Who Holds Power in the United Kingdom Today?

To approach this question it is essential to consider both the definitions of power and the various different domains within which they work. As power is central to the understanding of politics, it evokes fierce controversy over its meaning. Academics have argued that politics strives to resolve conflict by producing consensus over the issues in question. In contrast, the practice of politics may also be seen solely as a means of execising power, be it through particular coercive forces or a legitimate authoratitive body.

Political activity is omnipresent, existing on both micro level (as seen in the relationship between teacher and student) and on a macro level, meaning the state. Consequently, this brings us to make a necessary distinction between 'power' and 'influence'. The former can be seen as an ability to make significant political decisions which facilitates the control over others. e.g.the power of government over society. In contrast, the latter implies the potential to transform any component part of these decisions via some form of external pressure. For instance, this may include anything from rational debating within Parliament, to open intimidation such as armed police forces.

Liberal democratic politics dictate the political agenda of the British political system. The 'liberal' element advocates the support for a multitude of different networks within the state as well as a number of different groups working seprate from the state. For example, N.G.Os, a Bill of Rights, an autonomous judiciary and finally, a complex system of 'checks and balances' within the institutions of government. Moreover, the word 'democratic', according to Bernard Crick (2000) is representative of an 'essentially contested' concept i.e. democracy communicates different meanings to different people and as a result three fundamental types of power structures emerge from liberal democratic societies.

Firstly, the power of legislation, which is the power granted by Parliament to make new laws and revise those already in existence. Meanwhile, the executive, also known as the Cabinet which is drawn from the majority party in the legislature, holds the power to both propose new laws and re-examine existing laws. Cabinet ministers work side by side with the civil service, an established body of impartial state employees. Finally, a liberal democracy must also contain an independent judiciary which is separate from all governmental institutions. This is an indispensable component of our constitution as it maintains the government's legitamcy.

Another crucial point to note is that liberal democracy reinforces the notion of safe-guarding the individual's freedom or civil liberties. It places great emphasis on the individual's position and authority within society. Thus, liberal democracies are supposedly the distribution and execise of pluralistic power. Pluralism argues that power is dispersed and fragmented throughout every spere of society and as a result ensures that the state cannot accumulate too much power. Robert Dahl coined this theory as 'polyarchy', meaning the rule by many. Most importantly, pluralists maintain that the electoral system reinforces polyarchy by guaranteeing that the state responds to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Unlike pluralists, elite theorists reject the idea of democracy, instead offering the analysis that a small minority of people will always monopolise power in the U.K and use it as a means to their own ends. This cohesive political class is frequently described as the 'Establishment' and often share a social and educational background. Elitists insist that liberal demoracies are but a smokescreen erected to deceive the masses. 'Egalatarian' ideas (i.e. socialism and democracy) are merely illusions, far from the truth of reality. Rather, elite theorists put forward the idea that elitism is the by-product of political apathy amongst the majority of the population. This lack of interest in politics is, and always has been an inherent characteristic within the structure of society. Hence, the materialisation of an 'representative' democracy. Under this guise of 'democracy', although the electorate is given choices through which to choose which elite should govern, it cannot however change the basis on which power will always be exercised by an elite. As Robert Michels (1876-1936) professed '...he who says organisation says oligarchy'.

Elitism further contends that political parties do not act as a vehical through which a variation of different interests may be expressed. Instead, elitists highlight the ineffiences of pluralism by pointing out that political parties have the power to prohibit certain views reaching the political agenda, especially those which are in direct conflict with the party's policy. Moreover, they argue that interest groups do not share equal status. For example, groups representing the homeless do not have as much political influence as those that represent the economically supreme and well-educated.

In contrast, Marxists argue that the system is fundamentally flawed and that it is capitalism as an entity, not the state that exercises absolute power. They argue that it is impossible to fathom the state separate from the economic infra-structure. This is because the state is the result of the class system and its main concern is to conserve and defend both class domination and exploitation. Lenin makes reference to the state by claiming that it is 'an instrument for the oppression of the exploitated class'.

Of course, it is certainly recognisable that both elitists and Marxists alike share some similarities. This is illustrated in the view that cohesive political elites are predominant in the U.K, and that democratic institutions are artificial. However, although we must realise that both Marxists and Elitists have indeed reached the same conclusions, it is vital that we also realise that they fervently differ on the means in which they reach such conclusions. Marxism proposes the notion that the root of the problem lies in the economic structure of society, suggesting that the elite (or the 'ruling class') only holds power because it controls and owns capital. Of course, the Elitists argue against this by insisting that hierarchy is a natural process and will always inevitably emerge from any given situation and thus the domination of elites is psychological, not artificial.

In short, Marxists believe that capitalism exists only to serve the interest of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and as a result the proletariat will be inextricably oppressed. A striking example of the Marxist theory put into practice would be that of the tobacco industry, where multi-international financial transactions are taking place amongst an elite few (which are, in turn accumulating great wealth) at the expense of the millions of people that die each year due to smoking related illnesses. A Marxist would say that this is a perfect example of how it is inherent in the nature of capitalism to exploit and deceive the masses in order the satisfy the needs of a select few.

To understand the question of who really has power in the United Kingdom today, we must consider our form of parliamentary democracy. This involves the notion that our government is fashioned by the party that is able to command a majority in the House of Commons. In other words, Parliament legitimises the jurisdiction of the government and as result, the authority of Parliament is seen by a vast majority to be immeasurable and its power absolute.

Lord Hailsham, an ex-Conservative minister, argued in 1976 that parliamentary democracy was inextricably linked with the threat of an 'elective dictatorship'. In his widely acclaimed book 'Hailsham' (1978 p.13) he claimed that it is only now that people have come to realise that representative democracies have the potential to become 'engines of tyranny' and hence, the population must be 'protected from our representatives no less than our former masters.' These bold comments made by Lord Hailsham are extremely sinister and unnerving for he is in essence likening parliamentary democracy as a guise to a totalitarian regime.

So, how do we as a member of British society decipher who holds the greatest amount of power? Well, Marxists would suggest that there are 'faceless power entities' such as multi-national companies, the IMF, the world bank and the EU, who work in conjunction with the government. In particular, the mass media, who play a critical role in swaying public opinion during general elections and referendums. Noam Chomsky raises a crucial point, he asks "is the information [given to the public] delegated or monopolised?" Of course, if we assume that it is delegated, then we may conclude that media manipulation is merely a form of limiting choice but yet choice still exists. However, once we adhere to the theory that information is instead monopolised, we are implying that the mass media is solely a means of social control, and thus any electoral result is pre-determined.

Another prominent illustration of a faceless power entity is globolisation. This is reflected in the rapid growth of the free-market, as national economies become supranational, and as labour markets become liberalised (i.e. the World Trade Organisation and UN). Whilst Karl Marx argued the idea that society was class divided, it could also be argued that modern day globalisation, has in fact homogenised the once divided classes and breaks down traditional barriers so we have become the 'supermarket class'. Therefore, I believe that we only need to examine the relationship between big business and the government to realise where the power really lies. This is because both state and big business alike have vested interests in one another. Firstly, the state is concerned with protecting social cohesion (i.e. low unemployment, controlled inflation and economic growth) and thus strives to promote big business in order to invest into the economy. On the other hand, multinationals's interest lie in creating capital, and as a result are enticed by a deregulated labour market, low corporate taxes and the ability to access into the EU market.

In the United Kingdom, it is commonly believed that the state is a sovereign political institution free of any characterisation by biases which either favour a state elite, the bureaucracy or profit important economic interests. We like to deceive ourselves that we live in a 'democracy' but because of our archaic voting system of 'first-past-the-post', the government cannot represent views of the majority. Also, in a true democracy the War in Iraq would not have happened, considering the huge number of people that turned up to protest against it. Unfortunately, even under the Secret Ballot Act of 1872 whereby we are suposed to have the right to vote annonymously, we are not even entitled to that freedom because the ballot papers are either numbered or colour coded allowing scope for whoever is in power to check how you voted.

Consequently, if our representative form of democracy is not democratic, by implication we must live under the rule of a state elite. And if it is the case that such an elite must strive in every way possible to promote big business in order to uphold social cohesion, then surely it is impossible to deny that capitalist interests are the basis of all governmental decisions. It would only be logical to conclude that the concept of who holds power in the U.K today is merely a guise with government being a necessary shadow passed over society by the interests of big business. The reason this stlye of government has endured for so long is perhaps mans neccessity to believe that he has some control over his own destiny or as Thomas Paine so eloquently put it in the "Rights of Man" (1789), "Society is in every state a blessing, but, government in its best state is but a necessary evil".

Mikaela Lee-Willson