Resolving Democratic Deficiencies in British Parliament - Essay Example

RESOLVING DEMOCRATIC DEFICIENCIES IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT By 2nd, January, Introduction Undeniably, many countries have adopted the British parliament system of government and modified it over time to suit their needs. British parliament system is a supreme legislative body with crown dependencies and located in Westminster in London. Queen Elizabeth, the British monarch is the sovereign head and the chief of state of the United Kingdom. The parliament has legislative supremacy and hence ultimate power over all political bodies in the UK. In addition, the parliament has two divisions including the upper house or the house of lords and the lower house or the house of the Commons. The House of Commons include government ministers, elected into the chambers every five years in accordance to the constitution. The Monarch chooses the prime minister who works together with the government through accounting to the parliament and public on usage of public finances. British parliament suffers from serious democratic deficiencies partly because of its organization. In normal circumstances, a parliament as an institution of democracy needs to embrace a government that works towards fulfilling people’s expectations and solving problems they encounter in their daily lives. In this regard, it is important that the people they represent from diverse communities elect members of the parliament. Failure to this causes bias since parliamentary members will act in favor of a small group with personal interests. In the British parliamentary system only the House of Commons made up of 650 members to oversee the actions of the government are elected by the members of the public (“UK Parliament” N.d, P.1). In addition, the Queen selects a member from the House of Commons or Lords who is likely to command the majority to become the prime minister and hence choose the government. Democracy may suffer in that the Queen can select a member who will serve her interests and not the interests of the public. She is also likely to select a member who has no experience or expertise on the government matters making democracy to suffer. Democracy deficiency in UK being a major drawback, there are various ways of solving it, making parliament a true representation, transparent, accessible, accountable, and effective. What is Democracy? In 2005, UN World Summit declared democracy as a universal value, which does not belong to any region or country. In fact, it is based on freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social, and cultural systems (UN, 2005, p.31). Different democracies share different features in that the government puts people’s interests as a first priority but there is no single model of democracy. Every parliament should be a democratic institution because it is an elected body. Therefore, parliamentarians should endeavor to represents the society and its interests as much as possible. Democracy calls parliamentarians to reconcile conflicting interests of different groups in the diverse communities they represent through dialogue and compromise. In addition, they have the task of adapting society laws to changing needs and circumstances, accounting their actions in full to the public (Beetham, 2006, p. 2). Democracy also entails an inclusion of women, disabled and other minority groups interests that the parliament represents. The fact that only a certain percentage of the British Parliament members are elected in office by the public lessens democracy. Ways of Solving Democratic problems in the UK Change the Electoral Process Elections are held every five years after parliament is dissolved through Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Elections vote in 650 members of the House of Commons who oversee the actions of the government. “First past the post” used to vote in the House of Common members denies citizens the basic democratic rights of votes of equal value. In this system, votes do not carry the same value (“UK Parliament,” N.d, p.1). A vote has differing power according to the party voted and the region and constituency voted in. After the elections, the process of translating constituency votes into parliamentary seats is full of bias because it is subject to the political party. Usually, the national results exaggerate parliamentary strengths of the two leading parties. Due to this system of voting, parliamentary aspirants concentrate their campaigns on a small number of marginal constituencies to assure them of winning. In real sense, they win but the constituencies do not represent the nation as a whole (Weir et al., 1998, p.3). There is need to change the electoral in UK to ensure that parliament is a democratic institution that represents the public including the minority and endeavors to solve as many problems with the citizens as possible. In the 21st century, democracy is not a matter of choice to any parliament but a right to all citizens represented by it. Therefore, the electoral process should as open and as fair as possible to ensure that, it represents people’s interests. In this regard, UK should call for a referendum and have people choose between the current electoral process, and another chosen system of electoral process. A new system would encourage voters to vote in parliament leaders with expertise and people from their constituents who have their interest at heart. In addition, a new system would reduce government intervention in the electoral process making the system more democratic. The current electoral system encourages funding of some parties by interested persons or corporate that would like them to influence certain bills when they get in to the government. For instance, the labor party receives most of its funding from small trade unions while conservative party receives support form big companies (Weir & Beetham, 1999, p. 477). Although some leaders in certain parties may have good plans for the nation, they find it difficult to promote their messages or run their campaigns due to lack of funds. A more democratic process will be to have the government fund all the parties and have the political parties account for what they will use during the process. Funding parties will eliminate undue influence by small and big corporate society who funds parties out of their own interests. New Constitution or constitutional reforms Currently, UK does not have a single written constitution since its laws are partly written and wholly uncodified (“UK Parliament,” N.d, P.1). A new constitution in the UK will foster democracy because it would limit the powers of leaders in government and empower various commissions to work independently and professionally. For instance, with the current constitution, the Prime Minister has the power to determine the timing and campaign length so long as it falls within the five year stipulated period. According to Roger darling ton website, UK, unlike many other countries has no fixed term parliaments and it is held when the prime minister calls it (“RDT”, 2012, p.1). In addition, the local government and other commissions have less power and are subject to manipulation by the ministers and the government. For instance, a minister can alter the boundaries and the structure of the local government at will or delay the proposals of Independent Boundary Commission to their advantage (Weir et al., 1998, p.3). In real sense, there is no proper separation of power between the parliament and the executive. Therefore, people have no say in whatever the government does because the leaders can bend the laws in place to suit the intended purpose. For instance, the Australian constitution vests executive power in the Queen but exercised by the Governor General. Although the Prime minister heads the parties through support of the majority, he is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, neither the cabinet (“PEO,” N.d, p.1). A new constitution voted in by the people of UK will guide the actions of the government and give them a sense of direction. Empowering different commissions of government will obtain democracy for UK. For instance, the constitution will empower the independent and boundary commission to conduct true and fair elections in the country. The ministers will have little undue influence on such commissions but can only give suggestions to the process. In addition, a new constitution will give power to the minority groups who currently have no right to vote through the stringent rules and regulations of the electoral process. Through a new constitution, wealthy individuals and corporations financing political parties to gain strong influence on the elections will be outdated. It will also empower the homeless, unemployed, and the young people to exercise their power in voting leading to a more democratic parliament. Another benefit of having a new constitution that is representative of the people is that boundary commissions will harmonize the current constituencies represent all the citizens. Currently, different constituencies have differing number of voters according to differing geographical regions (“Industrial Systems Research,” 2006, p.121). Urban and rural constituencies have similar geographical areas. Due to this, urban constituencies have between 60,000 to 80,000, while rural constituencies having as low as 20,000 voters do (“Roger Darlington,” 2012, p.1). The plurality-rule electoral system used to aggregate national votes is a biased system. In addition, due to different constituencies having varying number of people, there is poor representation. New boundary commission will enhance democracy by proper division of both urban and rural constituencies. The Prime Minister UK does not have a president, the monarch; a hereditary member of the royal family is the head of state. In this regard, the prime minister remains the most important figure in the British political system. The monarch chooses the Prime Minister who later selects people to work in different ministries, run government departments, and chairs the cabinet. The fact that the Prime minister is chosen by the monarch makes the whole process biased. The monarch will choose a person who will command the majority but who will work towards fulfilling her desires. More so, the person who will choose the kind of ministers that the monarch wants to work with. Therefore, this is a biased process and full of democracy deficiencies. To correct this, the electoral process can be organized in a manner to incorporate the position of the Prime Minister. Being the most important person that drives the government of the UK, people need to have a say in the person who chooses the ministers. All the ministers’ report to the Prime Minister and forms part of the cabinet that meets every Tuesday in confidential meetings where decisions passed bind all members. The parliament should be a representation of people as much as possible, making it more democratic. By people, choosing the Prime Minister who will in turn determine the next government makes the parliament more democratic. In the same regard, vetting persons selected to ministerial positions will enhance democracy since it will reduce the chances of having corrupt ministers in the government. In addition, such persons will present their past performance contracts especially in the government fields and prove how they managed public funds to bring about development. Communication Media In the 21st century media is becoming a very important tool of communication business, personal, matters, and more so in the government. In fact, it is a key tool of informing citizens of the public affairs and a channel of communication between the parliament and the public (Beetham, 2006, p.6). To curb some of the democracy deficiencies in the parliament, it is important for the government to allow the media to publish all the parliaments’ undertakings including the confidential cabinet meetings. Media acts as a watchdog in handling to prevent all forms of public abuse. Parliament can pass some laws to govern the media and shape it in accordingly. On the same note, the media houses can increase the process of democracy through holding meetings and discussions where the public can express their interests and debate them with the parliamentary members. Such discussions can yield results through the public highlighting areas that parliament have neglected over a long period. Increasing democracy requires an active civil society that can work towards solving their issues or common society problems. In addition, such a society is not just satisfied that they elected in a government to pass laws and regulation or solve their problems. They work hand in hand with the government and without the government to find solutions to problems and increasing development. In the same manner, the government can operate a website where the public can interact with the parliamentary regularly and talk on specific issues. Democracy is all about an open and accountable government, which puts public funds accounts in black and white. In such a blog or a website, different ministries can post their balance sheets and their usage in a financial year for public scrutiny. Here, they can also answer any queries arising from the public on the usage or in connection to their constituencies. Conclusion It is true that British Parliament suffers serious democracy deficiencies arising from the system of government, plurality-rule electoral system, and selection process of the parliamentarians. A democratic parliament is one that includes a total representation of people’s interests, one that is accessible, accountable, and effective. To improve democracy in the UK parliament systems there is need first to change the electoral process and incorporate a democratic one. In addition, the government should fund the parties to remove undue influence from the corporate who currently fund the parties. It is also advisable that the government to consider changing the new constitution that allows influence of the ministers and other parliamentarians to interfere with the commissions. Finally, encourage media to act as a watchdog to the government and organize forums where parliamentarians can discuss issues with the public. Works Cited “Industrial Systems Research” 2006, British Democracy, Industrial Systems Research, UK. “PEO” N.d, “Parliamentary Education Office,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, “Roger Darlington” 2012, “A Short Guide to British Political System,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, “UK Parliament” N.d, “Parliamentary Sovereignty,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, “UK Parliament” N.d, “The House of Commons Administration Explained,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, “UK Parliament” N.d, “voting Systems in the UK,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, “United Nations” 2005, World Summit Outcome, Viewed 02 January 2013, Beetham, D 2006, “Parliament and Democracy in the 21st Century: A Guide to Good Practice,” Viewed on 02 January 2013, Weir, S & Beetham, D 1999, Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, Routledge, UK. Weir, S, Blair, T, Wilson , R, Irvine, D, & Beethan, D 1998, “Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain,” Viewed on 02 January 2013,   Read More