The right to vote is the expectation of any un-imprisoned person above the age of eighteen who lives in the UK, is a member of a commonwealth country, or lives in the republic of Ireland. The purpose of the voting system is to give the political party who wins the majority of the votes a sense of legitimacy. Without this legitimacy it is not in their power to amend or create laws as they do not have the authority to do so. However, a number of the public and members of some specific political parties believe that the current voting system does not give the winning party legitimacy as it is not a fair system. People like these prefer proportional representation where the votes received are proportional to the amount of seats received in parliament. This system is usually pitted against the first to pass the post system that is currently used in the UK; this is where the candidate who wins the most votes in a constituency wins a seat in parliament, and the party who gains the most constituencies gains power of government. This system is constantly criticised for it’s unjustness and for not being a representative system and therefore undemocratic.
The conditions for representative democracy are; a full adult franchise, a secret ballot to avoid intimidation, regular elections, fair elections, an effective choice of candidates or political parties, and a free and diverse media that enables a wide variety of views to be expressed. Essentially a representative democracy should protect the individual’s right to vote. This is covered in the civil rights. The right to freedom of expression is a human right. The right for each adult to vote was not achieved until 1928. Representative democracy is vital for parliamentary sovereignty to work.
Political participation is essential for a government to obtain legitimacy. The more that people participate in politics, the more legitimacy that a political party has when it wins the votes, since there were a greater number of the public represented in the voting numbers. When a person votes for a particular political party they are putting forth a vote in favour of that party’s ideal (unless of course tactical voting occurs, in which case this argument is flawed), they are voting for that party’s promise of change or their promise of stability. Their vote gives that party the power to amend the constitution as they wish; it is a vote of confidence in that party. The majority wins under any electoral system regardless of how they achieve this majority. Of course there will always be a minority since it is rare that every voting person votes for one particular party. This minority may be slightly or extremely opposed to the ideals of the winning party, by abiding by the laws and amendments that this party introduces despite disagreeing with them the minority could be said to be infringing their own human rights since their right to freedom is slightly bound by the current governments chosen legislation.
A party’s accessibility can also come into question when considering the rights of the public. An elitist party is a party whose ordinary members have less of a say in decision making, this is infringing on that person’s right to freedom of expression as dictated by the civil rights. An elitist party also has an under-representation of women and ethnic minorities which infringes on the human right of protection from discrimination. It is important to note here that these human rights were added to the British constitution after the UK agreed to the Human Rights Act in 1998 which brought into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. The over representation o f white middle class males has been put down to a lack of encouragement for minorities to enter politics, a negative stereotype, and a history of white middle class male making any important decisions. However the times are changing and the white middle class male may find it harder to be successful as universities and employing firms don’t want to be accused of discrimination.
The existence of pressure groups also calls the rights of citizens into question. The Human Rights dictate that every person has the right to peaceful assembly; this means that every pressure group that wants to hold a meeting has the right to do so. For example; Greenpeace can assemble at their local pub for a talk about current issues without anyone holding legal issue with them. However; when protests are held that put the streets at a standstill they are no longer holding a peaceful assembly, it doesn’t matter how important their message might be. The pressure group’s influence on a political party is often labelled as unfair. For example; increasing pressure from anti-foxhunting groups influenced the government enough for them to create a law against it. Often scandal is attached to the influence that they have, groups such as Wynn Transport decided to influence politicians in order to achieve their goals as opposed to the open protest that animal rights activists and environmental groups often favour.
The structure of parliament is greatly influenced by the content of the British constitution. It dictates that this country has a fusion of powers. These powers are the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. The legislative pass and amend laws, they were created when Kind Richard ruled the country in a way that upset the barons hence the creation of the Magna Carta in 1215. The legislative is the main decision making body in the UK and consists of ; elected MPs, one from each constituency, or appointed lords. The executive are the governing body of the fusion of powers. They execute the law. The executive are monitored and scrutinised by the legislative; for example, the recent withdrawal of the 10 pence tax band has caused some backbench rebellion for Gordon Brown’s government.
An MP has the ability to raise issues in parliament in the form of private member’s bills. However the ability of these bills to influence decisions is questionable since they are not to include the use of public money and only 20 bills are seen each year, of which only half a dozen have any chance of succeeding due to a lack of time. However, private members bills have succeeded in changing the laws on capital punishment, abortion, seat belts, and divorce.
The Whip system in parliament has often been the question of debate. Parliament is supposed to be a place where legislation can be debated but a three line whip may cause an MP to change their vote since the opportunity cost of not climbing the political ladder is far too high.
Until recently the House of Lords has been a massive problem to many. Much of the public aren’t happy with the power that the Lords have and many do not understand their purpose in parliament. The Labour government has attempted to solve this by removing all but 92 of the hereditary peers, this seems fairer to members of the public who would have otherwise stood no chance of becoming a Lord simply because of their bloodline.
Over the course of history amendments have been made to the constitution, but how do the parties feel about these changes? The Labour party traditionally has a radical attitude to change. This means that any changes that they want to make to the constitution will happen rapidly. In contrast, the conservative party prefer a more pragmatic approach, they prefer to observe how society is changing and change with it. This doesn’t mean they don’t welcome change, but rather they are happy to embrace change should it be necessary for society. The Liberal Democrats are renowned to campaign for constitutional reform. The system doesn’t work in their favour since they remain the ‘third party’. They propose electoral reform, full membership of the EU with full integration, large scale devolution, and a reform of the House of Lords.
Parliamentary sovereignty has been described by Bagehot as “The dominant characteristic of the British Constitution.” Parliamentary authority is unlimited unless the EU is involved. Since 1973 the UK has possessed dual constitutional arrangements; as an independent unitary state, and as a member of the European Union. Power is devolved from the centre but unlike Federalism it can be returned. This is what has happened in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. It is quite unlikely that the power will be returned instead it is likely that more power is given out making the UK quasi-federal. There are constraints on parliamentary sovereignty which is what Marxists predict, the rise of the repressed. This was witnessed in the 1990 Poll Tax riots and the popular revolt in 1971 that led to the Trade Union Act.
The British constitution outlines the rule of law. The rule of law is a fundamental principle, no-one is above the law and each person is subject to the rule of law. A.V. Dicey is the main author of the rule of law; he enshrines principles such as natural justice, fairness, and reasonableness. These are the basis of civil, human, and natural rights.
How do the different parties view the constitution? The conservatives are fairly radical concerning the constitution. This was seen in the 1867 Reform Act, the 1921 Irish Treaty, and the 1973 British entry into the EEC. Though it is important to note the context of this radicalism, the aim is still to conserve. Their view is that power flows from above, with an emphasis on strong government. The conservatives still hold a pragmatic approach to change when government structure is concerned, for example they didn’t fight the abolition of hereditary peers since they knew it was what society needed.
The Labour party take their traditional view of replacing the state not amending it. Their concerns lie over minority and civil rights. The 1990s New Labour reforms included. Devolution, a directly elected mayor for London, a new electoral system for devolved assemblies and EU elections, the Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information Act, limits on election campaign spending and a cabinet system for local authorities. The passing of these reforms was pretty easy due to Labour’s sizeable majority. Thus far New Labour has failed to strengthen the role of local government and the civil servant. They have also been criticised for an appearance that each reform has been considered in isolation rather than as one overall impact.
Ultimately our uncodified unitary constitution outlines the roles of; the constitutional monarchy, parliamentary sovereignty, representative democracy, and the rule of law. Over its lifetime the British constitution has been subject to reform according to party ideals as well as the increasing influence that the EU has since we became as member in 1973. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is increasingly being lost to the greater powers of the European Union and the eminent introduction of a supreme court. Is our unitary state becoming increasingly federal, and what are the risk associated with this kind of change?
