the queen & the bbc: beyond conspiracy theory

The practice of politics is a constant effort to bi-pass or occasionally subvert publicly codified norms (aka rules). Norms, as Carl Schmitt told us, are anti-political, but this is precisely why we have them. The legislature and judiciary are a pain in the arse to the executive, which is why modern liberalism invented them. One of Tony Blair's most Schmittian moments - and there were countless - was when he deliberately courted defeat in the House of Commons over 90-day detention of suspects. This was a direct appeal from 'leader' to public, saying 'look what constraints I have to deal with, in my mission to keep you safe'.

A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is the suggestion that publicly codified norms offer no real constraint to politics in the first place. Norms are not represented as anti-political but extra-political: they run in parallel to the strategies and mechanics of power. This is why it is less often the executive that is charged with conspiracy (because the modern executive is after all partly defined in opposition to the legislative and the judiciary) than the free-floating bodies that were established long after Montesquieu, Madison and others had finished defining the branches of modern government. The CIA, M15, the Bilderburg Group, McKinseys and Davos are the target for conspiracy theorists, rather than governments as such. It is a common feature of many conspiracy theories that the President or Prime Minister was ignorant of what was actually going on.

Today's news about the BBC lying about the Queen is impossible to unravel, either as a piece of politics or in terms of conspiracy. Were it true that the Queen had been captured storming off in a huff, it would make perfect sense for the woman from where all power stems (including that of the BBC) to have the information 'corrected'. Why wouldn't she? She is the most powerful person in the country, and it's neither flattering nor helpful for her personality flaws to emerge. The bottom line is - if she's important enough to create quite such a desperate clean-up job and such grovelling apologies, she's important enough to have the truth censored.

But the crucial thing here is that to exercise scepticism is neither an expression of Schmittian/Machiavellian political realism nor of a conspiracy theory, for the following reason.

To my untrained eye, it seems rather implausible that quite such a specific narrative would emerge via various channels simultaneously, and that BBC staff cut quite so many corners as is being suggested here. But on the other hand, it is plausible. So mediaeval is our constitution that not only do we have no basis for knowing what actually happened, we can't even classify our suspicions as a 'conspiracy'. Being who she is, it would be as proper for the Queen to censor freedom of speech as it would be for her to permit it; there are no rules at work here because the Queen is the source of all rules! Unlike the Prime Minister, who would be breaking the rules were he to rewrite a BBC story, or the Bilderburg Group, who are suspected of covertly absenting themselves from the rules, the Queen's status is such that she is incapable of living under rules even if she wanted to. Which is why they used to decapitate her sort in France.

Comments

[bge]

"Queen's status is such that she is incapable of living under rules even if she wanted to"

Weren't those arguments closed off in the 17th century? France had lettres de cachet, but in the UK the bars on the Royal Prerogative relating to the rule of law have been extremely clear for rther a long time.

The areas of uncertainty in our constitution relate mainly to the things that the monarch could do in theory, but probably can't in reality (sacking Prime Ministers, for example). There's no uncertainty at all about the things the monarch defintely can't do, and censoring the press has been on that list since before the typewriter was around, never mind Final Cut Pro.

[Will Davies]

bge - fair enough. I'm probably being unduly flippant or polemical, and my knowledge of constitutional history is not brilliant. I just smelled something a little fishy at the time the story broke. After all, it's hardly censoring the press if she offered the BBC unprecedented access on the condition that the Palace retained certain editorial controls over the results.

Will