Opinion / Peter Firth
Conflict resolution
In most democracies, parliaments carry considerable weight when it comes to decisions on whether governments should go to war. In the UK, some believe that the voice of MPs in these discussions is quieter than it ought to be. According to the law, if the UK prime minister wants to use force – from sending commandos on a night raid to ushering in an all-out armed conflict – all he or she has to do is put in a call to the Queen (who, by convention, agrees).
Today a select committee from the House of Commons will publish a report called Authorising the Use of Military Force, making the case for parliament having a bigger role in discussions of this kind. It advises a more thorough means of sharing information between government and MPs (currently only an ad-hoc arrangement exists). It also calls for MPs to brush up on their knowledge of defence and foreign affairs so they can make informed decisions.
Judging whether to use lethal force is the most solemn decision a leader ever has to take, so considering more perspectives when making that choice is a sound idea. But the report also says that governments mustn’t be inhibited from acting quickly and decisively when urgent situations occur; alas, parliament’s lack of consensus doesn’t lend itself to fast action. Without a legal framework for a parliamentary vote, the word “urgent” is open to interpretation, especially from loose cannons who find their way into the top job.