www.charter88.org.uk/index.html  - www.peterjepson.com/law/Citizen/citz.ppt 

Charter 88 is a pressure group which wishes to develop and expand democracy. Please research this pressure group and produce an essay which discusses its aims and methods.

Essay written by Paul Powlesland (AS Law Student)

Introduction

Charter88 is a pressure group that wishes to ìexpand and develop democracy.î
It began in 1988 as a publication in the Guardian (a left-wing progressive
newspaper). It calls for more democracy and openness in our political system
and most importantly a bill of rights and a written constitution. Charter88
has enshrined its beliefs into a charter that sums up its aims and they
encourage people to sign the charter ìif they want to make Britain more
democratic.î People who have signed the charter are called signatories and
from an original number of 348, there are now over 82,000. These are counted
as the supporters of charter88, as it is a non-membership organisation. It
is also supposedly politically neutral. However, while charter88 has no
direct links with any political parties, most of itís views are generally
progressive and as such are more likely to appeal to people on the left of
the political spectrum (as can be seen by the fact it was founded in the
liberalist Guardian). This can also be proved that in many areas researched
in the course of this essay, what charter88 believed did not once match up
to what the conservative party had in itís manifesto. While this does not
make it necessarily politically biased, it is worth bearing in mind when
considering charter88ís beliefs and aims. In the course of this essay
explanation will be given of charter88ís aims and methods. While an overview
of all its aims will be given, more depth of analysis will be given to three
of its aims.

Overview Of Charter88ís Aims

While it has already been mentioned that Charter88 wish to ìdevelop and
expand democracyî, to properly understand charter88ís aims and beliefs, it
is necessary to give a overview of the most important aims that are
described in the charter.

Voting reform is stated as an important aim of Charter88, because ìfor most
people it is their only political actî. Charter88 would like everyone to be
fairly represented and as such would like the first past the post system -in
which people vote for candidates in their local constituency and the party
with the most ìseatsî forms the government- scrapped. Charter88 criticises
this system, because candidates are often elected without a majority and
many peopleís votes are wasted. However, first past the post does have some
good points, such as, it is easy to understand and it means there is a
strong government who can govern effectively. Charter88 would like to
replace first past the post with the Alternative Vote System, whereby voters
list candidates in the order of their preference and if a candidate gets a
majority they are elected. If however, no candidate gets a majority, the
votes are redistributed until one candidate has a majority. Charter88 say
this is a good policy, because the current first past the post voting system
is not working. It means that governments are often elected on a minority
vote and it is creating ìelectoral desertsî where although people in an area
are voting for a party, they have no representation from this party in
Westminster (for example conservative supporters in and Scotland and Labour
supporters in the south East). However, people who oppose the Alternative
Vote System say that votes could be more distorted under the Alternative
Vote System than under first past the post.

Another aim of Charter88 is reform of parliament. Charter88 would like ìan
accessible parliament and MPís with the power to scrutinise legislation and
to hold ministers responsible.î In order to achieve this, it believes the
commons should reform their hours, reform question times to ìencourage
proper dialogueî and introduce training for MPs. Charter88 is also staunchly
in favour of a full reform of the House of Lords, and want the recent
reforms to go even further. They believe it should be fully elected rather
than part hereditary as it is now and it ìshould have sufficient powers to
credibly challenge the governmentî. While I would support the fact that the
House of Lords should not be fully hereditary (despite it being a large part
of our parliamentary history), I am not sure what Charter88 intends to put
in their place. For instance, all Labourís reforms have done is to put
Labour sympathising ìpeoples peersî into the house. Frankly, a second
chamber made up of people there by accident of birth is better than one made
up of the cronies of the government of the day.
 

Another issue that Charter88 considers important to unlocking democracy is
openness, which includes freedom of information and accountability.
Charter88 would like a freedom of information act, so an authority could not
insist on secrecy just to conceal its mistakes, or protect an ineffective
policy. They also believe that people should be able to see what is recorded
about them on personal files, so that they can correct damaging errors. One
area in which this might affect the English Legal System for example, is
with the way The Lord chancellor selects members of the judiciary.
Currently, he has confidential files about members of the legal profession,
which he uses to decide who to appoint. Under the type of freedom of
information act proposed by Charter88, he would be unable to do this and
would have to use a more open system. It could by asked why Charter88 is
still campaigning for a freedom of information act; as such an act was
passed two years ago. However, Charter88 believe the Freedom Of Information
Act (2000) is ìseriously flawedî and ìmay, in some circumstances, restrict
current access to information.î So, while Charter88 believe a freedom of
information act should be implemented, they are unhappy with the one that
has been passed, believing it does not go far enough, or embody the type of
openness that they would like in such an act. As an intermediate measure,
Charter88 urge people to use the existing ëCode of practise on open
governmentí to obtain information about themselves and the way in which they
are governed.
 

As the overview of Charter88ís main aims and issues is now complete, it is
easier to see what they believe in and to get a better view of the group as
a whole. Now, I will look in more depth at the most important aims of
Charter88 and the impact on the UK if what Charter88 wants is implemented.

Devolution

Devolution is one area in which Charter88 have had many successes, but hope
to go even further in the future. Since itís formation in 1988, Charter88
has been campaigning for Scottish and Welsh devolution. Charter88
ìcampaigned hardî for the devolved Scottish parliament and ìsupportî the
fact that it has come into being. It says that the difference in policy
between Westminster and Holyrood, over tuition fees and care of the elderly
was ìan inevitable consequence of devolutionî and as this is what devolution
was designed to achieve, it should ìbe welcomedî. However, what Charter88
fails to mention when it describes the virtues of a devolved Scotland, is
that disproportionate amounts of money per person are being given to
Scotland to pay for these spending plans at the expense of the English, who
are now feeling very disenchanted with devolution, as they now perceive it
as unfair. It seems that Scotland (and indeed Wales) wants the best of both
worlds. They want the power to decide their own spending and legislation,
but they also want the disproportionate amount of money from Westminster to
pay for this spending.
 

While Charter88 is pleased with devolution in Scotland, it is not so pleased
with the Welsh Assembly. Although Charter88 describes the Welsh assembly as
ìa huge achievementî that should be ìwelcomed whole-heartedlyî they believe
that the Government Of Wales Act (1998) fell short of giving true devolved
democracy to the Welsh. They believe that the assembly is ìthe start, not
the end of the process of devolution. In the future, they would like the
assembly to have full tax-raising and legislative power and would like to
give greater powers to the assembly in order to ìgive the people of Wales a
greater say in how they are governed.î
 

As I mentioned earlier, the English are becoming increasingly disenchanted
with devolution. They see it as unfair because they are the only country in
the UK not given devolved powers away from Westminster. To redress this
balance, in addition to the devolution of Scotland and Wales, Charter88
would like devolved power extended to the English regions. However, they
would not like to do this by creating an English parliament. I believe such
a parliament would be fairer because we currently have MPs from Scotland and
Wales influencing English policies at Westminster, when there are no English
politicians influencing policies at the devolved assemblies, which is
frankly a double standard. Charter88 does not want an English parliament
because they believe that this would be centralising, undemocratic and
taking power away from the people. However, I believe their preferred
system- regional assemblies- would have just this effect.
 

Charter88 would like to replace the centuries old counties system with
regional assemblies. Considering what Charter88 stands for (greater
democracy and more accountability to the electorate), what they would like
to implement is unbelievable. Taking the South East as an example, the plans
would include abolishing the county councils of Kent, Sussex, Oxfordshire,
Surrey and others and replacing them with one massive regional assembly
based in Guildford. Each member of the assembly would represent 250,000
people, compared with the average 10,000 people represented by todayís
County Councillors. In addition, local needs will be less important to the
centralised assemblies, as they will be further away from local communities
than current County Councils. I believe all this is totally at odds with
Charter88ís mission of giving people more access and accountability to those
who represent them and would further strangle democracy, rather than unlock
it. I believe that this example sums up charter88ís main problems. While its
idealistic proposals look great on paper and seem to hold the answer to all
the UKís problems, in reality they may do nothing, or even make the
situation worse than it was before.

The Incorporation of the ECHR and a Bill Of Rights

The European Convention On Human Rights (ECHR) was incorporated into British
law in November 1998, with the Human Rights Act (1998). This was something
Charter88 had been campaigning for and they ìwelcomeî it. As usual however,
Charter88 is not completely satisfied with this. Instead, it sees it as a
ìpositive first stepî towards a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom.
Before describing the impact a Bill of Rights would have on the UK and
whether it is a good idea, it is important to firstly understand what it is.
A Bill of Rights is ìa statement of basic rights which citizens can expect
to have protected from state interference. [If we had a Bill of Rights] the
courts could refuse to apply legislation which conflicts with these rightsî
(The English Legal system by C. Elliott and F. Quinn). Britain is unusual
among democratic societies because it does not have a Bill Of Rights (the
only other developed, democratic country not to have one is Israel),
however, is Charter88 correct in wanting one for Britain and would it really
improve democracy?
 

One of the principle reasons in favour of a Bill Of Rights and the main
reason that Charter88 supports it, is that it puts a curb on the enormous
powers of the executive. Although parliament is meant to act in this role,
in reality the use of party whips and the weakness of opposition has meant
that governments have been able to legislate against personal freedom almost
at will, safe in the knowledge that the courts cannot refuse to apply their
legislation, as they can in countries that have a Bill of Rights. Examples
used to show where a Bill of Rights might be necessary, include R v Ponting,
where a civil servant was prosecuted for leaking official information that
the government wished to keep secret. Despite the fact that the leaking of
the information was in the public interest, the government tried to ìgag
himî by prosecuting him, something that would probably not be allowed to
happen if we had a Bill of Rights. Another argument in favour of a Bill of
Rights include the fact that residual freedoms (whereby we are entitled to
do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law), are not enough and
have been shown to be seriously flawed and empowering the state more than
the citizen.
 

Finally, Charter88 believe that a Bill of Rights would set out for all
citizens, the government and the judiciary, ìthe basic rights and freedoms
we would all be entitled to expect.î They believe that this would then lead
to better awareness by citizens of their legal rights.
Despite the fact that a Bill of Rights is one of the ëHoly Grailsí for
Charter88, there are many arguments against it. First and foremost of these,
is that it would give increased power to the judiciary. This is due to the
fact that the courts could block a new piece of legislation that violated
the Bill of Rights. Also, due to the open and imprecise nature of such a
bill, it would be open to judicial interpretation as too what each article
meant. With regards to Charter88ís aims, a Bill of Rights is similar to
devolution, in that it looks great on paper and seems as though it has the
answer to all the problems concerning democracy, when in reality it would
make things worse. How can taking power away from the peopleís elected
representatives (parliament) and giving it to an unelected body (the
judiciary) be in any way democratic?
 

Additionally, it can be argued that there is no need for a Bill of Rights,
because civil liberties are adequately protected in this country. This is
especially so now the ECHR has been integrated in to British law. After all,
if we have a convention on human rights we do not need another one in the
form of a Bill of Rights.

A Written Constitution

A written constitution (with an incorporated Bill of Rights) is
unquestionably Charter88ís biggest aim, as can be seen from itís position
that is stated on its website. Usually its position is equivocal, with lots
of maybes and clauses like ìwith public support and consultation.î However,
its position on a written constitution simply says ìCharter88 would like to
see a written citizens constitution before 2010, ratified in a referendum by
a large, measured and confident majority.î So, while Charter88 adamantly
believes in the need for a written constitution, would it be the best thing
for the UK and is it necessary?
 

The primary reason given by Charter88 in support of a written constitution
is that it would limit the enormous powers of the executive and the limits
of what they may do in our name (because as Charter88 argues, they are there
to serve us, not the other way round). For the same reasons given in favour
of a Bill of Rights, the checks that used to be placed on the executive are
no longer in place. For instance, there is usually one party control of
parliament and opposition in the House of Lords is very weak. According to
Charter88, this lack of opposition has led to oppressive policies by
unopposed governments. Examples include the removal of the right to remain
silent (usually considered a fundamental right) under the previous
Conservative government with the introduction of the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act (1994), and the intention of the current government to
restrict trial by jury. Charter88 insist that the only way to stop this kind
of legislation is have a written constitution and thus put a curb on the
powers of the executive.
 

In their argument, Charter88 try to destroy the main argument of those who
oppose a written constitution- that Britain has a perfectly good unwritten
constitution that has served us well for centuries and needs no change. They
do this by pointing out that many things that characterised the British
unwritten constitution ìremoved or irreparably damagedî by recent
constitutional reforms. Such things include the fact that the Human Rights
Act (1998) has undermined the absolute sovereignty of parliament and the
fact that cabinet government is no more than ìa convenient fiction.î
Additionally Charter88 also points to the increasing ìpoliticisationî of the
civil service and the fact that the monarchy no longer commands immediate
respect, no does it play its ìonce unifying roleî. While I believe in most
of the above as true examples of the breakdown of our unwritten
constitution, I cannot believe the example about the monarchy. Whether this
frankly absurd view about the current state of the monarchy is due to the
website not being updated recently, or simply an error in judgement I do not
know. However, the scenes of millions of flag-waving people in the mall and
all over the country and the scenes of Christians celebrating beside Muslims
shows that the queen does still command respect from the majority of people
and is still a unifying force. Despite this, these are the reasons given by
Charter88 to show the breakdown of our old unwritten constitution and thus
the reasons for creating a new written one to fill the vacuum left behind.
However, many people do not agree with Charter88ís view. The first and
foremost argument put forward by opponents of a written constitution, is
that Britain already has a constitution (albeit unwritten) that has served
us well for centuries. This constitution is made up of the common law,
judicial precedent and acts of parliament, which has evolved over centuries.
Those in favour of it say that as such it is a part of our cultural heritage
it would be wrong to destroy it. Instead, those in favour of our current
constitution say that to protect our stability and the rights of all
citizens, there should be a process of ìevolution not revolutionî (1997
Conservative Manifesto). In addition they argue, that this process of
evolution is much easier with an unwritten constitution than with a written
one. This is because there are no specific procedural requirements for
changing it (unlike a written one), so it is more flexible and can ìdevelop
with the changing needs of societyî (English Legal System By C. Elliot and
F. Quinn). This flexibility (whereby the people can easily change the
constitution through their elected representatives) is surely more
democratic than the written constitution proposed by Charter88. To add to
their argument, those opposed to a written constitution also argue that
citizens rights lay in ëresidual rightsí (the right to do anything that is
not specifically forbidden by law) and use the old adage ìIf it isnít
broken, donít fix itî to describe why we should keep our current
constitution.
 

Those are the arguments of Charter88 and the advantages and disadvantages
of them. Next will follow a discussion on how Charter88 intends to implement
these aims, through their methods.

Charter88ís Methods

Charter88 is very different to most pressure groups in that it is an
academic pressure group. This is because it was founded in a newspaper (The
Guardian) and it campaigns academically for academic changes on a broad
range of often-complex issues. For example, many pressure groups hope to
change things by blocking roads, protesting and disrupting until they are
noticed. These are more active pressure groups, who hope to change things by
getting attention to their cause by grabbing headlines. Generally, these
types of pressure groups have emotive issues that stir up strong emotion in
the public, in order to get them behind their campaign. However, Charter88
cannot do this, because the type of issues they wish to raise (and
ultimately change) are not so emotive and need to be explained in laymenís
terms in a rational argument for them to be accepted. For instance, the
campaign for nuclear disarmament (CND) could stand in a road and shout ìNo
war on Iraq.î This would make perfect sense and be understood by the average
person looking on, although they would not get much support from academics
and those running the country through this. This would not matter however,
because it is the average person who is in charge of the country through the
ballot box (although this is obviously currently disputed by Charter88!).
However, Charter88 could not stand in the road and shout ìWe want a written
citizens constitution and a Bill of Rights, because it would curb the power
of the executive, the current unwritten constitution is not sufficient
because residual freedoms are not enough to protect our civil rights and it
would set out for everyone the basic rights and freedoms we should expect.î
If they were to do so, the average person would either look at them with a
bemused look, or scurry across to the other side of the street, being
careful to avoid eye contact. In addition, by doing this, Charter88 would
also lose the respect of academics and the establishment, as it would not be
taken seriously any more. As a result, neither the average person, nor
academics would support Charter88 and so it would get nowhere.
 

To overcome this problem, Charter88 had to take a different approach that
was more tailored to the complexity of its aims. As a result, they began as
an academic pressure group, to begin with centred on universities and other
academic institutions. Although they are politically neutral, Charter88
would tend to draw its support from the left of the political spectrum.
While this maybe a rather generalised statement, I believe it is a justified
one, because (taking politics back to its bare roots), those who want things
to change are generally on the left of the political spectrum and those who
want things to stay the same are generally on the left. Therefore, as
Charter88 wants (quite radical) change, they would tend to draw their
support from the left. So now it is ascertained that Charter88 is an
academic pressure group, what methods do they actually use and how
successful are these methods?
 

The first and foremost method used by Charter88 is getting people to sign
the actual Charter88. However, despite the triumphant headline on the
charter page, ìI want to change Britain, for good. Iím signing Charter88.î
It is unclear what purpose signing the charter actually fulfils. Yes it
looks good that thousands of people have signed the charter and this might
give it credibility amongst academics, but at the end of the day what does
it actually accomplish? There are literally thousands of petitions in the
UK, Charter88 could be described as just another one floating around that
politicians occasionally look at and then ignore. Additionally, not that
many people have actually signed Charter88. Although 82,000 may sound like a
lot, the main political parties (who Charter88 claims have no real support,
people just vote for them because they cannot vote for anyone else) have
200,000 or more members. This is especially damning for Charter88, because
there is a membership fee for political parties, whereas becoming a
signatory for Charter88 is free. Additionally, not only have not many people
(when compared to other organisations) signed Charter88, there does not
appear too be many people doing so at the moment. When I began my research
into this essay more than a month ago, the number who had signed Charter88
was 82,657 and this is still the case at the time of writing, showing that
perhaps the number of prospective signatories is declining.
 

So while getting people to sign Charter88 is a key method of Charter88 (on
their website at least, because every avenue taken seems to lead you too the
ëSign Charter88í page), the number of people signing has not been enough and
there seems no clear outcome from this apart from raising the groups
credibility and even this is debatable, because not an overwhelming amount
of people have signed Charter88.
 

Another method used by Charter88, is the use of local actions groups, to
put forward their method at the ìgrass-rootsî. This is an important way of
getting Charter88ís aims across to the average person, rather than academics
and politicians and Charter88 describes them as ìcentral to our work.î
Charter88 groups are active up and down the country ìpushing for reform of
local and national democracy, bringing local expertise and a local point of
view to campaigns.î This does seem like a more hands on approach that does
get Charter88ís views across and hopefully action taken without the
ëstreet-corner protestsí of other pressure groups. However, there does not
seem too be enough groups (for instance there is only one group to cover the
whole of Wales) and their effectiveness is (obviously) not mentioned on the
website, but the fact that no specific achievements are mentioned could be
an indicator of this. This however does not mean that these groups are
ineffective, because they raise public awareness of Charter88ís aims and to
the need for democratic change. After all, it is public awareness that will
eventually force the politicians to take note of what Charter88 says and
thus the local groups could be very effective at raising general issues, but
not at having any specific achievements to its name with regards to specific
issues.
 

As virtually all pressure groups know, adults are generally set in their
views and are hard too convince, whereas young people tend to be much more
open to new (and often radical views). Charter88 has used this knowledge to
gain more support from young people, via its Citizen21 program. Citizen21 is
an educational program that provides resources for the new AS Level
citizenship course. It is very interesting to view the Citizen21 website,
for despite the fact that it is a branch of Charter88, it is not obviously
biased towards its viewpoint. For instance, with regards to voting reform,
the website gives all the alternatives (including the much derided first
past the post system) including the advantages and disadvantages of each. In
this way the student can make up their own mind as to which system is the
best. I believe this is an extremely effective way to get Charter88ís
message across to young people, because it shows insight into the way they
think. Young people can tell when they are being given a biased view and
prefer to make their own minds up. Because Charter88ís views are generally a
sensible solution to a problem, they are likely to be excepted by young
people and thus Charter88 could recruit young, active signatories whoís
views are likely to stay with them when they get older. After all, the young
people of today are the citizens and politicians of tomorrow.
 

The other main way Charter88 tries to gain support and put their views
across is by talks, meetings and lectures. Through these events, Charter88
hope to put their views across to people and hopefully to reach a wider
audience through any publicity gained. The biggest talk in the near future
is the ëFuture of democracy conferenceí being held in a few weeks time.
Charter88 hope this conference will ìset a new agenda for democratic reform
which we can all campaign for.î They hope this conference will bring all
those who are interested in democratic change (also from groups other than
Charter88) and their aim is for ìa new coalition for democracy, one that is
strong enough to make our voices heard.î In addition to refocusing their
efforts, Charter88 is also hoping to attract publicity to its cause. This
should not be too difficult because there are many famous guest speakers
including Robin Cook and Billy Bragg and the observer is covering the event.
I believe that events such as these are an effective method for bringing
Charter88ís supporters and fellow campaigners together to campaign more
effectively for academic change. In addition the publicity achieved should
bring Charter88ís aims more into the public domain. However, these types of
conferences could just be all talk and no action if no positive actions come
from it. Despite this those supporting these methods might add that each
method, while not effective on its own is part of a wider picture and
together, and with time the changes desired by Charter88 could be realised
through these methods. Other talks and lectures that could have a real
impact on Charter88ís success, are the ëUnlocking democracy meetingsí that
are held in the run up to general elections, when politicians are generally
forced to listen to what voters think. These meetings are non-political and
exist ìto give local voters an opportunity to debate with their candidates
how we are governed and to express their views.î I believe this is an
extremely clever method used by Charter88 to express their aims. Firstly,
they are held in the run up to elections, when politicians are forced to
listen to people and give promises in order to win votes. Secondly however,
these protests are made by ordinary members of the public, rather than
Charter88 itself, thus giving the views expressed more importance, as they
are those of ordinary people. So, the meetings talks and lectures used by
Charter88 are a good method or campaigning and getting awareness, but action
must follow from them in order to stop them becoming pointless
ìtalking-shops.î
 

The only real way to judge the success of Charter88ís methods, is to look
at past campaigns, how they were carried out and what came about as a result
of them. One of the most successful recent campaigns of Charter88 has
involved the House of Lords reform. When the government realised its White
Paper last November, Charter88 embarked on a campaign to block this and to
have public consultation on the issue instead. To achieve this, it organised
nine public meetings around the country, where members of the public had a
chance to air their views. The White Paper was eventually dropped to make
way for a ìJoint Consultative Committeeî and this had a lot to do with the
campaigning put in by Charter88 and other pressure groups. In fact,
Charter88 was even mentioned in The Lord Chancellorís Department ës
ëAnalysis of Responses to the Government White Paper ìHouse of Lords
Reform-Completing the Reform.îí The success of this campaign shows where
Charter88ís main strengths lie. I believe it is not in demanding generalised
reform (such as wanting a written constitution), but doing very specific
campaigns that have specific aims. By doing specific campaigns, Charter88
would gradually start to achieve itís aims, rather than having large general
aims that are not taken seriously, or ever realised. This view is somewhat
backed up by Charter88ís Oxford Group. They say ìDue to Charter88, several
individual reforms have taken place and this is because Charter88 has laid
the ground for them. However, because we have not yet achieved some of our
biggest aims and we have not yet created a truly democratic society, we have
gone largely unnoticed in the public eye.î
 

Overall, the success of Charter88ís methods lies in the way they are
generally well known in the academic community. This can be proved by the
fact that the Sunday Telegraph awarded them the title of ëThe most
influential pressure-group of the decadeí. Additionally, their views are
quoted several times on important issues in ëThe English Legal Systemí by C.
Elliott and F. Quinn and I am sure in many other books as well. In addition,
their methods have given them many supporters in the academic world.
However, their presence is not known amongst much of the general public. I
had certainly not known about them before I began this project and I
probably never would unless I actively went seeking for such an
organisation. This then, must be Charter88ís biggest target in relation to
its methods. They must use more methods to attract members of the public and
create a greater public awareness of their aims, if they wish to succeed in
many of their aims, and if they want to create a more democratic society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Charter88 is an academic pressure group that wishes to
ìdevelop and expand democracyî. It has many aims, some of which could be
achievable in the near future, some of which may take a long time to happen
or may never happen at all. Additionally, I believe some of the aims will
help to achieve Charter88ís philosophy of ìdeveloping and expanding
democracyî and should be pursued wholeheartedly to make Britain a more just
and democratic society. However, I believe that some of its aims will have
the opposite effect and make this country less democratic. These are the
types of aims that look very good on paper, but in reality will actually
make the situation worse (for example English regional assemblies). In
addition, I also believe that currently Charter88 is trying to deal with to
many issues and instead it should get rid of those that will not succeed
(e.g. English regional assemblies) and concentrate its full efforts on the
aims that are most important (e.g. a written constitution).
 

With regards to methods, Charter88 does have many methods they use to try
and achieve their aims. However, most of these methods involve too much
talking about general aims and too little actions. Charter88ís biggest
successes have come from active campaigns on specific areas (such as the
recent blocking of the Governments White Paper on House of Lords Reform),
not from conferences that talk generally about large aims such as the
introduction of a written constitution. As well as making as making
campaigns more specific, I believe Charter88 should build on the success of
getting its message across to the academic world, but also step up the
methods used to raise awareness of itself and get its message across to the
general public. Having the support of academics is good, because most
pressure groups do not have this support. However, if Charter88 really wants
to be a force for democratic reform in the UK, then it must have the support
of the general public as well.
 

If Charter88 streamlines itís aims, produces clear objectives with time
scales and introduces new methods to convince the general public, as well as
academics, of the need to implement itís aims, then hopefully, bit by bit
its aims might be introduced into British Law. These small aims would then
pave the way for the introduction of the larger aims, such as a written
constitution. Then, Britain would hopefully be a more just and democratic
society that values the rights, beliefs and opinions of all its citizens.



Bibliography:

… The English Legal System (By C. Elliott and F. Quinn),
… The English Legal System (By J. Martin),
… www.charter88.org.uk (By Charter88),
… www.citizen21.org.uk (By Citizen21),
… ëCharter88í (By L. Conway).
 

November 2002