Overturning Parliament addresses the erosion of public trust in Britain’s democratic institutions. The essay argues our febrile times demand a simple yet dramatic change: Parliament must be turned on its head. The result would be a lower house of non-elected experts and citizens who, through detailed analysis and public engagement, identify where policy and legislation is needed to tackle the short and long term problems of the nation. These are then ratified by an elected upper chamber. It is ultimately an argument for more and better democracy, with the incentives for negative behaviour – dishonesty, short-termism, tribality – minimised.

It’s summer 2030, and extremists have been relegated to the margins of UK politics. Britain is now considered the world’s truest democracy, and pragmatic, forward-thinking government looks set to stay.

Yet only a decade ago the country was teetering on the brink of civil war. Our parliamentary system, which had appeared to serve us well for centuries, was broken beyond repair. Having been gridlocked for close to two years, Parliament was battling attempts to bring it down. Public faith in democracy was dead, and violent anger had begun to spill out onto the streets.

It may have been Brexit that had brought the crisis to a head. But it had been brewing for many years. It’s now widely accepted that traditional parliamentary democracy in the UK was doomed to fail since its inception – because the entire structure upon which it was built was upside-down!

On the face of it, the two parliamentary chambers had appeared to balance democratic accountability (via the Commons or Lower House) with expert scrutiny and long-term interest (via the Lords – the Upper House). There were merits to both houses, but each also exhibited fundamental flaws – flaws compounded by the ‘upside-down’ nature of the parliament.

Elections to the Lower House were democratic, with party-political considerations playing a key role. But party politics, combined with general elections at least twice every decade, meant that policies were driven by ideology, political ambition and the need to ensure re-election. Parliamentary democracy was a costly, ineffective and antagonistic model of governance, slowly fanning the flames of animosity for several decades before Brexit poured on the oil and exposed its failings for all to see.

The Upper House, free from electoral imperatives, was able to take a much more considered approach. Members of the Upper House scrutinised each draft law, and was often able to persuade the government to make policy changes on a wide range of issues, such as a delay on cuts to tax credits until protections for low paid workers were put in place. One of the problems with the Lords, however, was that because it generally considered draft laws that had already passed through the democratically elected Lower House, any legislative delays, amendments or rejections could be construed as anti-democratic. This, coupled with the highly visible fact that the Upper House lacked diversity in terms of ethnicity, age, gender and religion, meant it appeared to be a relic of a bygone era.

By 2020, with the Brexit Bill failing to pass successfully through both houses of parliament, attitudes to the Establishment had turned from disillusionment to downright hostility. Anger had spilled onto the streets, directed at the established political system, which lay impotent in the face of a national uprising.

The spring ‘Million Man March on Parliament’ had ended with the occupation of parliament buildings by the people, and in the absence of any credible political authority, the monarchy took charge. The Army was commanded to ensure peace on the streets whilst the Queen established a temporary government of national unity, and a Royal Commission was rapidly established to devise a new model of parliamentary democracy to truly act in the interests of the country and be enshrined in law under a new national constitution.

The resulting parliamentary model sees democracy become strengthened, not diluted. The Lower House is now made up of expert ‘peers’, selected on merit to represent key sectors or interest groups, who propose sensible, well-considered policies and legislation and we, the public, have the final say on these proposals through the Upper House, where local representatives are democratically elected to approve policies and legislation.

It is often said no system is perfect, and it remains to be seen how our new democratic system will be viewed through the lens of history. However, under the new system, the Brexit stalemate was brought to a satisfactory and democratic end in little over six months. Where the previous system had failed so spectacularly, our newly-born democracy has proven itself capable of delivering sensible, workable solutions, and re-united our polarised nation.

You can follow Rachel on Twitter @Rachel_Burgon