve to improve the visibility of local authorities and the role they play (something which given recent turnout is desperately needed) and may offer marginal improvements in terms of democratic accountability over an appointed chamber, this system would potentially create a number of issues, not least providing local authorities with responsibilities and authority outside of their mandate.
Comments