The Political Experience of Great Britain - Assignment Example

1. Identify and discuss the defining characteristics of ‘liberal democratic’ s. Are there aspects of the UK’s political and governing s and processes that call into question our democratic credentials? If there are, what institutional reforms would you recommend to remedy these ’democratic deficits’? The democratic world’s veneration of United Kingdom as a vanguard of liberal democracy has a judicious corollary. Not only has the country produced the some of world’s greatest political philosophers on liberal democracy but the political experience of Great Britain also made the country a paragon of democracy and liberalism. With the democratisation of the rest of the world, there is a growing consensus in many newly democratised states to lean towards liberal democratic principles; nations contend that the political institutions and processes of the United Kingdom are worthy of emulation. Britain’s parliamentary system has also served as an epitome of an efficient government and a well-balanced political system. Indeed, the debate in some formerly autocratic states that aim for democratisation - referred to as the ‘Third Wave’ by Samuel Huntington – is whether to establish a presidential or parliamentary form of government as well as how to achieve a feasible liberal democratic structure. The problem, however, is that liberal democracy is not a political system but a set of principles which, for most, imply abstractions rather than explicit and codified laws. Hence, the goal of this paper is to discuss and define the characteristics of ‘liberal democratic’ states as well as in what ways Britain qualifies as a liberal democracy and how some aspects of UK’s political and governing institutions call into question its democratic credentials. Plattner (171-172) contends that liberal democracy is the ‘interweaving’ of two disparate constituents – the first concept relates to democracy and the second relates to the term ‘liberal.’ Democracy refers to the rule of the populace or the ‘majority’. In the contemporary society where the population continues to burgeon, the principles of direct democracy cannot be easily promulgated or applied and thus, the election of representatives to the parliament or the legislature is one medium by which people participate in the democratic process. The concept of democracy has also transformed in that, people associate the idea with the right for suffrage or the right to run for an office where election is deemed as an embodiment of one facet of liberal democracy (Plattner, 172). Samuel Huntington explains this better when he states that ‘open, free and fair elections’ are the core of democratic institutions – ‘the inescapable sine qua non’ (Huntington in Zekaria, 24) On the other hand, the term ‘liberal’ as applied to liberal democracy denotes how an elected leader uses her power to rule. It does not concern about who implements the rules but nevertheless connotes the power limitations of the government set forth in the government’s fundamental law or constitution. Above all, this governmental power is restricted by the rights of the individual (Plattner, 172). In fact, human rights spawned from the concept of liberalism which brought into the core the primacy of individual rights denoting that ‘the protection of the private sphere’ together with the ‘plurality and diversity of ends that people seek in the pursuit of their happiness’ – constitutes the most vital aspect of liberal democracy (Plattner, 173). Moreover, on the fore of liberal democracy is the Rawlsian notion of social justice which argues that disparity in wealth, power and status can only be warranted if it brings benefits to those who have the least (Lovin, 10). But what constitutes a liberal democratic state? Plattner argues that there is a definitional link to the right to suffrage, democracy and liberalism (173) as elections tend to promote assurance for particular civil liberties such as the freedom of speech and assembly. The rights for electoral participation were bestowed sanction by the liberal tradition. In addition, the political notions of egalitarian and the majoritarian aspects of democracy are ingrained deeply in the liberal doctrine – signifying that the legitimate political authority emanates from the sanction of the individuals who by nature are ‘free and equal’ (Locke in Plattner, 173) and in the state of ‘perfect freedom’ (Locke in Plattner, 173). Consent, thereby, comprises the paradigm with which gauges the legitimacy of the government as well as constitutes the freedom to decide as to where or who should individuals bequeath legislative power to. John Locke warns that if the legislature is dissolved or commits a culpable violation of trust, the supremacy to establish a new one resides on the majority of the people (Locke in Plattner, 174). This only implies that the limitations of the parliament’s impact on the individual and the constraints on government’s arbitrary power stand as the two most fundamental tenets of a liberal democratic state. These are further strengthened by a free and fair election, the elimination of impediments on government’s policies to improve the citizens well being and the minimisation of government’s intervention on the economy. Moreover, the concept of civil liberties which include the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and other fundamental rights should be bestowed significance. In Britain, these liberties are fortified by the ‘rule of law’ and warrants equality before the law. This also enforces the idea that the authority of those in the parliament can be limited by laws that are promulgated and enforced in court. The emergence of the European Union Constitution and the foundation of the European Court further fortify the system of checks and balances of its member states. It is significant to note, however, that one distinctive feature of liberal democracy mainly constitutes its dependence on elected representation, the most noteworthy political feature of contemporary liberal democracy. Even the authors of the Federalist support the idea of a popular government ‘in which a scheme or representation takes place’ (Hamilton et al, 10) – a government that aims to reduce the direct political role of the people (Hamilton, 63). This type of representation is warranted in that, the large populations of modern states deemed it improbable for people to come together. DiZerega agrees with this contention, arguing that ‘democracy’ signifies solely liberal or representative democracy or what Robert Dahl refers to as ‘polyarchies’ (Dahl, 20 ). This facet of liberal democracy manifesting itself in the process of electoral representation can be observed in the political institutions and processes of Great Britain. The legislative power held by the monarch waned until it became indiscernible in the country’s political realm while suffrage eventually broadened in its scope. Qualifications and exclusion on the basis of gender, sex and race were eradicated and universal suffrage was included as one of the fundamental human rights. The foremost defender for the extension of this right is the British philosopher John Stuart Mill who wrote that ‘it is a personal injustice to withhold from anyone’ the electoral privilege on whoever of the right age desires it - supporting the enfranchisement of women and further arguing that the ‘ideal type of a perfect government’ is the representative government (Mill, 381 - 382). DiZerega however asserts that the political equality bestowed by the right to suffrage should transcend the voting booth as the total political process is characterised by ‘substantive political equality among citizens’ (758). This equality is significant, in that, in order for coercion to be justified the citizens should be equitable in more than formal manner and hence, it should include majority rule as the just way to craft political decisions (diZerega, 758). This is exactly what many critics of liberal democracy are worried about. Zakaria (41) contends that the conflict between liberalism and democracy centres on the extent of governmental power. He asserts that the emphasis of liberalism, through the promulgation of a state’s fundamental laws, is on the curtailment of power, whereas democracy centres on the utilisation of power. This is a reminiscent of James Madison’s assertions in the Federalist that the oppressive dangers of democracy emanate from the majority. Tocqueville echoes this assertion as he warned of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as the fundamental nature of democracy glorifies ‘the absolute sovereignty of the majority (Tocqueville in Zakaria, 41). What many view as the problem in British political processes and institutions, however, is the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in the parliament. While the original purpose of the parliament was to control the government, the emergence and fortification of the political party system have become a liability. This meant that the authority in power can retain its hold of the parliament as long as they could control parliamentary majority. The rewards, promises and the punishments that the sitting government could endow parliamentary members were sources of anxiety and hence, party members had to give in (Elazar, 25). Assemblies and elections in Britain have also become battlefields between conflicting individuals and parties where, in liberty, aimed at proving that their opponents are inane, corrupt or misguided. This results to an unsatisfactory image of politics and politicians which in turn create further distrust on the political system. Tony Blair’s support of the US’s war on Iraq amidst the opposition in most of Britain created fears that the system is dominated by the political parties and not the majority of the population whose consensus oppose the dominant party’s. Observable also is the lack of stable competitive party system and the waning interest in them. This is a cause of anxiety for many as the role of major party competition in a liberal democracy such as Britain has been significant in shaping its robust political institutions. The contemporary political parties have somewhat lost their dexterity in articulating issues that relate to the minorities and hence, many contend that the significant concerns that beset the common individual are ignored. However, the rise of pressure groups and single-issue parties has brought resolution to this dilemma. Grass root participation in Britain may not be as robust as in the past but this is still observable during more difficult times or when issues profoundly touch the sensitivities of the common individual. Hence, the follies and the ‘imperial violence’ (Pilger, 2) of the Blair government can be rectified easily through an impeachment proceeding or his leadership must wait for the wrathful vengeance of the people - represented by pressure groups and single-issue parties – during the next parliamentary elections. If Britain’s strong civic character - the most effective remedy for Britain’s so-called ‘democratic deficits’ - manifests only during troubled times, it is already a great manifestation of a vigorous liberal democratic state. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dahl, R. (1977). “On Removing Certain Impediments to Democracy in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly 92: 1:20 diZerega, G. (2001, Fall2001). Liberalism, Democracy, and the State: Reclaiming the Unity of Liberal Politics. Review of Politics, 63(28), 755. Elazar, D. J. (1995). Two Wings of Liberal Democracy. Society. 32 (6), 23. Hamilton, A., & Rossiter, C. (1961). The Federalist papers; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay. [New York]: New American Library. Lovin, R. (2002, December 18). A vision of justice. Christian Century, 119(1), 10. Mill, J. S. (1949). Representative government, Chapters I-VI; by John Stuart Mill. Chicago, Ill: Great Books Foundation. Pilger, J. (2003, October 13). The awakening of liberal England. (cover story). New Statesman, 132(2), 18. Plattner, M. (1998, March). Liberalism and Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 77(10), 171. Zakaria, F. (1997, November). The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(22), 22. Read More