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
