The Development of Multi-Level Governance Means - Coursework Example

? “The development of multi-level governance means that Westminster is losing power both upwards to the European Union and downwards to developed institutions.” Name of the Student Subject Name of the Concerned Professor 31 March 2011 Introduction With the democratization of societies and the influx of transparency and accountability into the systems of governance, the power structures governing the European democracies are bound to go alteration and change (Cini 2007). The system of governance in the UK in a contemporary scenario is undergoing a process of restructuring owing to the imminent institutional and constitutional reforms (Cini 2007). The devolution of power furnished by the multi-level system of governance is a direct expression of the concept that the emerging European politico-economic system comprises of multiple, interacting authority structures (Bache & Flinders 2004). It is defined by an enhanced entanglement between local, national and international frameworks of authority. This change in a way also means that Westminster is losing power both upwards to the European Union and downwards to the devolved institutions. Westminster Model The traditional Westminster model envisaged a representative and not participative form of governance. In this system of governance, the party majority accrued an exaggerated importance and relevance. The government not only directly controlled the party, but the ministers in the government also exercised control and directive powers over the civil servants that should ideally have been neutral (Rhodes et al 2009). These ministers in turn were directly under the influence and control of the PM. Simply, put, the provisions enshrined in the Westminster model supported a system of governance, in which the overall power and discretion was vested into the hands of a few key individuals or core executives (Rhodes et al 2009). The supporters of the Westminster model extended a normative justification for its existence by arguing that this somewhat pyramidal model of governance suggested the ultimate accountability of the government to the electorate via parliament (Rhodes et al 2009). Such supporters also stated that the Westminster model provided for a system of control, which effectively guided and reinforced the attitude and behaviour of ministers and civil servants (Rhodes et al 2009). However, it goes without saying that the Westminster model had its inbuilt deficiencies and flaws. The primary weakness of this system was that it was not directly in consonance with the aspirations of the British masses and hence was rejected in favour of alternate systems like multi-level governance. Going by the fact that the scope of the state is always extensive and vast, a centralized system of government is always open to the possibility of getting overloaded, thereby leading to inefficiency and ineffectiveness (Rhodes et al 2009). The Westminster model simply allowed the ministers to focus on a few issues of governance, leading to ignorance and sidelining of the many other (Rhodes et al 2009). Even if the Westminster model led to the designing of influential policies, there always lays a great difference between coming out with great policy drafts and assuring that they get effectively implemented at the grass root level. Multi-Level Governance Multi-level governance is a direct response to the deficiencies embedded in the Westminster model. It aims at a decentralization of the framing and implementation of the policy decisions. Multi-level governance as the name suggest is multi-level and not hierarchical. It is a fragmented and not centralized system of governance with many centres (Bache & Flinders 2004). Multi-level governance, unlike the Westminster model assures that the policies get framed and implemented through negotiation, consensus and steering and not through control and compulsion (Bache & Flinders 2004). This system envisages a quasi-federal and not a unitary state defined by a segmented control and administration and not an all powerful and strong executive (Bache & Flinders 2004). The multi-level model of governance draws credence through institutional bargaining and not parliamentary sovereignty (Piattoni 2010). It transfers powers to other levels, like upwards from UK to the EU and downwards from the national to the local governments, private and third sectors, and is not a stickler for rigidly discriminating between the formal and informal sources of power (Piattoni 2010). At a local level it makes way for efficiency and participative democracy, while in a pan European context it assures that the decision making powers in the EU are shared and contested and are not appropriated and monopolized by specific national governments (Piattoni 2010). However, still, many questions remain unanswered with regards to multi-level governance. The first and foremost question is that is the loss of centralization introduced by multi-level governance a problem for the British democracy (Piattoni 2010)? If this system deprives Westminster of the absolute power, then how is the government to be held accountable and punished for its failures (Piattoni 2010)? Also, how the institutions brought in by multi-level governance are to be made accountable (Piattoni 2010)? Conclusion Certainly, multi-level governance is more in consonance with the aspirations of the masses. However, the current challenge before the British polity is to shape this inevitable diffusion of power by bringing it within the framework of formal accountability. Reference List Bache, Ian & Flinders, Matthew 2004, Multi-level Governance, OUP Oxford, London. Cini, Michelle 2007, European Union Politics, Oxford University Press, London. Piattoni, Simona 2010, The Theory of Multi-level Governance, OUP Oxford, London. Rhodes, RAW, Wanno, John & Weller, Patrick, 2009, Comparing Westminster, OUP Oxford, London. Summary The power structures governing the European democracies are undergoing a change owing to the pressing need for efficiency, transparency and accountability. The resultant changes in the British political framework do mean that Westminster is losing power to both upwards to the European Union and downwards to the devolved institutions. The traditional Westminster model of governance stressed on representation rather than on participation and allowed for a somewhat direct and absolute control of the government over the civil servants and state institutions, which ideally need to be neutral and non-partisan. This led to a concentration of power in a few hands. The Westminster model was not only contrary to the current aspirations of the masses, but also faced the risk of getting overloaded, resulting in the neglect of many important issues and challenges. The multi-level model of governance intends to do away with the deficiencies of the Westminster model. It is a fragmented and decentralized system of governance that depends on consensus, negotiation and steering rather than on control and compulsion. At a local level it makes way for efficiency while at a pan European level it assures that the decision making power does not get concentrated into the hands of the national governments. However, the multi-level system of governance leaves many questions unanswered as to the need for and mechanisms of assuring accountability in a political system governed by multiple centres. The biggest challenge before the British polity is to bring in the multi-level model of governance within the ambit of accountability. Read More