Rupert Reed, philosopher at the University of East Anglia and green activist, has launched a proposal for a jury, sitting above the House of Lords with the power of veto over all legislation, on behalf of future generations. A number of serious questions arise over the role of such a body and whether this proposal would meet the needs that Reed sets for itself. One has to ask, with some scepticism, whether a democratic body wielding such strong powers, would be willing to act for future generations as opposed to whatever contemporary issues seize its attention. Power politicises.
In the Grauniad's environmental blog, Reed plaintively claims that radical ideas deserve an air and with a lowest common denominator insight, observes that some progress to the mainstream. He then chooses recycling and abolition of slavery to make his case, because the consequences of ecological disaster will constrain the opportunities of future descendants. He likens this to slavery.
The blogger, Damien Carrington, then points out that the idea can be traced back to Burke, probably further, if one shoehorned Plato etc.. And the basis of slavery ensnaring future generations is applied more commonly to the notion of government debt, mortgaging future tax revenues for present consumption. The Green Party does not recognise this form of slavery, if their support of 'green quantitative easing' is believed. That said, the two principles do share this common perspective. Robert Reed may even have copied this idea from conservatism and recast it in a different form.
Reed's solution to this perceived problem of contemporary consumption is a jury called the Grauniads of the Future, acting on behalf of intergenerational justice. I am sure his report is detailed, full of safeguards, and key controls to ensure that this body does the work. It is the assumptions that worry me:
The core idea is both radical and straightforward: a council of "Guardians of Future Generations", chosen like a jury from the general public, would sit above the existing law-making bodies and have two core powers. A power to veto legislation that threatened the basic needs and interests of future people and the power to force a review, following suitable public petition, of any existing legislation that threatens the interests of future people.
For the Greens, the basic needs and interests of future people are valid for they will stave off ecological disaster and set up a sustainable economy (so goes the narrative). Yet, intergenerational justice is more important than the bodies through which it is implemented. If the Green Party becomes disillusioned with a parliamentary path that fails to meet their needs, then they will seek to cicumvent or constrain its powers. The first iteration grounds itself in the notion of democratic renewal via a jury system; how long before such iterations are recast as committees of experts or panels of the 'green and the good'. The latent authoritarianism within the green agenda is slowly seeping out.
