.png)
Populism is the political approach that strives to appeal to people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by ‘elites’ or the Establishment. Populist rhetoric has increasingly framed judges as adversaries and legal aid as benefiting highly paid legal professionals at the expense of taxpayers, fuelling attacks on judiciary and legal aid providers. This has often come to the detriment of democracy and the interests of the very people that populist ideology purports to advocate for.
iff you're unsure on what Populism is, check out this fantastic article on Pragmat by Ivan Ampiah explaining it further
One way in which populist rhetoric has undermined the legal sphere is through attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The Miller decision of 2016 ruled that the executive branch must seek the approval of Parliament prior to triggering Article 50, the instrument used to initiate Britain’s exit from the European Union; in response, the Daily Mail branded Supreme Court justices as “Enemies of the People” and “out of touch”. One could certainly see why such a ruling could be seen as an attack on the democratic will of the people - a small group of demographically unrepresentative judges appeared to be thwarting the will of 17.4 million people who voted in favour of leaving the EU.
However, this portrayal of judges as ‘the elites’ blocking the will of ‘the people’ fails to recognise that the judiciary base their decisions not on personal ideology, but constitutional considerations. The judges in question, guided by substantial experience and knowledge in constitutional affairs, deemed parliamentary consent in the triggering of Article 50 to be necessary, thus strengthening the influence of popularly elected MPs. Despite this, populist rhetoric has served to erode public trust in our judiciary. Public trust in our judicial branch is of utmost importance, particularly given the limits of the Supreme Court's power within the British Constitution, and thus respect for its decisions is essential.
Populist criticisms of the legal profession have also contributed to legal aid cuts, thus affecting all manner of legal disciplines; populism has seen legal professionals depicted as excessively paid at the expense of the British taxpayer. There is certainly a degree of validity to the view that some lawyers benefit excessively from the legal aid system - in 2015, former Justice Secretary Jack Straw revealed that the top 10 highest paid barristers earned £6,772,000 in legal aid payments whilst nearly 1000 criminal barristers earned more than £100,000
However, it is clear that such a view fails to acknowledge that the bulk of legal professionals within the legal aid system do not benefit from remuneration to this degree. At a ‘Right to Justice' event, Lord Falconer criticised this phenomenon in spite of his role in perpetuating such rhetoric in his political career - he argued that legal professionals have been “vilified by the political establishment for too long” and that portrayals of legal professionals being overpaid have paved the way for governments to “decimate legal aid”. Indeed, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 initiated substantial cuts to legal aid which have pushed the British legal aid system to breaking point. As a consequence of the 2012 cuts, the number of legal aid providers in 2016 had dropped by 37% [Law Society]. Interviews with 29 English barristers and solicitors indicated that criminal legal aid lawyers are “set up to fail by the current financial conditions within which they must work''. [Thornton, 2019]. In this regard, populist rhetoric has severely undermined access to justice for those who otherwise would not be able to afford legal representation; equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of our legal system and of democracy as a whole. Populist attacks on legal professionals have tangible consequences for individuals who are unable to access legal aid. Former Law Society president Lubna Shuja argued that “legal aid can be the difference between a family staying in a safe home or homelessness, protection from domestic abuse or staying in an abusive relationship”, indicative of how populism can be detrimental to the very people it purports to protect against the ‘elites’.
It is also worth noting that legal aid cuts are a false economy - Lady Hale has argued that access to legal advice usually reduces costs in the long term, with more problems resolved before they reach court. In 2010, Citizens Advice estimated that for every £1 spent on legal aid the State saves £2.34 from housing advice, £2.98 from debt advice, £8.80 from benefits advice, and £7.13 from employment advice. This is indicative of a broader political issue - populism often leads to ineffective and illogical governance which prioritises sentiment over practicality and competent decision making.
Populist rhetoric has had a detrimental impact both on the judicial branch of the British political system and on the provision of legal aid. In order to address this, the incoming government should ensure that the rhetoric they deploy respects the independence of the judiciary, even if the decisions made are not those that they necessarily support. More funding should, in one’s estimation, be diverted to legal aid - not only will this increase the fairness of the legal system, it is in the objective fiscal interest of a government to do so given the aforementioned savings that legal aid funding can provide. A new dawn of respect for the legal profession would be of great benefit in bolstering British democracy.
Links to Further Reading
Коментарі