Amidst the political and social division in the United Kingdom, many believe that the system is incapable of dealing with as great a constitutional crisis as Brexit. The issue has stoked debate as to whether true power is vested in Parliament or the people. To someone who thinks in purely theoretical terms, the answer is obvious: Parliament is representative of the people, therefore power is vested in both parties. However, to everyone else, the answer is not so clear. Despite MPs being sent to Westminster as representatives of their constituents, they have betrayed the people they supposedly serve, by disobeying the democratic mandate. While I am not a fan of tyranny by majority, representative democracies cannot choose when they would rather not carry out the demands of the people. I'll attempt to answer the question "Is Parliament efficient enough for modern Britain?". In this article, I will attempt to answer this question and compare the Britsh system of government to others.
I believe that the British parliamentary system is surprisingly more effective than people imagine it to be. One reason why the modern British parliamentary system is effective is the careful balance that Parliament spends discussing issues that affect citizens at a national level, as well as those that affect citizens at a local level. For example, on 5th September’s Prime Ministers’ Questions segment in Parliament, of the 28 questions asked by Members of Parliaments (MPs), 13 pertained to the effect of legislation at the national level, and 15 related to the effect of legislation at the local level. Despite the Speaker of the House of Commons being from the Party with the most seats, he often chooses Members of Parliament from a wide variety of political parties and geographic locations, ensuring fair representation of political parties and places.
When comparing the British system of government to that of Singapore, we find many differences between the two. Advantages of the Singaporean system are the continuity of aims and objectives of one government to another. Long-term objectives instituted by one government are carried out by the succeeding government because The People’s Action Party has ruled Singapore since its independence. However, this one-party state has been upheld by limiting the freedom of the press. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government often sues journalists that criticise his administration. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the nation ranks 151st out of 180 countries for freedom of the press, as compared to the United Kingdom at 40th.
In order to assess the British parliamentary system, we must also compare it to systems used in the classical world. Ancient Athens was the world’s first recorded, large-scale form of government which granted power to the general masses. Despite both being referred to as democracies, there are few similarities between the British and Athenian systems. In the Athenian democracy, the people directly voted on the legislation that affected them and all public officials were chosen by sortition to prevent political classes forming.
Another asset to the Athenian system was their practice of ostracism. Every year, the citizens had the opportunity to select a politician to be exiled (ostracised) from Athens for ten years. 6000 votes were required to ostracise a politician, as opposed to the modern UK in which politicians can only be forced to leave their public office at elections. This meant that divisive political figures would be prevented from having any influence in the political sphere. In an article for the BBC, Professor Cartledge of Cambridge University explained the benefits of the Ancient Athenian ostracism system. He wrote, “For almost 100 years, ostracism fulfilled its function of aborting serious civil unrest or even civil war.” (Cartledge, 2011, The Democratic Experiment).
Critics of the Athenian system argue that in order for it to have been effective, it requires an informed citizenry with a wide range of information at their consumption, whereas in the British system, the ignorance of the masses is not as dangerous. Plato, a Classical Greek philosopher, believed that the Athenian system was tyranny by the majority. Plato wrote, "Whichever… are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State --let them be our guardians." (Plato, 360 BC, the Republic, Book VI). Plato did not think that the common man did not have the education necessary to be held partially responsible for the governance of a State. Plato argued that democracies follow the impulses of the citizens, rather than their needs.
Similarly, the British system, to some extent, relies on the level of information and education of the citizenry. The reason why ignorance in the electorate is so dangerous is that MPs are chosen by the electorate, and therefore, government policy is chosen by the electorate.
Thomas Paine, a prominent figure in the American Revolution, famously wrote that government was instituted by men to restrain their vices, and therefore is inherently authoritarian. In Common Sense, he famously wrote that:
...government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil...
If we take this definition to be true, we conclude:
To combat this, we must introduce some objective standards to governance, for neither the people nor an arbitrarily selected king can rightly rule a nation. It is important that we find a way to incorporate the long-term goal-orientation of the Singaporean system (this is compatible with our goal of objectivity) and the ostracism element of the Athenian system. While a ten-year exile from the country may be too draconian, I propose that we ban politicians from decision-making positions for the duration of one Parliament if they fail to improve economic, educational and health-related indicators.
The fate of the world's fifth-largest economy should not depend on 650 representatives, many of whom have the support of just 40% of their constituents. In stark contrast, it should neither rest in the hands of the people, their wants and desires temperamental. It should reside in the realm of facts and objectivity, and all should be subject to it.
I believe that the British parliamentary system is surprisingly more effective than people imagine it to be. One reason why the modern British parliamentary system is effective is the careful balance that Parliament spends discussing issues that affect citizens at a national level, as well as those that affect citizens at a local level. For example, on 5th September’s Prime Ministers’ Questions segment in Parliament, of the 28 questions asked by Members of Parliaments (MPs), 13 pertained to the effect of legislation at the national level, and 15 related to the effect of legislation at the local level. Despite the Speaker of the House of Commons being from the Party with the most seats, he often chooses Members of Parliament from a wide variety of political parties and geographic locations, ensuring fair representation of political parties and places.
When comparing the British system of government to that of Singapore, we find many differences between the two. Advantages of the Singaporean system are the continuity of aims and objectives of one government to another. Long-term objectives instituted by one government are carried out by the succeeding government because The People’s Action Party has ruled Singapore since its independence. However, this one-party state has been upheld by limiting the freedom of the press. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government often sues journalists that criticise his administration. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the nation ranks 151st out of 180 countries for freedom of the press, as compared to the United Kingdom at 40th.
In order to assess the British parliamentary system, we must also compare it to systems used in the classical world. Ancient Athens was the world’s first recorded, large-scale form of government which granted power to the general masses. Despite both being referred to as democracies, there are few similarities between the British and Athenian systems. In the Athenian democracy, the people directly voted on the legislation that affected them and all public officials were chosen by sortition to prevent political classes forming.
Another asset to the Athenian system was their practice of ostracism. Every year, the citizens had the opportunity to select a politician to be exiled (ostracised) from Athens for ten years. 6000 votes were required to ostracise a politician, as opposed to the modern UK in which politicians can only be forced to leave their public office at elections. This meant that divisive political figures would be prevented from having any influence in the political sphere. In an article for the BBC, Professor Cartledge of Cambridge University explained the benefits of the Ancient Athenian ostracism system. He wrote, “For almost 100 years, ostracism fulfilled its function of aborting serious civil unrest or even civil war.” (Cartledge, 2011, The Democratic Experiment).
Critics of the Athenian system argue that in order for it to have been effective, it requires an informed citizenry with a wide range of information at their consumption, whereas in the British system, the ignorance of the masses is not as dangerous. Plato, a Classical Greek philosopher, believed that the Athenian system was tyranny by the majority. Plato wrote, "Whichever… are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State --let them be our guardians." (Plato, 360 BC, the Republic, Book VI). Plato did not think that the common man did not have the education necessary to be held partially responsible for the governance of a State. Plato argued that democracies follow the impulses of the citizens, rather than their needs.
Similarly, the British system, to some extent, relies on the level of information and education of the citizenry. The reason why ignorance in the electorate is so dangerous is that MPs are chosen by the electorate, and therefore, government policy is chosen by the electorate.
Thomas Paine, a prominent figure in the American Revolution, famously wrote that government was instituted by men to restrain their vices, and therefore is inherently authoritarian. In Common Sense, he famously wrote that:
...government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil...
If we take this definition to be true, we conclude:
- that the powers of government should be severely hampered
- if the government is there to restrict the vices of man, man should decide upon such restrictions, given that he was born free.
To combat this, we must introduce some objective standards to governance, for neither the people nor an arbitrarily selected king can rightly rule a nation. It is important that we find a way to incorporate the long-term goal-orientation of the Singaporean system (this is compatible with our goal of objectivity) and the ostracism element of the Athenian system. While a ten-year exile from the country may be too draconian, I propose that we ban politicians from decision-making positions for the duration of one Parliament if they fail to improve economic, educational and health-related indicators.
The fate of the world's fifth-largest economy should not depend on 650 representatives, many of whom have the support of just 40% of their constituents. In stark contrast, it should neither rest in the hands of the people, their wants and desires temperamental. It should reside in the realm of facts and objectivity, and all should be subject to it.
Who would upon decide the standards of objectivity that the government would run under?
ReplyDelete