Participatory politics and the point of parliament
In your editorial on the UK’s climate assembly (The Guardian view on acclimatising democracy: deliberation, not confusion, 11 September), you said that Extinction Rebellion had rejected the assembly’s recommendations.
That isn’t the case. This citizens’ assembly is a step in the right direction. It has shown that when a cross-section of the UK public are informed about the climate and ecological crisis, they want to see wide-ranging changes in government policy. Having gone through this process, the assembly’s members have, in their report, called for more information and education for everyone, including politicians. The media have a key role to play here.
What we are critical of is the limited scope given to the assembly. The government’s kamikaze 2050 net-zero emissions target clearly affected the ambition of the assembly’s final outcomes. But that doesn’t invalidate them on their own terms. We urge everyone to read the assembly’s report – especially the government. When politicians get the public to do their homework for them, they must act on the results.
Now we need a more ambitious and wide-ranging citizens’ assembly, like the kind proposed in the current climate and ecological emergency bill. Most of the climate assembly members agree. To address the emergency, we must put education, not ego, at the heart of our political decision-making.
Alex Bradbury
Extinction Rebellion
• George Monbiot writes eloquently of the dangers of executive dominance, stating that we have a “parody of democracy” in the UK (Extinction Rebellion is showing Britain what real democracy could look like, 16 September).
However, he overlooks the most obvious current example of this pattern. The Coronavirus Act gives the government sweeping executive powers that are unparalleled in modern times. New restrictions, such as the “rule of six”, can be imposed on a whim, without any need for discussion or debate in parliament, and certainly without any requirement for a vote by MPs.
Bizarrely, the only people to question this state of affairs have been a handful of Tory MPs and rightwing commentators. From the left there seems to have been total silence. The Labour party is in the extraordinary position of complaining about the government’s handling of the pandemic yet apparently being happy to hand the government a free pass to change the law as it suits them.
What is the point of parliament if it cannot discuss and vote on measures being implemented by the government? What is the point of the Labour party if it appears content to give Boris Johnson a blank cheque to change the law as he sees fit?
John Bourn
Gateshead, Tyne and Wear
• I was surprised to read the assertion by George Monbiot that “Nowhere has participatory politics yet been allowed to fulfil its promise”. In Switzerland, any individual or organisation, by collecting a sufficient number of signatures, can require the government to hold a referendum on any topic (which must be properly legally defined and constitutional). This right even extends to allowing the people to strike down legislation previously agreed by parliament.
Karl Gehring
Sheffield
• Join the conversation – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit theguardian.com/letters
