Is Scotland more democratic than England? Discuss with respect to the powers and functioning of the Scottish and Westminster parliaments
Is Scotland more democratic than England? Discuss with respect to the powers and functioning of the Scottish and Westminster parliaments
When considering whether Scotland is more democratic than England a clear definition of what is meant by democracy when used in this context is vital to answering the question. When used with respect to the functioning and powers of parliaments it is representative (indirect) democracy as opposed to direct democracy that must be established and defined. Whereas direct democracy is a form of self government which removes the distinction between the governed and the government, representative democracy is indirect in the form that the public don't actually exercise any power themselves but instead legitimize those in positions of power thru the election process. The three main principles the theory of representative democracy is based upon are freedom of expression, which ensures that electoral choice was genuine, popular sovereignty, to establish that authority flowed from the ruled to the rulers as well as political equality, to give votes of equal value to all1. Benefits such as legitimacy, accountability, allowing government to be placed in the hands of those with better expertise as well as offering a practicable form of democracy have all contributed to the global uptake of some form of representative democracy. It is the extent to which the Scottish and English parliaments provide these benefits and accommodate these principles by which I will judge whether the Scottish parliament is more democratic than the English.
When looking at the question it would be understandable to interpret Westminster as the English Parliament, however this is misleading and inaccurate as well as being dismissive of the significant control Westminster possesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unlike the Scottish Parliament where only Scottish citizens can influence who represents the people, members of the Westminster parliament are elected by citizens of England, Scotland , Northern Ireland and Wales, therefore citizens out with England can have considerable influence upon how England is run, which may seriously undermine England's democratic system. For example the Scottish Parliament deals with the running of the education services, transport etc throughout Scotland and only people with Scottish citizenship can effect how these services are operated. However Scottish citizens also get a say in how Westminster is operated, therefore possess two votes compared to English citizens one. In this way Westminster represents the English people less than the Scottish parliament represents its own people.
Most parliaments comply with the concepts of authority and legitimacy, that is "when subordinates acknowledge the right of the superiors to give orders"2 and where citizens give those elected "the right to rule"3 . Although both the Scottish and UK parliaments achieve this legitimacy through elections, there is much debate about the different methods used to elect representatives into positions of authority and how democratic these processes are. Westminster operates using a majoritarian electoral system known as first-past-the-post or "single member single plurality", whereas the Scottish Parliament uses a proportional system known as the additional member system.
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Most parliaments comply with the concepts of authority and legitimacy, that is "when subordinates acknowledge the right of the superiors to give orders"2 and where citizens give those elected "the right to rule"3 . Although both the Scottish and UK parliaments achieve this legitimacy through elections, there is much debate about the different methods used to elect representatives into positions of authority and how democratic these processes are. Westminster operates using a majoritarian electoral system known as first-past-the-post or "single member single plurality", whereas the Scottish Parliament uses a proportional system known as the additional member system.
By using a majoritarian system the need for parties to form coalition governments in order to govern is removed, since the extent of the winning parties lead is "exaggerated by the system"4. Despite the fact that no party has achieved an electoral majority since 19355, Westminster Parliament has largely been made up of a single party government, largely due to the presence of this majoritarian system. This point can be illustrated in the 2005 General Election where Labour won 355 seats out of 645 despite only winning 35.5% of the vote6. However as Michael Dyer puts it in Democratic Politics, "the basic objection to plurality and majority systems is that they fail to reflect the national distribution of the party support because far too few votes fall on successful candidates.....critics regard plurality and majority systems as unfair and undemocratic"7. This criticism of Westminster's electoral system is one of the main reasons that the Scottish Parliament opted to use a system of proportional representation, in the hope of achieving a more democratic system. The principle of proportional representation ensures that the percentage of seats a party gains in parliament is directly proportional to the percentage of votes the gained during the election. Although this electoral system brings about a more real representation of the people it also brings about problems therefore a more in depth look at the benefits and costs of each system is needed to evaluate which is more democratic.
One of the key benefits of first-past-the-post system is its ability to bring about a stable government since single-party governments operate in the absence of disunity and internal conflict. Unlike the additional member system used in the Scottish parliament, where coalition governments "are liable to collapse as a result of internal splits and divisions"8, Westminster's single-party government ensures that the government can rule decisively and enforce policies with little resistance. Many argue that the strong government produced thru this electoral system is more democratic than a government produced thru a system of proportional representation, illustrated by Martin Keegan who writes, "what matters for democracy is not representative ness or proportionality, so much as accountability and responsiveness"9. Furthermore as well as providing a strong government this electoral system also provides coherent opposition, which ensures any policies or decisions made by the government in power are thoroughly questioned before being put into place. In 1961 Prime Minister's Question Time was introduced, giving MP's from all parties the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on anything to do with his duties or government policy for around 30 minutes each week.
However can a system that only offers the limited choice of the two major parties and under represents smaller parties to the point of exclusion really be described as democratic. In the 1983 British general election, the Liberal-Social Democratic Party Alliance won twenty-five10 percent of the votes, but only three percent of the seats, illustrating what is known as the "third party" effect. This is often the case for many parties whose support is spread evenly in geographic terms find that they will win few seats despite gaining a considerable overall percentage of the votes. As a result of this people feel unrepresented and feel that their vote has been wasted, a point illustrated by Andrew Puddaphat, a supporter of proportional representation, who said "people thought it was unfair that their votes "didn't count""11. Furthermore, despite the presence of Prime Minister's Question Time, critics continue to argue that this system is unaccountable since the executive and legislature are both under the Prime Minister's control, giving him unjustifiable power. A recent example where the unrestricted power of the Prime Minister could be seen was Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq without the full backing of the British public. Petty Colville, a critic, states that "the Westminster system of government is one which does not allow for responsible, transparent and accountable government...it is one where the executive controls the legislature- where the legislature is a tool of the executive"12. All the above undermines the legitimacy of the parliament since it fails to represent the people effectively, excludes the minority and is deemed by many to be unaccountable, presenting a challenge to Westminster's case of operating under a democratic system.
In contrast to Westminster's "unrepresentative" electoral system, the Scottish Parliament is deemed to be much more representative although it is not proportional representation in its purest form. Like Westminster the Scottish Parliament uses the first-past-the-post system to elect the constituency representatives, however a second vote is then taken to elect party list representatives using proportional representation, where electors vote for a party and not directly for an individual. In this way the Scottish Parliament achieves a balance between "the need for constituency representation and the need for electoral fairness"13. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of the Scottish Parliament being formed out of a coalition government, any decision made by the Scottish Executive should be made accountable to the Scottish Parliament, which restricts its powers to enforce party policy and ensures that the decisions reached are in the best interests of the Scottish public.
Although Westminster may exert more control and power than the Scottish Parliament when comparing the two on the basis of which provides the more democratic system it seems that the Scottish parliament complies better to the principles of democracy by giving better representation to the people through the additional member electoral system. Through better representation the Scottish Parliament achieves greater levels of legitimacy and because of the likelihood of a coalition government it can also offer greater levels of accountability, which both comply with achieving a democratic system. Furthermore the Scottish citizens right to two votes compared to the English citizens one leads to my conclusion that in terms of the functioning and powers of the parliament the Scottish Parliament is more democratic than that of Westminster.
WORD COUNT: 1484
Bibliography
Books
Rod Hague, Martin Harrop, Shaun Breslin, 1998, Comparative Government and Politics, London, Macmillan Press LTD
Andrew Heywood, 2002, Politics, Hampshire, Palgrave
Bill Coxall, Lynton Robins, 1998, Contemporary British Politics, London, Macmillan Press Limited
Roland Axtmann, 2003, Democratic Politics: An introduction, London, Sage Publications Ltd
Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, 2000, Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Climate, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Peter Madgewick, 1991, British Government: The Central Executive Territory, Hertfordshire, Simon and Schuster International Group
Websites
Adam Mellors-Facer, Ross Young, Richard Cracknell, 17th May 2005, General Election 2005, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
Martin Keegan, 27th April 2005, UK Electoral Systems, http://mk.ucant.org/info/ukconst/electoral_systems.html
Andrew Reynolds, 10th August 2005, Electoral Systems, http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01b.htm
2nd June 1998, Tories State Opposition to PR, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/104703.stm
Colville Petty, 26th September 2003, Plant a Mango Tree, http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleview/1420/1/133
Hague, Harrop, Breslin, 1998, Pg 22
2 Hague, Harrop, Breslin, 1998, Pg 10
3 Heywood, 2002, Pg 210
4 Coxall, Robins 1998, Pg 142
5 Heywood, 2002, Pg 232
6 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
7 Axtmann, 2003, Pg 149
8 Heywood, 2002, Pg 236
9 http://mk.ucant.org/info/ukconst/electoral_systems.html
0http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01b.htm
1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/104703.stm
2 http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleview/1420/1/133
3 Heywood, 2002, Pg 237
