Published in Yorkshire Post  2 October 2007

In a few days we shall know whether Gordon Brown is a great and unique Prime Minister. Will he rise above opportunism and do his job for his country? Or, like so many of his predecessors, will he make a grab for power by exploiting a defect in British democracy?

The right of the Prime Minister to call an election is a stolen relic of the Royal Prerogative and a blot on our political system. It has been rightly compared to a football match where the home team is allowed to blow the final whistle when it is 2-0 up. More tellingly, it has also been compared to a company whose directors can get the accounts approved ahead of the financial year before the shareholders can see the bad news. It creates uncertainty which is bad for financial markets and the economy generally and it paralyses government. Everything else we vote for – local and devolved government, the European Parliament – has a fixed timetable. So does almost every other mature, successful democracy.

Countries with fixed-term elections do not necessarily have better government. Their leaders are just as likely as ours to manipulate the economy, make popular decisions and avoid unpopular ones in order to get re-elected. But at least their voters and their markets and their economic decision-makers know when to expect this and can plan accordingly.

If Gordon Brown uses his privilege now to cut and run it would be particularly shameless. No modern Prime Minister with a secure majority has ever called an election so early in any Parliament and with so little pretext. Voters knew in 2005 that Tony Blair would not serve a full term and that Gordon Brown was virtually certain to succeed him. Nothing in his long “laundry list” of a Conference speech needs to be put to voters. The government does not need a mandate to crack down on under-age drinking, it just needs to enforce the law of the land.

Gordon Brown has gained his “bounce” from his image as a man of integrity who takes a long-term view of government. He would confirm that reputation, and take a huge step towards restoring trust in British politics, if he resists the temptation to call an election and abolishes that privilege for himself and future Premiers.

There should be a Speaker’s Conference in which all the parties could agree proposals for fixed-term Parliaments. They will need to agree the length of the term (four years has become usual) and to agree the circumstances and the mechanism for dissolving Parliament and holding a General Election ahead of time.

For there may well be times when such an election is necessary, either to resolve deadlock or to preserve the democratic rights of the British people. If a government is defeated on a vote of confidence, or a vital part of its legislative programme or going to war or signing an important international treaty a new Parliament might be the only means of restoring a government with authority. Moreover, such the power of modern Prime Ministers that there is a case for saying that any new Prime Minister should be submitted automatically to the will of the electors. If they have voted for Buggins and they get Juggins instead they have the right to say something about it. This argument is especially powerful if Juggins takes power after a party coup against the elected Buggins, or if he or she comes from a different party (which could happen in a hung Parliament).

The risk of special elections is that the governing party could manipulate the system to secure an election at a favourable moment, just as they do now. It could arrange to lose a vote of confidence (this has happened in other countries) or it could simply putsch an unpopular Prime Minister to face the voters with a new one enjoying a honeymoon. To provide a deterrent against such manoeuvres a new Parliament after a special election could be limited to serving out the unexpired term of the old one. That would be a powerful deterrent since elections are so expensive.

The parties at a Speaker’s Conference would need to work through all these issues and present an agreed reform package. They should then put this to a referendum to give the electors, not the politicians, the final say on the rules of the game.

Like all Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown is more than a party leader, more even than a head of government. He is a trustee of British democracy itself. He now has a unique chance to live up to that role by declining to take unfair advantage of our political system and making it more efficient and equitable through fixed-term Parliaments.