In a previous post, I summarised some modern democratic standards: basic rights and laws are described in a constitution, mechanisms are in place to prevent a dictatorship by the majority, such as the division of the legislative between different institutions, as well as describing Britain's pioneering role in developing many modern democratic principles - again division of the legislative - and how the British have managed to adapt their political system to social change over centuries through reform rather than revolution. With their capacity for peaceful change, the British are once again leading the way. Although the reforms were progressive and reasonable during their time, the system as a whole has not arrived in the modern age. In retrospect, some reforms even seem counterproductive in the long run.
Today, the political system is roughly as follows. Officially, all power is still vested in the Crown, which is one reason why there is no constitution and the people are not the sovereign of the state, as is the standard in modern democracies.
Other institutions receive power and competences by delegation. But practically, monarchs now only have a ceremonial role. Some tasks, for example the arbitrary levying of taxes, are forbidden to them by law, other executive tasks are severely restricted by common law.
The same applies to the legislative. While the Crown is officially an integral part of Parliament it does not introduce bills. No new laws can come into force without the monarch's signature. But Elizabeth II, for example, has never made any effort to refuse her signature. In practice, it is a formality.
In today’s House of Lords, the hereditary nobility and the Church make up only a small proportion of MPs. Most members are life peers. As the name suggests these are appointed for life, by the monarch, on the recommendation of the prime minister. Those chosen have often distinguished themselves through special achievements in their profession or society.
The House of Lords has lost almost all its power and acts only as a deliberative chamber. Bills that have passed the House of Commons are still discussed by the Lords and they vote on them. The Lords can draft amendments and send these back to the House of Commons with the bill. Usually the proposals are taken seriously and an attempt is made to bring the views of both Houses together. However, the Commoners are not forced to accept the proposed amendments. They can always turn their bill into law. The House of Lords can slow down the process, by a year at most, but not stop it.
Thus, in practice, almost only the House of Commons has legislative power. As a democrat, one must see the withdrawal of the unelected institutions positively. But the resulting concentration on one decision-making body contradicts the principle of sharing power, and balancing the different interests in society is therefore all the more difficult.
Concerning the Executive, it is common that the majority leader of the House of Commons is entrusted by the monarch with the formation of the government. Thus, by convention, the executive is also dependent on democratic processes, and is aligned with the last remaining legislative power. This means with a stable majority in the House of Commons, a government can implement its agenda without major resistance. Practical, but the arrangement again comes at the expense of balancing interests.
And there is a third circumstance that inhibits the balance: the composition of the House of Commons is still determined purely by majority voting. Citizens have only one vote with which they determine the MP of their constituency.
As in Germany, most candidates belong to parties. Most people are more aware of party agendas than those of individual candidates and vote accordingly. This puts stronger parties at an advantage, because only their candidates have a realistic chance of winning constituencies. A current example from Germany to highlight this effect. In elections in Germany, voters usually have two votes. The first one to decide which candidate should represent the constituency in parliament. And a second to determine the share of parliament seats the parties get [1]: In the Bavarian election of 2023, the conservative CSU won the election with 37% of the secondary votes and received about this share of seats in parliament. To form a government the party depends on a coalition partner. In contrast, CSU candidates received the most votes in 85 out of 91 constituencies. If the Bavarian parliament were filled purely by directly elected representatives, the CSU could do as it pleased in Bavaria.
Of course, some Bavarian voters would vote differently in a pure first-past-the-post-system. But in general, large parties are favoured. In Britain, for example, the Conservative Party and Labour usually get more seats than they are entitled to according to the proportion of votes. The big parties can only dream of a 90 per cent share of seats, but typically one of the two large parties has a majority in the House of Commons. After the Second World War, there were only two occasions when a party fell short.
Now, one might hope that a certain balance of interests would be provided by the fact that all Members of Parliament (MPs) have a strong mandate from their constituency. They could be far less beholden to their party's guidelines than those German MPs who only enter parliament via party lists. But this is not really the case. The dependence of MPs arises from the procedure by which the parties nominate their candidates. Each has its own procedures. The Conservative Party, also known as the Tories, has put a nice information flyer on the internet for those interested, which I like to summarise here [2].
Anyone who wants to stand for the party can register via a central e-mail address or telephone number. If one has not disqualified oneself when contacting the party, one will be invited to a forum in one's region. There, one can meet party members and have an informal exchange.
In the next step, those interested are asked to fill out an application form, also to give detailed information about their political experience, their career and their life in general. Because the party "...will try to discover more about you as a person". Finally, three references have to be given. Preferably, these should include one from the employer and/or a party member.
If the Conservatives are interested, the candidates are invited to a Parliamentary Assessment Board. Formal requirements are a party membership of at least three months, as well as the payment of 250 pounds participation fee (everything costs money in the UK). Then there is a meeting with more senior members and MPs. They check the political convictions of the possible candidates. However, it is not about questions of detail. In the flyer it is even explicitly stated that exact knowledge of the party agenda is not necessary. More important are qualities like communication skills, intellect, leadership skills and the ability to relate to people.
Once the candidates have convinced the reviewers they can be a useful instrument of the party, they are added to a central Approved List of Parliamentary Candidates. Now they are allowed to apply to local party bodies for candidacy in their region. The chances are of course higher if they live in the constituency, or at least in the immediate neighbourhood. However, to increase chances that the leadership of the party are in the House of Commons, they can run in constituencies that are fairly certain to be won.
Crucial to the control of MPs is their membership of the List of Parliamentary Candidates. If an MP regularly goes rogue in the House of Commons, they can be removed from the list and will no longer be able to stand for the Tories. A prominent figure may try his luck as a free candidate at the next election, but an ordinary MP will have no chance without the party's support of money, aides and contacts. If there is no broad or coordinated revolt among the party's own MPs, the government's majority in the House of Commons is safe.
But the House of Commons is in general lacks the ability to challenge the government. In Britain, as in many modern democracies, there are now parliamentary committees or slots in which government officials have to answer questions before the House of Commons. The latter are even famous and notorious. But the agenda in the House of Commons is primarily the responsibility of the government. This is because, according to Standing Order 14 of the House, government business takes precedence over other items. The opposition has 20 days during a session to give priority to its issues. (A session usually lasts 1 year.) And these are usually not used to directly challenge the government, but to present themselves. Furthermore, the concerns of ordinary MPs, backbenchers, are given priority on 27 days. Here, a committee selects from submitted issues, which is staffed roughly according to the composition of the House of Commons. Therefore the agenda is rather not one against the government majority...
Standing Order 14 was imposed by the House of Commons itself and first formally recorded in 1902. Its origin may lie in the 1870s [3]. The order can be abolished or suspended for specific issues by a simple majority in Parliament. However, this rarely happens.
An example that also shows how idiotic this rule is occurred in early 2019: Parliament was allowed to debate the EU exit formalities negotiated by Theresa May's government. Previously, the negotiations had never been put on the agenda by the government. Only with the vote on the corresponding bill in December 2018 were MPs allowed to discuss, and it became apparent the bill would not get a majority. The House of Commons was then allowed to decide for itself what to discuss, in order to find an option that would get a majority. As it turned out, there was none - negotiated or not by the government. The whole Brexit process had to be postponed because, as it is usual in Britain, the government barely integrated the House of Commons - and thus the sovereign - into its work. As I said, any mechanism to promote discussion and balance of interests, a fundamental principle of modern democracies, has been lost in the British system.
As a result, a British Prime Minister usually rules like a petty king. The parties are more or less hierarchical. Through his/her party, the majority in the House of Commons is under control and thus the House itself. Legislative institutions independent of the government are not to be feared. There are no barely any checks and balances as in the American or German system. The Prime Minister can rule without much interference. Unless control over a large proportion of MPs is lost, as in December 2018, or the head of government behaves illegally. Then the courts intervene.
With this, I am beginning to understand why the British had such a big problem with the EU political system. The Union is based on modern, democratic principles - the balancing of interests especially is given a lot of weight. Negotiations between political opponents and compromises are inevitable. All this is alien to the British.
The EU was defamed by many Brexiteers as a dictatorship, as a system that imposed foreign decisions on them. But that was never the case. Basic rights of the British and their state were specially protected. Some laws required the consent of all member states, others the majority in various bodies. Yes, in practice decisions took longer, and the result was often enough a compromise. But a compromise that was supported by all or a large part of the members. And nothing went against the fundamental interests of the British people.
The British political system, on the other hand, is very problematic. Yes, the House of Commons is democratically elected, and Britain is a constitutional state. But a system has emerged in which a weak "Dictatorship of the Majority" is replaced by another [4]. Because there is no constitution with specially protected laws, even major adjustments require the approval of only one body and (usually) a simple majority there is enough. As long as a government has one vote more than the opposition, the country is at its mercy.... within a certain framework.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.
[1] The seats in parliament are first filled with directly elected MPs. To distribute the share among parties correctly, other seats are filled from preselected party lists. MPs from smaller parties are usually just selected from these lists, the vast majority form lager parties is usually directly elected. The system in Germany focuses more on agenda than candidates.
[4] I call it a “Dictatorship of the Majority” due to the majority in the House of Commons. When it comes to shares of votes, I have to call it a “Dictatorship of the Minority”, as in the last 50 years only one government was backed by a majority of votes (the coalition government of 2010).
Comments