Democratic Deficit Flashcards
define democratic deficit
a democratic deficit refers to a perceived deficiency in the way a democratic body works, especially in terms of accountability and control over policy-making
in other words, something lacking democracy
arguments to suggest that UK does suffer from a democratic deficit
the severe limitations of the first past the post (FPTP) electoral system still used in Westminster
the unelected House of Lords
the judiciary, which many argue holds far too much power for a body that is unelected
arguments to suggest that UK does not suffer from a democratic deficit
FPTP, the House of Lords and the judiciary all have important strengths that increase democracy in the UK rather than undermine it
conclusion
it seems to be clear that while democracy in the UK does have some flaws, this does not yet constitute a ‘democratic deficit’
undemocratic features of FPTP
non-proportional electoral system - not truly representative as it often distorts voters’ wishes and means that governments without a majority of popular support can be formed
minority viewpoints are often not represented in Parliament to a sufficient degree.
does not truly represent the views of the people, which severely undermines democracy
fosters a two party system as only the two largest parties, Labour and Conservative, seem to have any real chance of being elected into office because the electoral system favours parties whose support is concentrated and strong in various areas rather than spread out across the country
while there is a wide range of parties and pressure groups in the UK, only the two largest are real contenders for power which limits the realistic range of choice available
examples of governments forming without a majority of popular support: 1951 and 1974
in 1951 and 1974 the party forming government had less votes than the main opposition party overall
examples of governments forming without a majority of popular support: 2005 Labour government
in 2005, Labour under Tony Blair was re-elected on only 35% of the vote, meaning that most people did not vote for Labour yet they were still able to form a government
small parties being underrepresented under FPTP
in 2015, UKIP won nearly 3.9 million votes, which is 12.6% of the total, however they only gained 1 seat in the Commons
2015 election: SNP
example of a party winning a lot of seats despite not having a proportional amount of votes
in 2015, the SNP won all but 3 of the 59 Scottish seats despite the fact that they had only secured around half of the popular vote in Scotland
in this case, 50% of the overall vote was converted into victory in virtually all constituencies
strengths of FPTP that increase democracy rather than challenge it
it is a very quick and simple process - votes simply need to be counted and the result is usually found out the next morning, this means that a new government can be rapidly formed, allowing a swift and orderly transfer of power
allows the government to go ahead with fulfilling its manifesto pledges and ruling the country on behalf of the people
fosters clear links between MPs and their constituents, which increases democracy as the people have a strong connection to their elected representative
example of proportional systems taking a long time to reach an outcome compared to FPTP
under more proportional systems, the result does not become clear for a long period of time, usually months
for example, after the 2010 general election in Belgium (which uses a proportional system) it took almost 18 months to form a new government due to the negotiations and bargaining required
but under FPTP, even the 2010 negotiations between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats only took five days rather than the months seen in other countries
how does FPTP foster strong links between MPs and constituents?
the single-member representation under FPTP leads to a single MP being responsible for representing one small size constituency, which results in a strong link between them
how are strong links maintained under FPTP?
one way that this link is maintained is by MPs holding surgeries
for example, Stephen Timms, an MP for Labour, had the greatest number of surgeries in 2011 which allowed him to be accessible to his constituents and maintain a strong link as he was frequently available to those seeking help and advice
this enables people to feel closer to government, making them more willing to participate and giving them more opportunities to get involved and engage in politics as they have clear links to government through a single person
undemocratic features of the House of Lords
an unelected and therefore unaccountable body - not elected by the people and does not have their consent, so does not have to face the public at general elections every 5 years like the House of Commons does
their positions are guaranteed for life and do not depend on being viewed positively by the people, so the Lords can theoretically act however they please without fear of repercussions for their careers
largely unrepresentative of the general public
the Lords still wield significant powers and often challenge the elected government, playing a huge part in decision making, despite their unrepresentative and unelected nature
the Lords being unrepresentative
the average Lord is a white man over 70
only 1 in 4 Lords are female — there are around 200 female peers but 800 male peers
example of the Lords wielding too much power despite the fact that they are unelected and unaccountable
in 2015, the Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected
this raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial issue that the Lords should not be involved in as the Commons has financial privilege over them, yet the Lords still voted to delay
this perhaps suggests that too much power is being placed in the hands of an unelected body, indicating that the UK suffers from a democratic deficit
positive features of the Lords that improve democracy rather than challenge it
provides an important check on the power of the executive, preventing what Lord Hailsham termed an ‘elective dictatorship’
as government accountability is one of the most important features of any good democracy and the upper house holds the government to account in ways that other bodies cannot, the UK does not seem to suffer from a democratic deficit
how do the Lords provide a check on government power?
the party whip is considerably weaker and less influential in the Lords, meaning that they are freer from party control and can focus more on being an effective check on the government
this is because once a Lord is appointed they hold that position for life and do not need to stand for re-election every 5 years
in other words, they are not under as much pressure to obey the party whip and align with their party because their careers are not on the line and do not depend on obedience
therefore, the Lords can operate more freely and be an effective check without fear of the consequences on their careers
defeats of the Labour government between 1999 and 2010
the Labour government from 1999-2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords
why is the Lords becoming more assertive and willing to hold the government to account?
the upper house is becoming more independent and willing to oppose the government due to the Blair reforms
including the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 which has made them more legitimate and democratic so as a result, they feel more confident in scrutinising the government
undemocratic features of the judiciary that indicate a democratic deficit
the judiciary, like the Lords, is unelected and unaccountable yet making decisions that have wide implications for the public
too much power is placed in the hands of unelected judges
may be an issue as these judges are making important decisions and often criticising those who are elected without being held accountable
may be overstepping their role and trespassing on that of the executive and legislature as they are unelected and unaccountable yet making judgements that have wide political implications
issue with security of tenure
security of tenure allows the Supreme Court to be too powerful as it makes it even more difficult to hold unelected judges to account
security of tenure means that once appointed, justices cannot be removed and remain in office until their retirement age of 70
issue with increased use of judicial review
the increasing use of judicial review, which is a form of court proceeding where judges review the lawfulness of a decision or action of a public body, may also point to the judiciary being too powerful
in 2013, there were over 15,000 applications for judicial review and in 2014, 36% of reviews led to a change in a decision by a public body
issues regarding whether the unelected judiciary should be able to dictate what a democratically elected government can do
has given the judiciary unprecedented quasi-legislative powers which allows unelected judges to effectively alter the law and second guess parliament
positive features of the judiciary that improve democracy rather than undermine it
the judiciary is important in holding the government to account - vital check on power and is essential in protecting civil liberties and the rule of law by ensuring that the government does not overstep its powers (known as ultra vires)
while the judiciary can be criticised for being unelected and unaccountable, what is more important is the vital check it provides on government power, which is an essential part of any democracy
therefore, the UK does not seem to be suffering from a democratic deficit
Gina Miller case: example of judiciary acting as a check on government power
Gina Miller requested a judicial review on whether David Davis, Secretary of State for exiting the EU, had the prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 which would start the process of leaving the EU
the Supreme Court held that the government did not have such a prerogative power so had to seek parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50
Belmarsh prison: example of judiciary acting as a check on government power
the 2004 Belmarsh case, in which 9 suspected terror suspects had been held for several years without a trial in Belmarsh prison under the Crime and Security Act 2001
they appealed against their detention and the SC ruled that the 2001 Act was incompatible with the ECHR and as a result, the government chose to heed the judges warning and release the prisoners
this shows that the government sometimes uses emergencies as a justification for extending their executive power and that this needs to be checked by the judiciary as in this case, the government was violating an ancient British principle and contradicting their own HRA 1998
Lord Deben quote about judicial review
“it is unacceptable if we have a system whereby if the government had acted illegally it cannot be bought to account in the courts” and called judicial review “the defence of freedom”
