Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system Flashcards
Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
INTRO:
-Historically UK has been the home of democracy as the ,agna carter was established here in 1215.
-Democracy: power to the people.
-Uncertainty on the rise over the Union after Brexit, and after the indecisive GE’s of 2010,2010 and 2017, questions being asked about UKs democratic system.
- Many constitutional reforms introduced since 1997, have strengthened UK democracy, HOL has been reformed to give it more legitimacy,HRA has provided protection to some extent and PR based elections have been introduced for many elections.
-However, tensions are arising; Uk is now one of the only nations with an unelected chamber, poor rights protection, and under-representative FPTP electoral Westminster system.
P1(FOR): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
For:
- HOL is an unelected chamber of the house of parliament, this affects representation, gives little accountability and can be argued as democratically illegitimate.
-Function of the HOL is to check govt and HOC.
-Peers are affiliated with parties but have more freedom than MPs and can vote to protect the minority or special interests.
-The role of peers is idealised e.g. they serve parliament, national interests n scrutinising the HOC
-HOL power is limited due to salisbury convention, especially under large HOC majorities e.g. 1997 Blair govt
-Therefore, HOL can rarely check HOC and this arguably leads to a elective dictatorship as in the UK there is a fusion of powers , alongside a mandate this makes it easy for govt to be dominated by HOC.
-Therefore, there is a democratic crisis within the UK as we will continue to have an unelected body within govt, which is meant to protect to citizens against govt but will be unaccountable to the electorate itself.
-also the HOL will continue to be very weak in checking govt and HOC.
P2 (AGAINST): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
HOL reform and independent commission
-On the other hand HOL does perform a meaningful role in parliament and its legitimacy is increasing through HOL reform.
-Firstly, 1999 HOL ACT removed all but 92 hereditary peers.
-secondly, this had an impact on making the lords a largely appointed.chamber, based upon merits and expertise rather than based on birth making the lords a more professional and efficient body. (86% in 2017)
-Furthermore, the transfer in responsibility of appointments to HOL appointments commission in 2000 has decreased the chance of a peerage due to party donations.Also increased their legitimacy by questioning appointments made by the PM.
-Made the HOL take a more active role in Parliament in forcing govts to think again about legislation, amending legislation in order to protect the minority by taking an advisory role and forcing debates.
-Furthermore, as Lords are not fully professional politicians they are less likely to be affected by whips and are not ‘lobby fodder’.
-E.g. HOL opposed welfare reforms for 4 billion pounds and attempts to redefine child poverty.
-However, these arguments can be undermined as the UK still remains as one of the only countries with an unelected body.
-secondly, the HOL still have an advisory role and lack democratic legitimacy, this makes them limited.
-The Parliaments ACT of 1911 and 1949 delays the HOL from delaying bills for more than a year and has no say on money bills
-Amendments proposed by the lords can be overturned by the HOC.
-Therefore, the threat of an elective dictatorship remains and creates a democratic deficit within the UK.
P3(FOR): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
-Within in the UK there is a poor protection of rights.
-There is no bill of rights within the UK and even though the 1998 HRA was incorporated into law through the ECHR, there has been an evident decline in civil liberties.
-Firstly, the lack of clarity in the definition of rights can lead to conflicts amongst individuals and interest groups. 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.
-Secondly judicial review places too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges.
-A big issue is the of privacy; judges have been accused of creating privacy through the way they interpreted the HRA.
-As judges have been seen to give priority to article 8 (right to privacy) over article 10 (right to freedom of expression). E.g. in 2008 the high court awarded Mosley, the head of formula 1 substantial damages as a news article had published a sex story and had violated his right to privacy.
-Therefore, this creates a democratic crisis as rights are not justifiably being protected.
P4(AGAINST): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
-judicial review, rights- based culture.
-On the other hand, since the passage of the HRA it has often claimed that the uk has developed a right based culture as all new legislation must be compliant with the act and judges can declare earlier acts of parliament incompatible with the HRA.
-one indicator of this is the use of judicial review as in 2000 the use of judicial review was just over 4,000 to 15,000 in 2013.
-Defenders say that judicial review is vital in order to protect citizens rights, enabling the legitimacy of govt to be scrutinised properly, E.g. Abu Qatada, a radical muslim who the security services regarded to as a threat and ministers wanted to deport back to Jordan, where he was wanted for trial, this was prevented for up to 8 years but in 2013 he was sent back as the UK signed a treaty with jordan.
-However, these arguments can be weakened with the erosion of rights being prominent.
-Though judges are able to claim acts incompatible with the HRA , they cannot legally compel parliament to make any changes due to parliamentary sovereignty.
-E.g.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).
-Although it didn’t parliament thad the authority to ignore the judgement the judgement that declared the violation of the HRA + suspected terrorists had to remain in prison while new legislation is passed as parliamentary sovereignty does not allow the SC to strike down primary legislation.
-Therefore, it is clear that they lack real power in protecting the rights of citizens, causing a lack of democracy.
-Furthermore, for many right-wingers, a serious fault of the HRA is that it seems to favour undeserving individuals rather than protect the legitimate freedom of citizens.
-Conservatives have argued that they should replace the HRA, with a new bill 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 HRA was implemented, not protecting citizens sufficiently and thus creating a democratic crisis.
P5(FOR): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
-The electoral reform system or FPTP system.
-Although forms of proportional voting has been introduced in devolved bodies such as AMS in Scotland, it fails to be replaced in the Westminster model.
-FPTP is very poor at transferring votes in proportional representative seats, also its legitimacy undermines the democratic system of the UK.
-E.g. in 2005 Labour gained 35% of the vote but this was translated in 56% of seats in the HOC, 36% of the vote went to the conservatives but they only gained 37% of the seat share.
-FPTP discriminates smaller parties, e.g. in 2015 UKIP gained 12.6% of the popular vote but only gained a singular seat whereas as SNP won 50% of the popular vote and received all the constituencies.
-in a purely democratic system , the amount of votes earned would translate to the amount of seats earned.
-on the other hand, FPTP leads to a lot of wasted votes, as well as tactical voting, both which undermine democracy and the value of votes.
-E.g. Ipsos MORI’s research into the voting in 2010 general election concludes 10% of voter chose their second preference, with figure being especially high for the Lib Dems (16%)
-Furthermore, it leads to safe seats, e.g. Tottenham and Labour.
-Therefore, it is clear that FPTP is undemocratic and requires electoral reform.
P6(AGAINST): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
-AV referendum, majority government.
-On the other hand critics argue that the nature of FPTP, means that it leads to majority governments.
-Therefore, one party dominates the HOC creating strong govts.
-E.g. From 1997-2010, the Labour party had a majority in the HOC and was able to pass various legislation without any obstacles.
-Labour had more than 50% of the seats in the commons so rarely faced opposition.
-PR systems such as AMS or STV may not be as effective in passing legislation as effectively as FPTP.
-Furthermore, attempts to replace FPTP was rejected in 2011 AV referendum by a large majority suggesting that there is no support to remove FPTP.
-However, these arguments can be undermined as:
-After the 2017 GE a question arose as to why the Uk still has a flawed electoral system with wasted votes etc. also FPTP has lost the ability to provide strong majority govts as in 2010 a minority govt was created and have created weak majorities since, clearly showing that it was not a one off.
-Therefore, FPTP no longer does the one job it was assigned for whilst having its many democratic issues.
-Furthermore, the 2011 AV referendum was flawed, as the AV alternative suggested was way too complicated, there was also a very low turnout of 42%,Lib Dems used this election as a means to punish the party for not holding up their end on tuition fees, the 2015,2017 elections suggest that there is a mandate for the electoral system to be reformed.
-Therefore, FPTP does indeed present a democratic crisis because it leads to poor representation and wasted votes making this system undemocratic.
Conclusion (FOR): Evaluate whether there’s a democratic crisis in the UK system
In conclusion, though the HOL reform has given peers more legitimacy, they continue to lack the power to hold the government accountable themselves to the electorate, creating a democratic deficit.
Similarly, though the HRA has provided some rights’ protection, evidence shows that the since government retains its sovereignty, this isn’t always applicable, given the act’s lack of entrenchment; consequently, citizens rights are guaranteed as they would be under a fully democratic system.
Finally, though FPTP was accepted for providing strong and stable government, recent trends show that this advantage has been eroded, leaving Westminster system with an unrepresentative system that holds little benefits.
Thus, clearly, the UK is clearly suffering from a democratic crisis.
