Sections
DONATE
SUPPORT WWW.JOLLOFNEWS.COM
Account Login
Can the British political system, and the role of the popular press within, be described as ‘democratic’?
Wednesday, 20 April 2011 01:24
By PK JarjuPart 1
Introduction
This is an investigative report on whether the British political system and the role of the popular press within can be described as ‘democratic’ especially whether the ‘core executive’ is too powerful.
The topic is important to me as a journalism student and I want to find out how power/money distorts democratic process with a focus on the media, especially newspaper reporting of an issue which is of interest to me.
The report will look at the definition of democracy, the British political power structure and the role of the popular press in public debate.
1.1 Democracy criteria
The term democracy originated from two Greek words- demos meaning the ‘people’ and kratos meaning ‘power’. Democracy can therefore be described as ‘people power’. This is because the power to choose and change a government lies in the hands of the people.
To count as a democracy, a political system must have periodic free and fair elections where all adults have a right to vote and an equal effective opportunity to stand for public office, regardless of their sex and social group.
In a democracy, Weir, S. & Beetham, D. (1999: p.11) argues that: “People are the starting point of representative democracy. It is the people who elect a parliament and a government to represent them.”
For a system to count as a true democracy, it must also have elected representatives that are accountable to the electorate. The electorate should be informed about any decision their representatives are making. Also, voters should have a say on any political or constitutional changes that directly affects them.
Burlamaqui, L. et al (2000: p. 206) points out that: “The main intermediate objective of any democratic regime is to increase the accountability of politicians. Politicians should always be accountable to their citizens. The clearer the responsibility of the politician vis-à-vis citizens and their claims, the more democratic the regime is.”
Furthermore, to count as a democracy, a political system must respect and safeguard civil, political rights and liberties of all citizens.
Mor, A. (1998: p. 47) argues that: “Democracy cannot be felt or effectuated behind closed doors, nor be based on an authoritarian rule or repression in lieu of competitive political parties, informed vigilant opposition, the active influence of the masses over the rulers, and the independent right of the people to organise and criticise.”
The above definition shows that in a democracy, there is political equality and every individual can seek public office irrespective of gender or social group.
It also shows that in a democracy there is always accountability and transparency in all levels of government, which makes the government answerable at all time to the people as well as prevent it from abusing or monopolising power.
Above all, in a democracy the rights and liberties of the people are guaranteed.
1.2 Critical assessments of the British political system
In this section, I will be assessing the British political system to see whether it meets the criteria of a true democracy.
The British political system is often described as a true democracy because it holds periodic elections which allow voters to easily change government. However, the British’s first- past- the-post electoral system is not fair in converting the shares of votes received by a party into the share of seats won. It causes a distortion in the relation between the shares of votes and the shares of seats in the House of Commons. The electoral system is also unfair because it gives control of the house to the party with the largest number of seats.
Scott, E. (2010) argues that: “The British electoral system infringes natural justice as it does not constitute universal and equal suffrage for the majority of British voters.”
The British electoral system contravenes the United Nations’ election code used by all international election observers. The UN election code (2005: p.2) states that: “The will of the people of a country is the basis for the authority of government, and that will must be determined through genuine periodic elections, which guarantee the right and opportunity to vote freely and to be elected fairly through universal and equal suffrage by secret balloting or equivalent free voting procedures, the results of which are accurately counted, announced and respected.”
Dahl, R. (1998: p. 95) points out that: “If we accept the desirability of political equality, then every citizen must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. If equality in voting is to be implemented, then clearly elections must be free and fair. To be free means that citizens can go to the polls without fear of reprisal; and if they are to be fair, then all votes must be counted as equal.”
In British politics, although all citizens irrespective of gender, race and ethnicity, are free to seek public office as well as vote in general elections, political institutions are predominantly headed by white, male, middle class educated men. Other races, sexes, and classes are greatly underrepresented. In fact, until mid 2010, membership to parties like the British National Party (BNP) was only open to heterosexual whites.
Members of the British House of Lords who are tasked with the responsibility of making laws and keeping an eye on the decisions and actions of government are not elected by the electorates. This falls short of a true democracy. In a true democracy, all representatives of the people are elected.
Power, G. (1999) argues that: "A second chamber whose membership is based on appointment and entitlement runs counter to all notions of democracy and as a result the House of Lords has very little public support or legitimacy.”
The British Prime Minister is not directly elected into office by the electorates. He is voted for by his party members. The wider electorates can only vote indirectly for the prime minister by voting for members of his party in their constituency.
And although not directly elected into office by the electorates, the office of Prime Minister embodies a formidable concentration of powers. The prime minister is responsible for the organisation of the whole work of government at the highest level.
Coxwall, B. & Robbins, L. (1998: p.266) said: “The prime minister dominates governmental decisions making, using the powers of the office to decide policy in any area with whomsoever he/she chooses, to decide key issues and to set the ideological framework for ministerial policies.”
The prime minister has the power to appoint and remove members of the cabinet, ministers of state, under-secretaries of state, Whips and Law officers such as Attorney-General and Solicitor-General without any constitutional need for approval by parliament. He or she also exercises significant influence in the selection of other leading posts in national life as well as recommendations of baronetcies, knighthoods, CBEs, MBEs and the like in the various New Year, Queen’s birthday and special honour lists.
By concentrating too much power on the office of Prime Minister, many political commentators have since described the British political system as a prime ministerial one.
Benn, T. (1985) points out that: “Within the framework of public and parliamentary consent (both voters and the House of Commons still have the power to topple a prime minister and government), a considerable centralisation of power in the premiership has occurred, amounting to ‘a system of personal rule in the very heart of our parliamentary democracy.”
In other words, by being in personal control of the conduct of all government business, the prime minister can set up and appoint to cabinet committees without revealing their existence to the public or parliament, determines what papers are circulated within government and to whom, and can instruct the civil service on the conduct of business. He or she is thus able to use the government to bring forward the policies which he favours and to stop those to which he opposed.
Transparency is seriously undermined by the Minute of Procedure for Government. Under this rules, the prime minister lays down extremely detail regulations for the operation of government as a whole, including everything from collective responsibility to the need for the prime minister’s office to authorise all broadcast.
The prime minister’s powers are also extended to parliament. Although members of the British House of Commons are voted for by the electorates to represent their interest, they can be forced to speak and vote in parliament for the party line by the Chief Whip, who is appointed by the prime minister.
While there are various departmental select committees in the House of Commons task with the responsibility of scrutinising the work of the government by holding inquiries and producing reports on matters of public policy, they are too open to control by the party.
Coxwall, B. & Robbins, L. (1998: p.316-317) argue that: “Select Committees are too open to control by the party whips (especially the government whips, since governing party members are in a majority on each committee). In particular, the whips could select the members (often apparently selecting perverse choices) and try to rig the choice of committee chairs to give the government an easier ride.”
Furthermore, select committees lack influence and their reports can be ignored by ministers. Also, under the 1980 Memorandum Guidance to civil servants appearing before select committees, civil servants can withhold information in the interest of good governance or national security.
The findings in this section have shown that the British political system does not fully meet the criteria for a true democracy. The country’s electoral system is not fair in converting the shares of votes received by a party into the share of seats won. The country also has an unelected law making body, the House of Lords and concentrates too much power in the office of the Prime Minister.
Jollofnews Poll
Who do you think should be the next President of The Gambia?
Follow us on Twitter
-
Signs of Tunisia recovery; Europe weighs: IMFWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tunisia's economy is showing signs of revival after popular protests last year...
-
Bristol Rovers Speed Merchant Could Be Racing To Posh(GamSports) – Peterborough United are thought to be one of a number of Championship sides...
Comments
RSS feed for comments to this post.