The book returns to the key themes and questions raised in the opening chapters, and posits the wider conclusions that we can draw from the empirical research. First, and drawing on empirical sections, the chapter reflects on scrutiny in the UK Parliament, and re-emphasises the general themes of the book about the importance of beliefs, practices and dilemmas to explain select committee scrutiny in the House of Commons. Second, the chapter brings out wider cross-cutting themes of the book, including the effect of the Wright reforms to improve the effectiveness of Parliament and what this book tells us about the lives of politicians more generally. Finally, the book closes with the wider relevance of this book’s findings on representative democracy in the UK and the continuing challenges that the UK Parliament faces.
Based on unprecedented access to the UK Parliament, this book challenges how we understand and think about accountability between government and Parliament. Using data from a three-month research placement, over 45 interviews and more, this book focuses on the everyday practices of MPs and officials to reveal how parliamentarians perform their scrutiny roles. Some MPs adopt the role of a specialist, while others the role of a lone wolf; some are there to try to defend their party while others want to learn about policy. Among these different styles, chairs of committees have to try to reconcile these interpretations and either act as committee-orientated catalysts or attempt to impose order as leadership-orientated chieftains. All of this pushes and pulls scrutiny in lots of competing directions, and tells us that accountability depends on individual beliefs, everyday practices, and the negotiation of dilemmas. In this way, MPs and officials create a drama or spectacle of accountability and use their performance on the parliamentary stage to hold government to account. This book offers the most up-to-date and detailed research on committee practices in the House of Commons, following a range of reforms since 2010. The findings add new dimensions to how we study and understand accountability through the book’s path-breaking empirical focus, theoretical lens, and methodological tools. It is an ideal book for anyone interested in how Parliament works.
This chapter explores one of the most understudied actors across legislatures: their staff. Little research has been published on the roles and interpretations of staff on scrutiny in the House of Commons, despite their permanent and vital role to carrying out accountability functions. This chapter briefly places staff in their organisational context, which has undergone significant reforms since 2014–15. It then explores the ways in which staff interpret their role, which is characterised by three facets: first, being hidden, i.e., the belief that clerks should not have a public-facing role; second, unparalleled service, i.e., the belief that clerks are in the service of democracy and must support the institution of Parliament in every way possible; and third, passionate impartiality, the belief that all MPs must be served equally. These facets of their role throw up a number of tensions, which are explored in the final section of the chapter.
This chapter revolves around fundamental debates about the role of politicians in the twenty-first century and the kind of politicians required for effective accountability of government. It situates the chapter in broader debates about the role of MPs before then examining the ‘scrutiny role’ of parliamentarians. The chapter finds that MPs have contrasting and competing visions for scrutiny and enact those roles through a variety of performance styles: specialists and experts, lone wolves, constituency champions, learners, party helpers or absentees. The chapter juxtaposes these interpretations with the pressures that MPs face more generally, such as time pressure, building expertise and multiple loyalties. All of these have a bearing on how MPs subsequently approach their scrutiny work. This chapter gives us new ways to think about the role of MP in the House of Commons, and sparks debates about the effectiveness of accountability in Parliament.
This chapter offers a unique analysis of the wider literature on parliaments, in order to examine the different approaches that scholars have taken to understand the way that legislatures operate. It identifies lots of different ways, including old institutionalist, historical, rational choice, sociological and interpretive/constructivist. They have shaped the study of parliaments, and inform this book. The chapter argues that the interpretive approach is particularly instructive, and so the remainder of the chapter develops its philosophical foundations and core analytical principles. There are a number of key concepts, including beliefs, practices, traditions and dilemmas, all of which are important for understanding the behaviour of political actors. The chapter also uses insights from dramaturgy to construct an analytical framework around these concepts. The chapter closes with an outline of methods.
This chapter places the book in its wider context through an introductory discussion of the changing pattern of representative democracy and the place of the UK Parliament in British politics. This chapter identifies key debates about accountability for parliaments and the particular challenges that legislatures face, such as the growing and already widespread distrust of politicians and political institutions. The chapter also outlines how Parliament has traditionally held government to account by focusing on the history of select committees since 1979. It shows that, while committees have a long history, much has changed and especially since 2010, when reforms were introduced. This chapter also sets out the main argument and structure of all subsequent chapters.
This chapter brings many of the elements of the previous chapters together to examine how different interpretations of scrutiny affect the evidence-gathering process. In other words, it looks at how an inquiry is ‘performed’. It looks, first, at ‘the backstage’ or preparations for inquiries. This demonstrates the strategic role of chair as well as the briefing that goes on behind the scenes. Second, the chapter will analyse how scrutiny plays out on ‘the front stage’. This analyses committee hearings as a piece of theatre: the chair becomes the lead actor; the committee members are the supporting cast; the staff act as various backstage support and stage directors; briefing papers act as loose scripts; the public become spectators; and, the committee rooms act as a stage where it all happens. The aim here is to illustrate the often symbolic value of representation and accountability and the impact that this has.
This chapter examines the published works of Abdelwahab Meddeb. Of specific
significance is Meddeb’s foregrounding of a language of Islamic secularism,
which can be interpreted as an attempt to transform perceptions of Islam and
thus to intervene in the symbolic power relations between the Republican
state and France’s Muslim citizens. This chapter also poses questions about
the consequences of deploying certain forms of discursive agency for secular
Muslim intellectuals. What are the outcomes of their interventions in the
public arena? What are the possible effets pervers (unintended consequences)
of their interventions, if any? It is arguable that the work of Meddeb
embodies most explicitly some of the tensions and paradoxes that can emerge
when intellectuals speak for and on behalf of a ‘minority community’, or if
we want to avoid that problematic term due to its suggestion of a hermetic
and homogenous group, on behalf of a religious/cultural minority
This chapter explores the work of French philosopher Abdennour Bidar. Via his
publications, scholarly articles and media interventions, Bidar attempts to
sketch out the contours of what he calls a twenty-first century Muslim
existentialism. Muslim existentialism emerges from what Bidar calls un islam
sans soumission. Islam or Islamic belief without submission is premised on a
profound desire for freedom of conscience, expression and dissent. Prior to
his work on the notion of Islam without submission, Bidar also developed the
term self Islam with reference to European citizens of Muslim heritage, the
majority of whom choose to define their own diverse relationships to Islam
on their own terms. Bidar’s approach can be described as a project of
cultural translation, whereby he can be regarded as a cultural mediator who
seeks to productively confront non-Western and Western concepts of religion,
spirituality, modernity and humanism. His work, which places him at the
intersections of the academic world, the media and the political arena,
makes him a particularly interesting figure through which to investigate the
circulation of narratives concerning French Muslims and their diverse
relationships to secularism.
This chapter brings together all five thinkers discussed in this book and
critically evaluates the public reception of their work. It asks to what
extent the five intellectuals are able to articulate a fully
counter-hegemonic approach in relation to the ambient discourses about
Muslims and Islam in contemporary France. It also briefly discusses their
work in relation to the next generation of emergent Muslim voices in
France’s public sphere.