Changing Politics - Term Paper Example

Changing politics Introduction The dynamics of change in the world have occurred in different platforms due to new developments and the world of politics has not been left behind in the aspect of change. In the time that has elapsed since 1997, various forms of advancements have been embraced by different political societies in what some people view as a positive step while to some it is a negative step because a lot has not been improved yet. One arm of the government that depicts the changes that have been embraced is the parliament. When talking about parliament matters, one may view it as powerless, irrelevant or even tangential to politics in the modern world and this stereotype is misguided because the parliament is important in governance. There have been rapid changes deep within the government structure, constitutional architecture and the society in general that have left parliament behind when fostering growth and a forward movement towards modernization on, as seen in Britain (Beetham 68). Political changes since 1997 Since 1997, there have been a number of transformations that has seen politics going through. For instance there has been formation of coalitions. Coalition government refers mostly to a cabinet of a parliamentary regime in which a number of parties collaborate. The common reason given for such agreement is that between the two parties, there is no single party on its own can reach a majority count in the legislature. It might also be formed in a time of state intricacy or calamity, for instance during the time of war, to give a regime the high extent of supposed political legality it desires while also giving a role in diminishing domestic political conflict. In such a state, parties will form all-party coalitions (Forman, 2002). When the Labor party advanced to power in 1997, they committed towards the modernization of parliament with the hope of making the institution more productive in their duties as well to make a change in the balance of power witnessed between the executive and the Parliament. The Labour party intended to achieve an improved public perception regarding Parliament but the achievement of this aim has not been as fruitful as anticipated, especially between 2001 and 2005. During the period after the elections of 1997, there has not been much luck in creating the change that was promised between The Executive and Parliament ending up in an unprecedented demise of public trust in the fulfillment of other promises delivered before the elections was conducted to elect the Labour Government (Beetham 118). As time went by, the new expectations that were placed upon Parliament and other modernizations drew different reactions as people were divided between supporting and embracing the changes while the other section of the public believed that these changes were merely a campaign promise that would never materialize into an efficient system. The divisions derived from the desires to achieve modernisation were as a result of the failures of the committee selected to implement modernisation in the House of Commons after they failed to set up an end-point that was coherent with the aims and resolutions of modernisation. The committee lacked spelt out objectives while the role of the chairperson to the committee greatly influenced the course of action that were taken by the committee so that the desired goals could not be measured at the end of the committee’s time in office. After 1997, there were several changes implemented in the legislative process, however, the modernisation committee steered clear of addressing issues involving the accountability in the executive. In 2001, a window of opportunity was opened for exploitation of parliamentary reforms and this opportunity was presented to the Leader of the House at that point in time (Allen 43). Years after Labour won the election with the bright side of bringing an end to a protracted length of time that the Conservative Government had stayed in power; the new government had radical reforms on top of the agenda especially with the purpose of facilitating a complete overhaul of the political process. Modernisation of the Westminster Parliament and its operations were fronted as the important reforms that were to be tackled first so as to restore the all-important public confidence through the modernisation of other sectors of governance. By the time the Labour Government was beginning a third term in leadership, the society held on to the belief that it was about time to take a stock of the extent, nature and impact of the general idea of modernisation so as to determine what has been done, what has not been achieved and exactly the next step to be taken towards reaching the intended destination of complete modernisation of the parliament and various other arms of the state. When the Labor party advanced to power in 1997, they committed towards the modernization of parliament with the hope of making the institution more productive in their duties as well to make a change in the balance of power witnessed between the executive and the Parliament. The Labour party intended to achieve an improved public perception regarding Parliament but the achievement of this aim has not been as fruitful as anticipated, especially between 2001 and 2005. During the period after the elections of 1997, there has not been much luck in creating the change that was promised between The Executive and Parliament ending up in an unprecedented demise of public trust in the fulfillment of other promises delivered before the elections was conducted to elect the Labour Government (Beetham 118). The new developments witnessed in the politics of the state included the introduction of several new payments to the committee chairs, new reforms in the selection of parliamentary and committee questions as well as the appearance made by the Prime Minister twice in a year in the Liaison committee. The impact of these reforms that were expected to shape the state of affairs has not been established yet because the Parliament may be strengthened beyond anyone’s expectations. An audit carried on the modernisation of Parliament revealed that several cracks and wedges were present in the form of first step reforms that could be important in shaping future expectations from the future Parliaments. This paper seeks to view the changes witnessed in politics as from 1997 to-date with different forms of evidence to show processes of modernization that have changed the functions of parliament over time including the organization of Westminster. Labour Party’s pledge to modernize parliament raised more questions because of the fact that several promises to shake up a few changes in Parliament once Labour took over were not supported by documentation of a blueprint that could be referred to as a policy document when the need to do so rises. The approach should not be forgotten for a moment that modernization is one of the major changes that took place in the world politics since 1997 especially in regards to parliament and other sectors of governance. The changes that were being recorded to coincide with modernisation such as altering the sitting hours in the House, timetabling or better office accommodations did not appear to foster the whole idea of change and development because the voters could not feel the connection that they would have liked to think with the people they elected to represent their interests. Labor Government appeared from the start to be primarily concerned with the improvement of the Parliament and its capacity to create better methods of legislation by mandating the MPs effectively to hold the executive accountable for their duties and the result of the same (Allen 90). Legislative Process The legislative processes and their modernisation had been long overdue even before Labour came into power in 1997. The Hansard society was a committee that was chaired by an individual known as Lord Rippon who constituted a report about the reforms that the legislative process needed to implement which opened floodgates for many more reports crying for the same purpose of implementation of modernisation. Conservative Government made several innovations during its tenure including the instance that saw the publication of Bills in forms of drafts besides the informal decision towards legislation programming which to some critics was not successfully implemented. This argument is supported by the news that the Westminster process of making laws did not entirely change during this time thereby making legislative reforms a priority when the modernization committee set about their duties (Broadbent 121). Programming of Legislation This was described as one of the most controversial changes made on the entire process of legislation since 1997. The essence of programming makes up one significant aspect of change in politics that have been witnessed since 1997 because it revolved around ways in which the Parliament considers Bills in the House. In the time prior to 1998, there were a couple of ways through which different stages of any Bill could be timetabled by the House of Commons. At first there was a system known as the usual channels whereby there was a consensus between the oppositions, the government and whips agreed on specific timetables to facilitate and see through the passages of specific Legislations. The second method was referred to as the guillotine process where motions were controlled by the state to decide the acceptable amount of time that could be spent in the legislation of a single Bill. After 1998, motions have been injected into the activities of House of Commons with the aim of specifying time that may be spent on a Bill with regards to the issue being discussed and the urgency of the Bill. The different stages of reading a Bill have since been specified in the programming of motions in the House with specification of the number of days that different stages of reading may take place without specification of dates that have been set aside for discussions and the proceedings of the Bills. This has depicted a difference in the comparison to the years before 1997 where such developments had not been implemented by the government to initiate control of timelines and timetables for proceedings (Broadbent 24). Pre-legislative scrutiny This was another significant aspect of development in the face of politics since 1997 when Labour took over and it stands out as one factor of modernisation that was welcome in the public eye. Before publishing a Bill in its final form, it may be allowed publication as a draft and this was met by stakeholders’ approval. As from 1997, many Bills have been referred for close considerations to various joint house committees in a way that could see clear cut scrutiny that seeks to see more established procedures that produce better Bills. These committees worked at collecting relevant data from the public and to incorporate it with written evidence derived from other external sources so as to create relevant adjustments according what is acceptable by law. When all the pieces of data have been gathered by the committees, the findings are reported in great detail as they seek to explain the reasons for supporting or opposing the specific Bills while providing guidelines on appropriate amendment that are appropriate in the purpose of making them better for public consumption. These recommendations may be ignored by the Government but it is highly necessary that they are implemented because such recommendations often attract public attention (Allen 23). Pre-legislative scrutiny was given the responsibility of incorporating a consideration of human rights when discussing the implications of various Bills as well as the spending implications with regards to the related powers delegated to a Bill. Other critical observations that were made in this point were that the ministers benefited from any alterations in legislation as that would permit them a smoother passage when the legislation reaches a formal process. The main step that was witnessed in the development of scrutiny at the pre-legislative stage was initiated by the report from Modernisation Committee that was release in 1997. Diverse party coalitions direct to diverse supremacy and regimes, for example in Europe, agrarian parties in the North, for example, were not in favor of income differentiated social remuneration which social democrats preferred. They rather favored more Universalist, flat rate remuneration. A number of small landholders could not reflect at long histories of stable income and consequently feared that they would be in fact unable to gain from wellbeing entitlements which were donation funded with contribution-related remuneration levels. In different with this, Christian democratic parties, which organized workers compared to their social democratic opponents, had no cause to reject to differentiated contributions and entitlements. As opposed to the contrary: since contribution economics restricts redistribution, it gave a negotiation amid middle-class and lower class wellbeing both represented in Christian Democratic parties. Other vital differences concern the assimilation of the churches in the continental benefit states in the stipulation of social services including; hospitals, kindergartens, old-age homes, etc. as compared to state stipulation of such services in the Nordic states. Agrarian parties were also powerful in favor of funding the welfare status through indirect taxation as this promised to move ‘the expense of meeting risk from the most progressively assessed levies of the day – the direct land taxes the agrarians paid to countersign the poor-relief scheme – to the expenditure habits of their urban political rivals (Pierson, 2001). In reality, to compact with a situation in which no apparent majorities show through general elections, parties both form coalition cabinets, aided by a parliamentary preponderance, or minority cabinets which may encompasses of one or more parties. Cabinets based on a coalition with greater part in a parliament, preferably, are more steady and long-lived than marginal cabinets. While the former are vulnerable to internal fighting, they have less reason to be afraid of votes of non-confidence. A greater part of number in the governments based on a solitary party are usually even steadier, as long as their majority can be sustained (Forman, 2002). Coalition cabinets are frequent in states in which a parliament is proportionally delegated, with a number of planned political parties represented. It normally does not emerge in states in which the cabinet is elected by the decision-making as opposed to a lower house, such as in the United States. Conversely, coalition cabinets are regular in Brazil. In sub-presidential units such as France, where the president officially appoints a prime minister but the regime itself must still sustain the self-assurance of parliament, coalition regime happen quite often. Another example is the Kenyan case where after the 2007 election due to the tribunal and post-election violence, there was a formation of the coalition between the PNU and ODM parties that were claiming the victory. Formation of coalition has been a solution to the solving of the embedding issue that has always been caused as a result of political misunderstanding. Such a case takes the two disagreeing party as winners hence creating a uniform ground for the two parties. Due to set up and realization of laws and policies set by the regime resulting from change in political system of a country, Businesses can be corroded by a number of aspects of regime strategy. In meticulous, all businesses must conform to the law. They must also regard the effect of any impending laws on their operations. This may entail taking action prior to the legislation comes into upshot. This is a concern that is brought about by political alterations. Since the politics of the present state tends to endorse some law that may influence the working setting of a given company or business organization (Pierson, 2001). Changing Politics has led change in the organization and operation of many business institutions, this also impacts the taxes that are collected from such transactions. For instance, due to political change, the government may alter the working time completely. I.e. they may reduce or increase working hours which will have a direct impact to the taxes collected hence affecting the economy of the country (Forman, 2002). On the other hand, changes in politics have adversely affected the working tax credits. This is due to the fact that as the period advances those on power tend to yearn for more and more money need, this makes them to impose unnecessary charges to the business so that their quench for the money may be met. This tends to pull down the economy of the country as many people will tend to run away from such ventures and those willing to join are discouraged. On the other hand there may be a subsidizing of taxes on businesses and ventures which tend to increase the number of individuals who are willing to venture into the business. Consequently this may end upraising the country’s revenue which may attract investors (Pierson, 2001). The political advancement has also reduced the power of the regime in some states. For instance, some governments since 1997 under gone thorough enormous constitutional changes, including decentralization of powers that is brought about by the changing politics and targets those on the grass root to receive the maximum attention from the government, powers to the European Union (EU), the human rights act and many others. Nevertheless there has been a stern disagreement whether this has condensed the power of the some government e.g. the UK, this has also been an immense problem with the public and at the 2010 election the conservative party in UK won support by opposing that the New Labour government between 1997 and 2010 gave too many powers away and they would battle to allege them back. The coalition conformity focuses a lot on legitimate change (Forman, 2002). Conclusion From this discussion, Political advancement has been a cause of failure in many states. On contrary, some few cases have improved in their economy which has been articulated from good governance. This suggests that even though there is advancement in politics this should be taken with a great care with consideration of the economy of the country. Coalition governments also as discussed in the chapter has lived to be a solution to many states that have continuing disagreement with the political parties that are fighting for supremacy. Works Cited Allen, Graham. The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest about the UK Presidency. London: Graham Allen. 2001. Print Beetham, David. ‘Democratic Audit: Towards a Broader View of Democratic Achievement’, Parliamentary Affairs, 56:2, 334-347. 2003. Print Broadbent, James. ‘Public-Private Partnerships’, Public Money and Management, 23:3, 135-136. 2003. Print Forman, F. N. (2002). Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom. Psychology Press. Pierson, P. (2001). The New Politics of the Welfare State. OUP Oxford. Read More