Democratic Rights

Another argument to the fact the UK is not a democracy is the fact that it has a monarchy. What these people fail to recognise is the fact that, the monarchy has no real power. The Queen has the power to not give her royal assent to any bill however this veto is never used (last time it was used around 300 years a go). All the other roles she performs are only a figurehead. She can in theory dissolve government but in practice, it never happens. If a time comes when the Queen refuses to give her royal assent, the UK will undeniably go through reform which will see this power abolished. This argument is flawed because the Queen does not go against the rule or will of the people, the fact that she has the power to (not give royal assent) does not damage the UK’s claim to democracy because no decision such as this has been taken and if it did, it would be abolished.

Another argument is the fact there are decision made in the government that go against the will of the people. These decisions include the Iraq War, people claim that this was against the will of the people. However, the government is elected to make decision on our behalf, if we are unhappy with a decision they make then we can hold them accountable by not voting them in the next elections. The decision that was made in 2003 to go to war was a democratic decision which Blair went to the government for and was passed (200 vs. 299). In 2005, elections were held and Labour (the majority party at the time of the Iraq War) and they won again, this shows that the decision on the Iraq war wasn’t disliked enough for the people to hold the government accountable and to choose different governors.  

Another point about the UK not being a democracy is all the decision that are not made by government but which have huge consequences. For instance, the security services make decision to carry out operations (sometimes illegitimate) which would definitely not be carried out if put through parliament. One example of these is “Operation Mass Appeal”, this is where MI6 tried to plant stories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in South African and Indian media (which would eventually get to the UK and US)*. This decision made, is not legitimate and it is not the will of the people. Also, note, that this is just one decision from one institution. Operations and functions carried out by other services are illegitimate and against the will of the people. This is surely the strongest argument against the UK being a democracy.

In support of the UK being a democracy is the research carried out by ‘The Economist’ and think tank group ‘Demos’. The Economist judged the countries on "[w]hether   are free and fair, [t]he security of voters, [t]he influence of foreign powers on government, [t]he capability of the  to implement policies" The UK managed to gain the respectable position of 23rd (in the world) and given it the title of “fully functioning democracy” which shows that it does have free and fair elections. The other body “Demos” lists the UK as 9th in Europe focusing on everyday aspects such as family, workplace and activism.

To conclude, the UK is far from a perfect democracy. I say this because of the decisions made illegitimately by secret services and other bodies. The accusation that the House of Lords can derogate the UK’s position as a democracy, to me, is flawed because the people can get what they want eventually. I am not claiming that there shouldn’t be reformed, rather, that what the House of Lords does is provide time for rethink and during this time it can help the people understand more. The accusation that the monarchy also derogates the democracy is in theory, right, however in practice completely absurd. The basic answer to the question “Is the UK a democracy?” is yes, but it is not perfect. The UK has a freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of movement and freedom of religion. These are all factors of a good democracy. We have a representative institutions and the information they have we can quickly gain access to (Freedom of Information Act). The reason I say that it’s not perfect is because there have been heavy criticisms about the electoral system that works in this country (first past the post) which means that majorities of support can be very small. The fact that the government keeps files for 30years before publishing them shows that the Freedom of Information Act can’t get us everything. Bureaucrats can influence ministers even though they are not elected. As a observer can clearly see, the UK is a democracy but it’ll have to keep reforming until it is perfect and near the likes of Finland.