The British System of Government - Essay Example

Great Britain The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the political system of Great Britain was the most important factor for the development and the supremacy of the country over the rest of the world or on the other hand, was the political process of the United Kingdom responsible for the decline of the British empire and the loss of the strategic advantages that the country could otherwise have made use of. In order to that it is important to discuss the overview of the British system of government in general. The British system of Government According to Peele, the British system of government has been one of the most complex and multifaceted political processes.1 This is so because throughout history there has been a struggle to shift power and accountability from the supreme king to the people who claimed to be the representatives of people. Britain is one of the very few countries that have been lucky enough to have not been invaded over the past thousand years. Due to this reason, Britain has no history of any revolution or constitution. As a consequence, there has never arisen any need for a written constitution or set of laws. The ultimate result is that the political system of Britain is not really logical or clean. However, the change in laws that has occurred throughout history has been gradual and often built on consensus. Following are some of the problems that are posed by the political system in the Great Britain. Problems One of the major problems that the political system in Britain faces is the fact that the United Kingdom throughout political history has been divided into three parts. According to Hesperides, the three parts of United Kingdom, namely Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland have special statuses and have separate local administrations with a huge number of responsibilities.2 It is, however, ironic because England, the part of Great Britain that has the highest (or more precisely 84%) population, does not have a strong sense of regionalism. As a result, the United Kingdom is not very similar to the American system of government that rules over a total of fifty states. Although matters like defence and foreign affairs are some things that are under the direct control of the central British government, devolution of the Scottish, the Welsh and the Irish assembly have led to a greater desire among the people to strengthen the local government in the United Kingdom. This has led to an increased divide between the people who just wish to be representatives of a certain group of people. UK, as mentioned earlier, is a country that has not been invaded and conquered in any way for the last thousand years. The fact that it has been independent for such a long time should have been beneficial. This is so because the people of Britain share the same history. There may have been changes in the composition of people due to the inflow of immigrants, but the locals have the same historical background. However, it seems that the independence of Britain has not been entirely made use of. This is where Bett’s concept of the political process comes in. Through the devolution of the Scottish, Welsh and the Irish assemblies, the political supremacy in the country has not just divided the people, but has also worked towards the negation of the strategic advantages that might have been otherwise enjoyed by Britain. The United Kingdom was once regarded as a hegemonic state. However the political process in the country has led to such divisions and internal problems in Britain itself, as Heinlein relates, that it is hard to imagine how the country can actually achieve the authority that it once exercised. Before the Second World War, this small island country ruled many parts of the world and had numerous colonies. But according to Heinlein, things changed when there was an attempt to turn the British Empire into a Commonwealth. It was believed in the 1940s that the Commonwealth would earn Britain some legitimacy because it would be based on voluntary associations and so the colonies that Britain had earlier would be independent except that they would be a part of the Commonwealth. Since the colonies had not been independent before, it was also believed that through the Commonwealth, the colonies would be dependent on Britain as far as international decisions were concerned. Also at that time, being a part of the Commonwealth was synonymous to having good ties with Britain so the government of Britain assumed that every country would be willing to join and Britain would indirectly rule the world, as it had done before. But the political processes of Britain did not lead to such a result. By the 1960s, as Birch states, the Commonwealth had become quite insignificant as far as real strength was concerned.3 According to Heinlein, there was still cooperation between the dominions but it was not necessarily done on the framework of the Commonwealth.4 In addition, the Cold War meant that the linkages between the member states were weaker such that the dominance of Britain could not be sustained. As a consequence, the Commonwealth system failed. According to Birch, Britain’s unwritten constitution is also one of the reasons why the political process of the Great Britain has been different from that of other liberal democracies.5 Although the constitution, despite being a proper written document, has served the United Kingdom well, there is no doubt that things could have been better if Britain had a written constitution. Since the 1970s, there have been many questions that have been raised about the ad hoc working of the British government. One of the problems that are associated with Britain not having a constitution is the disquiet about the role of monarchy. Although the role of the monarchy in Britain is purely ceremonious, there should be a set powers assigned to the kings and queens. Instead there is no proper listing of the powers that could be used by monarchs. Another problem, as mentioned above, is the devolution of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish assemblies. There is no set of rules that defines the powers of the assemblies when they are in conflict. Other problems are related to the general slow functioning of a constitution that is unwritten. Conclusion To conclude, Britain is a country that could have easily been one of the major superpowers of the world today after the Second World War if the political processes in the Kingdom had not been so flawed. The system of government in Britain instead of uniting the four nations has led to an overall division among the people of Britain and so Britain is a prime example of a country where the political process has worked towards the negation of the strategic advantages that might have been beneficial for the country. Bibliography Birch, A. The British System of Government. London: Routledge, 1998. Heinlein, F. British Government Policy and Decolonisation, 1945-63: Scrutinising the Official Mind (British Politics and Society). London: Routledge, 2002. Hesperides. An Analysis Of The System Of Government Throughout The British Empire. UK: Hesperides Press, 2007. Peele, G. Governing the UK: British Politics in the 21st Century. MA: Wiley- Blackwell, 2004. Read More