Liberal Democracy. Why are elections so important for liberal democracy - Essay Example

? Liberal Democracy Liberal democracy refers to representative democracy, which is composed of elected representatives whose power is checked through the constitution. In liberal democracies, the constitution is used to protect the rights of the minority groups, individual liberties and equality. Elections and democracy are complementary to each other. Free and fair elections are central to promoting liberal democracy. The cosmopolitan nature of the United Kingdom society has made people devise means of having organized electoral systems that are fully representative. The intention of the electorate is to consolidate their civil rights and freedoms. These electoral systems are established through either direct or indirect means of picking representatives into the House of Commons. The electoral system must avoid irregularities and guarantee the wishes of the majority while respecting the rights and the voice of the minority. The strength of the electoral process guards against unnecessary tensions (Robinson 2010). This is the essence of reviewing the parliamentary electoral system in the United Kingdom to make them representative and free. A liberal democracy like the United Kingdom thrives through democratic elections. A general election is a vital decision making process in which the people decide whom to entrust with power. Modern liberal democracies like the United Kingdom use elections to fill vacancies in the executive, parliament and the judiciary. The word election comes from a Latin word Legere meaning-choose. The essence of general elections is to change leadership and express the wishes of the citizens on key matters. Modern liberal democracies like the United Kingdom have the electoral systems which yield the best results. The most popular democratic systems are both presidential and parliamentary systems. The United Kingdom used the parliamentary system. The liberties include the freedom of speech, religion, right to private property and privacy. Liberal democracy has safeguard against majoritarianism which hurts the minority. In a liberal democracy, elections must be free and fair (Johnson 2001). The electorate must have a choice of political parties, which differ in policies and views. In a liberal democracy, voting is by secret ballot. This ensures that voters do not feel pressured (Robinson 2010). Elections are crucial in liberal democracies because the parliament and the government are chosen by and accountable to the voters. Liberal democracies demand that elections be regular (Dunleavy & O'Leary 2000). This gives the electorate a chance to review their leaders and make changes during the election year. The government must call for a referendum on key issues that affect the lives of people directly (Williams 1998). In liberal democracies, election results must be respected since they represent the demands of the people (Diamond & Platter 2006). As a result, the power transitions must be peaceful, and this ensures economic stability. In the United Kingdom, the European court of human rights ensures that civil rights are enforced. Democratic elections guarantee equal opportunities and a fair justice system in liberal democracies (Williams 1998). The government must be limited and open to the public (Dunleavy & O'Leary 2000). Democratic elections give the people power to securitize the government in liberal democracies. The constitution gives the citizens the right to access state information if it does not compromise the security situation of the country (Robinson 2010). Democratic electoral process guarantees free media, which is not controlled by the state. This means that the media must give neutral coverage to all the political activities in the country, and at the same time criticize any the government freely (Diamond & Platter 2006). In the United Kingdom, the electoral system is free and fair. The law demands that balloting in the UK be secret, in addition to universal suffrage of, eighteen and over. The country has a number of political parties who respect the outcome of elections. United Kingdom had remarkably few referenda the most recent being in 1997 (Williams 1998). The referendum was on whether Scotland should be allowed to have its own parliament. The government of United Kingdom upholds civil- liberties. The government is separated from the judiciary (Johnson 2001). The government is expected to be accountable to the electorate. In case the government loses of the vote of confidence in the House of Commons, which is a representation of the public, a general election follows. This happened in 1979. The results of the general election held in 2005 in the United Kingdom raised pertinent concerns. The independent, a local newspaper, ran a headline revealing that the people voted for and what they got. The paper suggested that there should be a shift in the electoral system in the United Kingdom to make it proportional and fair (Diamond & Platter 2006). The suggestion attracted thousands of signatories (Johnson 2001). The issue revealed that the electoral system in the United Kingdom in has become an issue in itself. Public and political attentions have been drawn considerably to the electoral reforms of the United Kingdom parliamentary system. After the 1997 elections that saw the labor government come to power, a report commissioned by the government recommended a change in the electoral system in the United Kingdom (Williams 1998). However, no action was taken. In 2010, Gordon Brown, the prime minister then, promised to carry out a referendum with the aim of changing the United Kingdom parliamentary electoral system. He also committed his party to give full support to an elected upper house. This included proportional representation of the large constituencies (Johnson 2001). This position was in the 2005 manifestos of two other of the main political parties (Dunleavy & O'Leary 2000). The premise of democracy is free and fair elections, which can only happen through proportional representation. Liberal democrats proposed a referendum on the electoral process on the United Kingdom in 2009. Currently the electoral system being used in United Kingdom is the single member constituency (Williams 1998). The system has an absolute majority and is referred to as first past the post system (FPTS). Britain is divided into constituencies for the purpose of general elections. The political parties are required to put forward their candidates in the constituencies. This means that each party presents one candidate in a constituency. The voters elect the candidate of their choice with each of them casting one vote. The candidate with majority number of votes becomes the representative of that constituency or a MP. The political party, which has the largest number of elected representatives, forms the government (Diamond & Platter 2006). This electoral system is straightforward to understand. Voters find it easy to detect which party is likely to form the government. The FPTP is cheap, and results are produced faster than in other systems (Johnson 2001). This explains why the system is less emotive than a presidential system. The fact that each constituency has one representative means that voters know who to turn to in case of need. Voters are compelled to vote for the policies they want since parties are ideological in nature. However, there have been voices of concern over the FPTP system in the United Kingdom (Diamond & Platter 2006). According to the system, a simple majority is needed to win meaning that it is possible for people to be represented by a candidate who is unpopular (Gregory 2007). This threatens the tenets of any liberal democracy including the United Kingdom (Williams 1998). Observations show that a party who comes second or third in many constituencies ends up having many total votes and few seats. This can fuel dissatisfaction among the electorate and the process may fall short of being fully representative (Robinson 2010). Studies show that in the United Kingdom, under the parliamentary electoral system, the government can be formed by a party that lost the total vote compared to their rivals (Robinson 2010). This is fueled by the fact that winners in small constituencies can garner lesser votes compared to the runners up in larger constituencies (Gregory 2007). In the United Kingdom, some constituencies are dominated by some parties. This discourages the voters who belong to other small parties. The electoral system of the United Kingdom must consider the size of the constituency and the magnitude of the electoral constituencies. This indicates the extent of proportionality of any electoral system. The magnitude refers to the number of representatives from each region or constituency while size refers to the number of voters per region (Felsenthal & Machover 2001). The multiple member constituency PR electoral systems tend to result in more parties fielding candidates that in single-member systems (Great Britain 2008). This causes small parties to have a number of representatives in the parliament. Studies show that this system results to the formation of coalitions since the dominant parties cannot attain the numbers to form the government (Robinson 2010). However, coalitions are known to cause instability (Williams 1998). An electoral system can be party based or candidate-based (Guy 2006). The distinction tends to cut across the multiple member and single member PR electoral systems. FPTP and the AV electoral systems are known to give independent contestants the chance to win constituencies (Guy 2006). However, this scenario hardly happens in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s electoral system is viewed to be party-based. The parties are known to determine who is elected. There is a proposal that electors should pick from a number of candidates who should represent the party during the general elections (Felsenthal & Machover 2001). STV electoral system is viewed to be the most candidate based system. The United Kingdom is actively involved in getting the electoral system that shall help in consolidating the civil liberties that have been gained over the decades. A research conducted by the London school of law and politics indicated that none of the voting systems is too complicated for voters to understand (Great Britain 2008). According to McNeil, a representative in the United Kingdom, AV is the out- rightly preferable to FPTP. This argument is based on the fact that, in FPTP, the winner takes everything while the loser takes nothing. This has been known to put illegitimate government in power. Single transferrable vote system is viewed as one of the alternates that would perfectly represent the voters wish in the parliament. STV is viewed as an accurate reflection of the intention of the voters (Johnson 2001). The system enhances party competition in the United Kingdom. This would mean that candidates would have to convince the electorate in, the entire constituency as opposed to focusing on the swing voters (Felsenthal & Machover 2001). Accountable and competitive electoral system in the United Kingdom would make the public participate in governance. The premise of democracy is listening to the wish of the people. For the government of the United Kingdom to win the trust and support of the public, the electoral process must be interactive. This builds the confidence that the civil rights and wishes of the people shall be represented. The drawing of boundaries is associated with many upheavals (Great Britain 2008). STV would reduce this turbulence since the voters would be given the choice to list as many candidates they prefer as possible. Arguably, PR electoral system makes it easy for marginalized groups to be elected. In the United Kingdom 2005 elections, 126 women were elected into the House of Commons. 2 percent came from minority ethnicities. However, it has been discovered is it not practical to have electoral systems that guarantee representativeness in a multiplicity of dimensions. The UK policy makers have argued that a change in the electoral system many not translate into increased social representation that meets the expected standards (Felsenthal & Machover 2001). There has been a request to focus on the procedures on nominating candidates as one of the methods of enhancing representation. The single transferrable vote (STV) is similar to AV in terms of functionality (Guy 2006). This electoral system is in use, in Northern Ireland. One of the common features of the parliamentary electoral system used in the United Kingdom is the splitting of the country into representative regions (Johnson 2001). The aim of these constituencies is to create election results based on the premise of proportional representation (PR). This system has caused small parties to be excluded when it comes to seats allocation. In conclusion, the United Kingdom has been searching for the most representative electoral system. This shall ensure that the United Kingdom’s citizens will is expressed during the general elections. Numerous electoral systems have been proposed with different members of parliament campaigning for different methods. Given the extent of research and discussion in this essay the preferable electoral system for the United Kingdom is the single transferable vote (STV). The STV system is candidate based and represents the intentions of the voters more accurately compared to other systems. References Diamond, L., & Platter, M. F. 2006. Electoral Systems and Democracy 1st ed. JHU Press. Dunleavy, P., & O'Leary, B. 2000. Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy 1st ed. New Armsterdam. Felsenthal, D. S., & Machover, M. 2001. Electoral Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions, and Procedures 1st ed. Springer. Great Britain 2008. The governance of Britain: review of voting systems, the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997 1st ed. The Stationery Office. Gregory, H. F, 2007. Democracy , Right To, International Protection, Wayne University Law School Legal Research Paper Series, 30,3. Guy S. 2006. Free and Fair Elections, Expanded Edition, Published by Inter-Parliamentary union, Grand Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland, 113-117. Johnson, R. J. 2001. From Votes To Seats: The Operation of the UK Electoral System Since 1945 1st ed. Manchester University Press. Robinson, C. 2010. Electoral Systems and Voting in United Kingdom 1st ed. Edinburgh University Press. Williams, A. 1998. UK Government and Politics 2nd Edition 2nd ed. Heinemann. Read More