Democracy and participation:
Evaluate whether there's a democratic crisis in the UK system
Intro
Historically, the UK was considered to be the cradle for democratic government with it
being the location of where the Magna Carta in 1215 was established.
Democracy is people power, where people have the power to vote.
With uncertainty growing in the UK over the future of the union, over Britain’s place in
the world after Brexit, and three undecisive general election results in 2010, 2015 and
2017, questions are being asked about the state of the UK’s democracy.
On the face of it the many constitutional reforms have been introduced since 1997
have strengthened democracy in the UK, the House of Lords (HOL) has be substantially
reformed in recent year to give it more legitimacy, the Human Rights Act (HRA) has
provided right's protection to some extent and PR-based electoral systems have been
introduced for many UK elections.
However, below the surface tensions are arising; the UK is now one of the only
democracies with an unelected second chamber, poor right's protection and an un-
entirely representative First-past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral Westminster system.
P1 = HOL
A strong argument to suggest that there is a democratic crisis is the unelected upper
chamber (HOL), which, in turn, affects representation, gives little accountability and is
arguably democratically illegitimate.
The function of the HOL is to check against the government and HOC.
Peers are typically affiliated to parties but have greater freedom than MPs in voting,
meaning they can vote to protect minority or special interests and have independence
in scrutinising the government and HOC.
While this helps protect and promote the liberal aspect of UK democracy, the key
problem is that peers are appointed and not elected and are thus unaccountable to
the electorate.
Indeed, while the role of peers is idealised, i.e. they serve Parliament and the national
interests in scrutinising the work of HOC, HOL power is very limited due to the
Salisbury Convention, especially when government enjoys a strong majority (e.g. under
Blair in 1997). Thus, in fact, the HOL are rarely are able to check against government
power and the HOC; this arguably leads to an elective dictatorship as the UK
parliamentary system has a fusion of powers (the three branches of government aren't
separated), which alongside a mandate, leaves the government able to dominate
Parliament without sufficient supervision.
This therefore presents a crisis for democracy in the UK because, firstly, post the
defeated proposals of introducing an elected HOL under the coalition of 2010-15, we
will continue to have an unelected upper house that is meant to protect UK citizens
against government, but will continue to be unaccountable to the electorate itself;
secondly, the HOL would continue to be very weak in checking against government
and HOC in preventing tyranny of the majority and/or forming an elected dictatorship.
P2 = increasing legitimacy = HOL reform and independent commission
, On the other hand, critics argue that the HOL does perform a meaningful role in
Parliament and its legitimacy has been steadily increasing over the years through HOL
reform.
Firstly, the 1999 HOL Act removed all but 92 hereditary peers and their voting rights.
Therefore there would be an all-appointed chamber of life peers and Church of
England bishops.
Secondly, this had the effect of making the Lords a largely appointed chamber; the
much higher proportion of peers who held their position on merit rather than by birth
meant that the HOL became a more professional and efficient body. E.g. life peers,
who are appointed based off their expertise, now dominate the work of the HOL and
account for the majority of the peers (86% in 2017).
Furthermore, after the transfer of responsibility for non-political appointments to a
new, non-partisan, independent body of the HOL Appointments Commission in 2000,
the appointment of life peers has also enhanced their legitimacy by scrutinising
political appointments made by the prime minister, such as ensuring that there is no
possibility that the peerage was influenced by a Party donation.
This has seen the HOL take a more active role in Parliament, forcing the government to
’think again’ about legislation, amending legislation in order to protect the interests of
minorities and to improve the quality of law making, taking advisory role, holding
debates among peers, many of whom are experts in their field.
Furthermore, as the peers are not fully professional politicians, they are less
susceptible to the power of the whips and are therefore not ‘lobby fodder’.
E.g. the HOL opposed welfare reforms for 4 billion pounds and attempts to redefine
child poverty.
However, these arguments can be substantially undermined.
Though the Lord's authority and legitimacy is improving, the UK still remains one of the
few democracies with an second unelected chamber.
Secondly, the HOL still remains largely an advisory role since they lack democratic
legitimacy and, as such, is limited in how much influence they enjoy.
The Parliaments Act of 1911 and 1949 prevent them from delaying legislation for over
1 year and it has no say on money bills.
Amendments proposed by the Lords can also be overturned by the HOC, effectively by
the government.
Thus, the threat of an elective dictatorship remains at large and the HOL still create a
democratic deficit in the UK.
P3 = poor protection of rights
A substantial argument to suggest that the UK has a democratic deficit is the lack of
right's protection.
There is no bill of rights in the UK, and though the 1998 HRA incorporated the ECHR
into UK law, there has been an evident decline in civil liberties in recent years.
Firstly, the lack of clarity over the definition of rights can lead to conflicts between
pressure groups and individuals. E.g. the pressure group, the Campaign for Freedom of
Information, which worked to help bring about the Freedom of Information Act, in
2006-7 opposed an attempt by a group of MPs to exclude parliament from the scope
of the act, yet MPs argued that they should be exempt on the grounds that they were
entitled to confidentiality in their correspondence with constituents. This thus, creates
, a democratic deficit as rights aren't clearly established in the eyes of the law, as they
would be in a bill of rights, such as in the USA.
Secondly, judicial review places too much power in the hands of unelected and
unaccountable judges. A prominent example has been the issue of privacy; judges
have been accused of effectively creating a privacy law through the way they have
interpreted the HRA. In a series of high-profile court cases, they appeared to give
priority to Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to privacy) over Article 10 (the right to
freedom of expression), as claimed by the press; this occurred even though specific
legislation on the subject had not been passed by parliament and it was not explicitly
covered by common law. Thus, it seemed that wealthy individuals, who could afford to
take legal action, had an unfair advantage. E.g. in 2008 the High Court awarded
Mosley, the head of the Formula 1 motor racing organisation, substantial damages
when the News of the World published a story about his sex life, which he argued had
breached his privacy.
This, thus creates a democratic crisis with rights not being justly or sufficiently
protected.
P4 = judicial review, rights-based culture
On the other hand, since the passage of the HRA it has often been claimed that the UK
has developed a rights-based culture as all new legislation must now be compliant
with the act and judges can declare earlier acts of parliament incompatible with the
HRA.
One indicator of the growing prominence of rights has been an increased use of
judicial review; the number of reviews rose from just over 4,000 in 2000 to over
15,000 by 2013. E.g. high Court rulings that retired Gurkha soldiers should be allowed
to settle in the UK, and that the government had not consulted fairly on compensation
for people affected by the planned high-speed rail link are successful challenges to
government policies.
Defenders say that judicial review is a vital means of defending citizens rights, enabling
the legality of government actions to be properly scrutinised; e.g. in the case Abu
Qatada, a radical Muslim who the security services regarded as a threat and ministers
wanted to deport back to Jordan, where he was wanted for trial, his legal advisers
were able to prevent this for 8 years on the grounds that he might be tried using
evidence obtained under torture, a breach of the HRA. He was only sent back in 2013
after the UK had signed a treaty with Jordan pledging that such evidence would not be
used.
However, these arguments can be significantly weakened with the erosion of rights
being prominent.
Though judges are able to declare acts incompatible with the HRA, they cannot legally
compel parliament to make changes due to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty,
which, in turn, leads to a conflict of interests.
A key example of where the rights of the individual have conflicted with the priorities
of government is for counterterrorism. Post the 2001 9/11 terror attacks and the
London Underground and bus bombings in 2005, MPs argued that they were entitled
to detain terror suspects without trial on the grounds that a national emergency
existed (Belmarsh case).
, Though it didn’t, Parliament had the authority to ignore the judgement that declared it
a violation of the HRA and the suspected terrorists still had to remain in prison until
new legislation was written and passed, as the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
doesn't allow the SC to strike down primary legislation.
Thus, it is clear that they lack real power to protect rights sufficiently where
government doesn’t agree with them, causing a lack of democracy.
Furthermore, for many right-wingers, a serious fault of the Human Rights Act is how it
seems to favour to undeserving individuals rather than protect the legitimate
freedoms of UK citizens. The Conservatives have argued for many years for the
replacement of the act with a new British Bill of Rights, which would establish the
supremacy of British courts over the European Court of Human Rights. The case of Abu
Qatada illustrates the frustration caused by the way in which the Human Rights Act
was implemented, not protecting citizens sufficiently and thus creating a democratic
crisis.
P5 = electoral System = FPTP
Another powerful argument to suggest a UK democratic deficit is the issues associated
with the current Westminster electoral system of First-Past-The-Post (FPTP).
Although forms of proportional representation have been introduced in the devolved
administrations: AMS in Scotland and Wales, STV in Northern Ireland and the regional
list in London, it fails to be replaced in the Westminster model.
Undeniably, FPTP is very poor at translating popular vote shares into representative
political outcomes, i.e. the allocation of share of seats in the HOC. This diminishes how
representative Parliament is, as well as its legitimacy, undermining how democratic
the UK system actually is.
E.g. Labour gained 35% of the vote in 2005, but this translated to 56% of seats in the
HOC; 36% of votes went to the Conservatives, but only then gained 37% of the seat
share.
This discriminates against smaller parties that gain large support that is thinly spread
all over the UK; e.g. in 2015, UKIP won 12.6% of the popular vote but only gained one
seat, whereas, the SNP won exactly half of the popular vote but this translated into a
victory in virtually all constituencies.
In a purely democratic system, the share of votes earned would translate into the
share of seats in the HOC; this speaks to democratic legitimacy and representation
most clearly, as that is representation in a stricter sense (proportional).
On the other hand, FPTP leads to a lot of wasted votes, as well as tactical voting, both
of which undermine the intrinsic value of each vote, equality of voting, and the notion
of representation.
E.g. Ipsos MORI's research into voting at the 2010 GE suggested that as many as 10%
of voters chose their second preference (tactical voting), with the figure being
especially high for Lib Dem supporters at 16%.
Furthermore, it leads to safe seats, which is where the same party wins to see every
election and there is no realistic possibility that any other party could win; thus, only
votes that get an MP elected matter so parties prioritise specific voters in marginal
seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them, leading to voters
who live in safe seats to feel ignored by politicians, as well as promoting tyranny of the
majority to appeal to the greater number.
