Being Honest about the UK Presidency - Coursework Example

Being Honest about the UK Presidency 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, as seen in Britain (Beetham 68). When the Labour 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 modernization were as a result of the failures of the committee selected to implement modernization in the House of Commons after they failed to set up an end-point that was coherent with the aims and resolutions of modernization. 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 modernization 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). 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 modernization 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. The paper notices that several reforms are still necessary and recommendations are made for the purpose of reaching a required result. The authority to perform the duties given to the parliament, public confidence is very important and so the faith must be restored by all means through the use of the current visible momentum that could help close the gulf witnessed between the public and Parliament (Beetham 79). 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. Modernization 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 modernization 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 modernization 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 modernization of the parliament and various other arms of the state. The time that draws much attention is that between the year 1997 and 2005 with the knowledge that Labour did not inherit a blank slate and there were several reforms prior to this review in the years before 1997. The time that has been included in this study shows a time frame through which several considerable ground had been covered enough to give out conclusive analysis of the speed at which these modernizations take place. There were several reforms that had been started by Conservative government which were to be developed further when Labour took over especially due to the urgency at which they were relevant in modernization of governance sectors. This study mentions some of these inherited reforms and a documentation of the successes or failures in several other sectors that have a direct link with governance (Beetham 24). Modernization has attracted different definitions from different quarters especially in the 1990s whereby MPs started using the word to stand for the reforms in the Parliament. Observers note that two distinctive definitions of modernization stand out above the rest especially when talking about Parliament and related reforms and development. The first kind of Modernization is the one that has been favored by the state as well as the other supporters of these governments. This is the kind that would be prefer to take care of business in a way that is more predictable and efficient and at more convenient hours when they are most creative in thinking and are more active in terms of participation. The second definition of modernization is that which seeks to create a change in the balance that exists between the legislature and Parliament in respect to the strengthening of the latter’s scrutiny function. The definitions raise key issues in the determination of the expected result of modernization. Whom is it fit for? Whose expectations does it seek to fulfill when the Parliament is conducting its business? (Broadbent 49) 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 modernization 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). By the time Britain was going for the general elections of 1997, there were three clear objectives of the Labour Party which they had fronted to achieve when creating a system of modernization for their Parliament. At first, the party wanted to improve system operations and the effectiveness of the Parliament; secondly, the party sought to create a change in the balance of power to enable the legislature have better machineries to hold the executive accountable for their actions and the third one is the most recurring. The third purpose of implementing a public relations case scenario where the government aimed at regaining the public confidence through a performing Parliament that is always on its feet to represent the populace and to restore the confidence in various aspects of the political process. The points that follow seek to scrutinize the extent to which these three objectives that were formulated in 1997 have been implemented through the identification of the visible changes in parliamentary practice and procedures since 1997. The study goes on to establish the identification of different other reforms that are important and pragmatic in informing the future agenda of modernization of parliament. The changes in the House of Commons have been documented when talking about the changes in politics since 1997 but the House of Lords is not left behind in this review because it is equally important when talking about modernization (Allen 31). Legislative Process When discussing the changes that have been brought by modernization, the legislative process appears to be one of the processes in the assembly that has witnessed a projected level of modernization through the promises made by Labour Government when taking over leadership. The legislative processes and their modernization 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 modernization. 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). The report, which was released by the committee given the responsibility to foresee the modernization process of parliament, showed different recommendations to impact on the law making process and the procedures that are related to the process in the parliament. The committee opted to get data from previous reports and written submissions rather than from oral submissions and spoken evidence with a very document of references being the report labeled as Making the Law. The recommendations of the report were very important and updated in such a way that their successful implementation would be a great boost to the legislative process. This meant to show that the reform program that was chosen for the legislative arm of governance started on a relatively high note beside further advantage that the all-important cross-party support was available right from the start. Many years after 1997 when the important reforms were suggested with enthusiasm, the initial pace of legislative reforms that were seen in the past has since gone down to a slower speed making the government appear non-committed in the implementation of a complete overhaul of the system. The public was keen to see the steps taken while the private sector kept vigil and viewed from a distance as the pace slowed down from what it was at the very start (Beetham 53). 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). Programming were made over a long period of time as it got proposed in 1985 by Procedure Committee and additional reports released in 1992 known as the Jopling Report amongst others whereby recommendations were made to introduce informal motions whereby there were several voluntary agreements on allocation of time accorded to the Bill in order that the quality of their scrutiny is increased. It goes without mention that the expected effect of programming did not materialize as expected. Three stages of development in programming have been mapped since the inception of the idea with the first stage which stood out as the most discussed for constituting consensus having been moved by the first month of 1998. This stage did not materialize because of the growing unhappiness from the opposition with regards to the way this idea of programming was coming along especially raising issues that this could have been a strategy by the government to lessen rather than to encourage scrutiny. Opposition got more trenchant in criticism of the programme as people began describing the efforts of modernization as one catastrophic disaster. At this point, according to critics, it was very difficult to run away from the conclusion that the initially proposed reform for the purpose of creating a balance between previously conflicting arms of the state had become a weapon used by the state to manage House business and control state of affairs (Broadbent 10). 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 modernization 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 Modernization Committee that was release in 1997. The report made conclusions that the pre-legislative scrutiny had the right principles when the nature of legislation was checked with a keen eye. This kind of legislation was observed to provide several opportunities for the participation of many stakeholders in the House including the backbenchers and the opposition as their input in the discussion was fully accounted for when implementing Legislations. The fact that many experts were involved in the legislation gave it a better outlook because that would mean a thorough instance of intense debate that produced a positive outcome. This change in politics has, therefore, been considered as one which saw the reconstruction of debate and legislation of Bills and the subsequent implementation of the same Bill that has undergone serious stages of scrutiny before becoming law. The reports that boosted the scrutiny also provided a base to incorporate human rights when in discussions and this was seen to restore a significant amount of public interest and trust. The populace felt represented and that their interest was finally being considered by the same people that they had elected to do just that but had not delivered great results to this point (Allen 57). In general, politics had changed a great deal over the years, and especially since 1997 when Labour took over leadership. Parliamentary modernization is one such change in politics as it has been fronted to bring positive advances and hope while, on the other hand, some aspects of modernization often tend to make different backward steps. The moment modernization was mentioned, there were greater expectations especially when Labour government took over as they gave out a public utterance that would seek to create important changes in the House to appeal to the masses and to the rest of the world. The outlines that were documented have not been realized as a whole but several important reforms have taken place albeit at a very slow speed. So many people still view the parliament as inefficient because the executive has shown more power rather than a similar power that was the first agenda of modernization in the form of making the two arms have a balance of power. Modernization as an efficiency has been more successful as compared to modernization as scrutiny especially rising from the flaws that were evident in the mechanism selected to create a parliament that has a modern outlook. The various changes, that have been witnessed in the governments all around the world have witnessed different reactions while some people support or condemn the changes, have been slow in pace but the intended destination is all that matters. Modernization, therefore, stands out as one representative of change in politics since 1997 because the same strength applied by the government in changing parliament is related to the changes implemented in other sectors within the same government. 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 Read More