The term ‘elective dictatorship’ has worked its way into a number of think pieces in recent weeks but what does it mean? Really it should be a contradiction in terms; how can a dictator be subject to elections?

In the UK the term gained prominence in 1976 when Lord Hailsham used it in a lecture to describe a concentration of power in the government of the day. After all the Queen doesn’t refuse Royal Assent, the House of Lords has been neutered by successive Parliament Acts and that only leaves the House of Commons where the government normally has a majority.

Since that time the elective dictatorship has only witnessed a further concentration of power. Instead of the government as a whole running the show it is now a single prime minister who appoints lackeys to ministerial posts and has backroom advisors like Dominic Cummings who run the show. From a constitutional law perspective this fundamentally undermines the balance of power between the three branches of government and poses a real threat to democracy as we know it.

The concern is that this trend will continue. Not satisfied with controlling the machinery of legislation the clique in 10 Downing Street have also shown a determination to attack and undermine the judiciary as well. Whether that is through the media with pointed remarks about those working in the legal sector or, more directly, via proposals that will diminish the function of judicial review, the message is clear: you’re next.

Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. The attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019 was a blunt example of government overreach and the only reason that it was stopped was because of the legal challenge that was brought. The elective dictatorship is a steamroller that will knock down all obstacles that get in its way and the judicial branch is simply the latest target.

Sadly this is not just a theoretical point confined to the dusty tomes of constitutional law books, it has real life consequences. Most recently we have seen the Home Secretary flout the Ministerial Code and suffer no consequences whatsoever. Meanwhile throughout 2020 we have seen a bungled response to the pandemic: overreaching and convoluted legislation, money poured down the drain on crackpot schemes and key contracts handed on a plate to the friends of those at the top. All of this has cost lives and all of this derives from a centralisation of power.

Whether the person in Downing Street wears a blue or a red tie doesn’t truly solve the fundamental problem of constitutional infrastructure that we face. The main hope lies with devolution and decentralisation. Local government can better understand and meet the needs of its own population and that is exactly what is needed during a pandemic and beyond.

Of course this also paints a target on the back of devolved authorities and we have seen that this week as the Health Secretary sought to shift blame onto Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester. However if smaller forms of government continue to prove successful the elective dictatorship might yet fall.