The Parliamentary Contribution to Democracy - Essay Example

Introduction. The early years of the twenty-first century have been witness to a striking paradox. First, democracy, both as an ideal and as a set of political institutions and practices, has been triumphant in most countries of the world and as the 2005 UN World Summit1 declared, 'democracy is a universal value' which 'does not belong to any country or region'. Second, these years have also seen a considerable disillusionment developing with the results of democracy in practice and this disillusionment is shared as much by citizens of the so called old democracies as by those of the new and emerging ones. The Parliamentary Contribution to Democracy. The organization and nature of political systems is determined by three different powers, namely, the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and their inter relationship and more specifically the relation existing between the legislature and the executive. Parliament is the essential and definitive link between the citizen and the government and should therefore be the cardinal institution of any nation's democratic system. Genuine representative democracy is possible only in a country with a strong Parliament. A strong Parliament ensures a good and accountable government endowed with a robust and sensitive law making mechanism. The citizens of a country have a say in the decisions that affect their lives only when a strong Parliament is in existence in that country. Over a period of time, Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has been on the decline irrespective of the political character of the Government involved. Important legislation becomes law after being subjected to cursory investigation and this allows the entry of laws which have been poorly drafted and ill thought through. This has been the experience in the United Kingdom. Dominance of the Executive. The domination of the Legislature by the Executive has assumed great importance and it has been generally conceded that, the Executive dominates the Legislature and that any discussion in this regard concerns itself mainly with the level of this dominance. Such studies have in the main concentrated on the parliament's performance in the legislative process and there is a discernible neglect of other key functions of parliament such as scrutiny for example. The diminishing role of Parliament and the increasing power of the Executive in the British political system has been the subject of many discussions and a number of concrete remedies have been suggested by various authorities. Inter Alia, these authorities have frequently referred to a so called golden age when the balance between legislature and executive was more equitable. "The argument appears to start from a misinterpretation of what the role of Parliament has been in the past which is a question of description or what the role ought to be is a question of prescription. This lacks the evidence of past commentators, like Mill or Bagehot which always correctly interpreted. Indeed, the lessons of history itself are not infrequently misapplied"2 The Liaison Committee had submitted two reports, in order to clarify its views on the discussion taking place in respect of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive3, these reports are Shifting the balance: select committees and the executive, or the 1st report of 1999-2000, HC 300, March 20004 and Independence or control or the 2nd report of 1999-2000, HC 748, July 20005. Although the primary focus of the Committee's attention is the select committee system6, it addresses this in the overall context of the executive-parliamentary relations, as can be seen from its conclusions in the first report. These conclusions state that twenty years have elapsed since the setting up of the departmental select committees and that their establishment was a major step in making the Executive accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the citizen and the taxpayer. Although, these committees had done a lot of important work their full capability had been neither realized nor utilized. This report had set out a programme of reform and modernisation which would serve to disprove the contention of some that the House of Commons was "a toothless adjunct of an all-powerful Executive". The aftermath of this report was that proposals to improve the Select Committee system were published, which were aimed at making the system not only more effective and independent but also to make it a better watch dog of the Government's functioning and at the same time improve the lot of the citizens. Subsequently, the Government published its response, which rejected almost every one of the recommendations made in the report. This proved to be both disappointing and surprising. It was disheartening because the proposals were minimal in their impact, no suggestion was made for a detailed scrutiny of the Estimates as a condition for their approval and there were no suggestions to enhance the powers of Select Committees. The surprise component was due to the fact that a Government which had raised a hue and cry about its much touted policy of modernising Parliament had made a volte face when its own accountability and freedom of action were at stake. In conclusion, the report the committee held that in its Reply the Government had lost a valuable opportunity to engender reforms, which would have been greatly to its credit. Meaningful modernisation of Parliament requires both better accountability and tougher scrutiny of the Government. The committee further contended that this constitutes the true test by which the public would judge the effectiveness and value of Parliament. The role and function of Parliament Parliament constitutes an essential and definitive link between citizens and government and it should continue to remain the paramount institution at the heart of the nation's democratic system. A deplorable and regrettable condition is that the rapid loss of power and influence of Parliament in respect of the Executive since 1997. This has rendered Parliament less able to hold the Executive to account and the need of the hour is the urgent implementation of the requisite reforms essential to restore the authority of the House. It is also essential to undo the circumventing and undermining of Parliament that has become common in recent years. It is the belief of all the parliamentarians who are honest with themselves that the power of Parliament has been steadily diminished and that it is no longer capable of discharging its functions properly. Unfortunately, in practice, the Parliament is not scrutinising the Government's legislative programme properly and evidence of this is the rejection of 36 Bills in three years and the vast number of Government amendments that are being tabled to colossal, badly drafted Bills which has resulted in a large number of legislations becoming law without ever having been debated by the House of Commons. It has become the frequently adopted practice to define Parliament by describing what it does7. The modern role and function of a Westminster model of parliament are that of a legislature, "in its narrow sense of law-making processing and passing the legislation desired by the Government and a democratic forum, for holding to account the power and actions of the executive, and representing the views and interests of the people8." The primary role accorded to parliament is that of its legislative role and this is so entrenched that legislature has become synonymous for parliament. The complexities of Modern societies and the all pervasive reach of public policy have made parliament to desist from engaging in any significant making or implementation of policy9 and these functions have come to be regarded as the functions of the Executive. As has been aptly stated "Parliamentary government means not government by Parliament, but government through Parliament"10. The role of the Parliament is to act as a forum which provides the essential, legitimising link between the government and the governed. This results in different characteristics of behaviour in a parliament, especially in its interaction with the executive. Further, on examining the relationship between these two governmental organs, account must be taken of the legal and practical status of each, and the degree of autonomy each has or can have from the other11. These two functions have different, sometimes opposite effects on the relationship of Parliament to the Executive. As a legislature, it is obviously convenient for the Executive to be actively represented within Parliament to ensure the smooth and successful passage of the business it requires or desires. On the other hand, when Parliament is seeking to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise its activities, the usual principles of propriety and effectiveness would seem to require the maximum degree of separation between the body doing the scrutinising and the body being scrutinised. This potential and actual tension caused by these two roles, and how they are played out within Parliament, constitutes Parliament's dilemma as to its proper role and function, and how it has to give effect to it. The legislative function, a mainly executive-driven operation, has been said to have become so predominant in the practical and perceived role and function of parliament that it the scrutiny function, which is a parliamentary operation, has been relegated to the background. The usual response to this analysis is to propose reforms which increase the scrutiny function by the adoption of enhanced forms of investigation and enquiry through a committee system, or otherwise. Further, demands for diminishing the volume of legislation have been made, although, reforms to the legislative function seek to improve the mechanisms and procedures of the legislative process12. A better and more encompassing approach lies in examining, not what a parliament does, but in what it is. A parliament is a place in the sense that it is "the forum for the public debate and criticism" of governmental acts13 and it is also an organisation. It is a place where democratically elected representatives assemble. Whereas the concept of Parliament connotes a debating forum the concept of an assembly emphasises the multiple personality of Parliament. This implies that its members come together under numerous guises, such as those of, individual members, political parties, party or cross-party groupings, Government and others and as Committees. From the legal and constitutional perspective the UK Parliament is an organisation or institution with its own personality and viewpoint. The courts use this terminology when interpreting statutes or in separation of powers cases. Nevertheless, with the exception of the need for entities with legal capacity to act for the Westminster Parliament14, or the representational or symbolic roles of the Speaker, practice indicates that there is little if anything that could be properly called 'Parliament'. In its legislative capacity or in other parliamentary modes the voice of Parliament has become synonymous with the voice of the government of the day with a working majority. Stated succinctly, the party with a majority holding has a dominant position in relation to the substantive business, proceedings of Parliament and also in relation to the organisation and operation of Parliament as an institutional entity. This has developed into an effective power of initiative as well as of decision. In English constitutional history, the development of Parliament, in terms of its relationship to the executive, compromises three stages, first, as a means whereby the executive required the involvement of the elite. Second, the emergence of a more autonomous role for parliament, in the government of the state, either in conjunction with or in opposition to formal executive power. Third, the gradual domination of the parliament by the executive, under the semblance of political government in the name of the Crown and reinforced by the party system, despite the growth of mass authenticity derived from democratic elections. The other aspect in this regard is the role of the party. This arises in relation to the scrutiny role of Parliament, that is due to the operation of bi-partisan or non-partisan bodies within a partisan and adversarial institution. It has been rightly claimed that "the movement for a strong committee system in Parliament ignored one of the most elementary findings of comparative legislative research- that the strength of a legislative committee system varies inversely with the strength of the party system in a legislature"15. Though, some people do not decry the existence of party in itself, many condemn its excessiveness. This is borne out by the Norton Commission Report, which examines ways of strengthening Parliament16. The culture obtaining is pervaded by party loyalty; partisanship dominates, especially in the House of Commons and the party is deemed to be crucial to political life, and indeed central to the Westminster form of government, but it is now becoming evident that excessive partisanship is detrimental to Parliament, limiting its capacity to make the government of the day accountable for its actions. The principle of majority The implication is that the Executive dictates terms to Parliament, by virtue of its majority and due the process and outcomes of democratic election leading to that majority. This approach emphasises the primacy of those parliamentary functions, which are in consonance with the objectives of the Executive, notably the passage of its proposed legislation and the endorsement of its policies and actions, while at the same time reducing the importance of those parliamentary functions and modes like those of scrutiny, accountability and redress, where the parliament opposes its vested interests. The Debate A major debate arose during an Opposition Day motion on 13 July 200017. The Opposition's motion stated that "Parliament is the essential and definitive link between citizen and government and should remain the institution at the heart of the nation's democratic system", and it called for "the urgent introduction of the reforms necessary to reassert the authority of the House and to reverse the bypassing and undermining of Parliament in recent years". The debate ranged widely, and covered the proposals of the Liaison Committee and the Government's response to the same. The opposition leader, Mr Hague said that reforms and proposals to make Parliament stronger, improve laws and hold Government to greater democratic account were required. He further stated that the recommendations of the Liaison Committee, which asked for sensible reforms that build on the success of the Select Committee system in providing independent scrutiny of Government, exposing mistaken and short-sighted policies and so on should be adopted. He also said that this Committee proposed to "give the House of Commons more teeth by taking appointments to Select Committees out of the hands of the Whips. The Prime Minister Mr Blair replied that, the Parliament and the Executive were two structures of power, which owed their legitimacy to the people and that their task was to do the people's will. He contended that the procedures of the House were not matters for the Government or the official Opposition but matters for individual Members of Parliament who exercised their own judgment on a free vote. He further said that they were matters for the House. The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, stated that "an effective Parliament should be neither excessively obstructive nor excessively subservient. The opportunities available to the Opposition and to Back Benchers rest largely with obstruction. The opportunities available to those who are subservient to the interests of the Government of the day rest largely with having to toady and to follow the party and the Executive line." In early November, two major debates provided scope for considered examination by the House of the significant issues surrounding the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. These debates18 related to the proposals in the Modernisation Committee's recent report on the programming of legislation and the timing of votes19. The Hansard Society established in September 1999 a Commission, chaired by the Conservative peer and former Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Newton of Braintree, to examine the scrutiny role of Parliament. This complements its earlier Commission on the legislative process, which completed its report in 199320. Parliamentary Scrutiny of Governmental Prerogative Power. Not all governmental power originates from law, and the origin of such power can influence the scope and extent of any parliamentary involvement in scrutiny of its exercise. As has been observed, there are some areas of Parliamentary business, other than in the legislative field, arising from various forms of governmental activity: "The second category of business is that which does not require formal parliamentary authorisation and for such business debating opportunities are not automatically guaranteed. This non-legislative business falls under a number of different heads21." These are in relation to ministerial activity: (a) under prerogative powers, (b) under statutory powers which grant wide areas of discretion in the taking of policy decisions without specific parliamentary sanction, such as major capital projects, and (c) under broad statutory powers in the taking of policy decisions without seeking parliamentary authority, other than broad financial approval, such as a switch of emphasis in policy and resources within a particular field. Conclusion. From the foregoing it can be concluded that despite unprecedented structural changes to the UK polity and reforms to the parliamentary process, the extent and reach of Executive power has increased. This domination of the Executive over the Parliament is paralleled with the ongoing control of the whips and the culture of tribalism in Parliament. This trend has severely limited the extent to which individual MPs can respond to issues of general public concern, despite the fact that there is widespread agreement that many MPs are becoming increasingly responsive to constituency related problems. While there are differing views as to whether MPs lack the power or the will to scrutinise and hold to account the Executive, there is consensus that the scrutiny function of the House of Commons was being performed very poorly. It has been acknowledged that this role is now much more effectively undertaken by the unelected House of Lords, which despite the removal of hereditary peers, has yet to be reformed on a democratic basis. Both public submissions and research interviewees raised the concern that without an effective separation of powers, declining trust in elected representatives and reduction in faith in the political system is likely to continue. On the whole it has to be conceded that The British Parliament has failed dismally in scrutinising the Executive. The constitutional framework of the United Kingdom is accountable, coherent, flexible and effective; this ensures sound governance and fundamental soundness. The processes of government are now flawed. There is a crisis in terms of how government handles business and in the way that parliament scrutinises executive actions and legislation. Government does not need reinventing, it needs reinvigorating. Some suggestions for remedying this sorry state of affairs are appended in the sequel. First, the number of government departments and the number of ministers should be reduced. Second, the number of MPs should be reduced while their resources should be increased this will improve the quality of MPs by reducing the number of 'career politicians'. Third, the number of departmental bills should be decreased. Fourth, ministers should increase time spent on consultation before introducing new measures. Fifth, ministers should be allowed to draw upon a greater range of advice and have more time to reflect on long-term goals. Sixth, a more consistent means of evaluating legislation should be introduced. Seventh, the resources of select committees should be increased. Eighth, all bills should be scrutinised by special standing committees. Ninth, standing committees should have permanent or core members, this is very important. Tenth, the committee stage of a bill should precede its second reading. Eleventh, the scrutiny of European legislation should be strengthened, this assumes paramount importance. If these proposals are implemented, Government would be in consonance with the continuing needs of the nation. Bibliography. 1. N. Baldwin and D. Shell (eds), Second Chambers, London, Frank Cass, 2001. 2. T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds.), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration, London, Frank Cass, 2000. 3. Lord Bryce, Modern Democracies, London, Macmillan Company, 1921. 4. Kornberg and L. Musolf (eds.), Legislatures in Developmental Perspective Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1970. 5. C. Leston-Bandeira (ed.), Southern European Parliaments in Democracy - special issue of The Journal of Legislative Studies,vol. 9, 2, (2003). 6. L.D. Longley (ed.), The Role of Legislatures and Parliaments in Democratizing and Newly Democratic Regimes - working papers on comparative legislative studies, Appleton WI, Research Committee of Legislative Specialists of the IPSA, 1994. 7. L.D. Longley and A. gh (eds.), The Changing Roles of Parliamentary Committees - working papers on comparative legislative studies II, Appleton WI, Research Committee of Legislative Specialists of the IPSA, 1997. 8. L. Longley and R. Davidson, The New Roles of Parliamentary Committees, London, Frank Cass, 1998. 9. P. Norton (ed.), Legislatures, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992. 10. P. Norton, Does Parliament Matter London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. Read More