A few high-profile cases reveal how much democracy’s ‘software’ lags behind its ‘hardware’
Administrative and legal processes are now underway to get to the bottom of four high-profile cases involving, directly or otherwise, an assault on the dignity of women. They include a Supreme Court judge, the editor and managing editor of an influential weekly magazine, a former home minister of a major state in the Union (and, possibly, its current chief minister as well) and a spiritual guru with a vast following. What is at stake in each case is abuse of power that is in flagrant violation of the laws by those who are duty-bound – because of the positions they occupy – to uphold them.
The intricacies of the cases continue to be subjected to close and critical scrutiny in the media. But the larger picture they reveal hasn’t attracted the requisite attention: the growing disconnect between the “hardware” and the “software” of Indian democracy. The “hardware” of democracy include legislative and executive institutions (Parliament, state assemblies, panchayats etc), the judiciary, official statutory and non-statutory bodies, political parties and the media. And the “software” relates to the observance of rules and regulations, conventions and precedents to enable the institutions to function in a transparent, accountable and effective manner. What is the record?
Judged according to these standards, our Parliament and state assemblies are little more than a hotbed of interminable intrigue, confrontation, mud-slinging, filibustering and sometimes also outbursts of violence. This numbs the nerves of the executive and paralyses the legislature. The one cannot govern while the other cannot enact laws, adopt policies or, so far as the opposition is concerned, even act as a watch-dog of the government of the day. What stands out, therefore, is a mockery of their constitutional responsibilities.
The political parties are no better. Their public spats are less about policies and programmes and more about the acquisition of power and pelf. Many of them are akin to privately-controlled family businesses. Inner-party democracy is a rumour to them.
The Congress, which has had the longest innings in power since independence, leads the pack. But others are not far behind: Thackerays and Badals, Karunanidhis and Pawars, Reddys and Yadavs. And then you have individuals without kith or kin who rule the roost in their parties: Mamata, Mayawati, Jayalalithaa, Patnaik et al. None dares cross their path. What “software” of democracy can they possibly bring to the table? Precious little.
But these permanently feuding parties from one end of the political spectrum to another can and do make common cause when their interests as a corporate class are in jeopardy. Consider their opposition to any serious effort to keep politicians with criminal backgrounds at bay. Consider, too, the alacrity with which they refused to come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. Such “software” contains far too many bugs to serve any worthwhile purpose.
The ailments of the judiciary, including, in the first place, that of the Supreme Court, are of another order. The alleged moral turpitude of some of the judges is only one of them. Even on this count, however, the judiciary is loath to allow an impartial and transparent probe by anyone other than the members of its own fraternity. The most recent instance concerns allegations of sexual misconduct against a recently retired judge of the apex court by an intern.
Add to this the growing interference of the apex court in legislative and executive areas that are, strictly speaking, beyond its remit. It is argued, doubtless with good reason, that such interference is inevitable when the government and the legislature are unable or unwilling or both to shoulder their constitutionally-mandated tasks. Governance, like nature, abhors a vacuum. But the danger in this argument is that it upsets the delicate balance of power between the three estates of the republic that the Constitution decrees. On this count, too, a lethal virus could render the “software” of democracy obsolete.
That danger is no less acute when governments, both at the Centre and in the states, deploy official agencies to get even with rivals. More often than not, such deployment is initiated outside the framework of laws, rules and regulations. Fake encounters and fabricated cases are evidence of this conceited insouciance.
But so is the intrusive surveillance of citizens suspected of making life difficult for the rulers of the day: rival politicians, nosey media persons, un-cooperative civilian and police officials, NGOs and, in one instance at least, an individual who posed no such threat. We recently witnessed such conduct in, among other states, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat. Surveillance of this nature, especially if it is pervasive, also contaminates the “software” of democracy.
The cases of Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary of Tehelka and of Asaram Bapu fall in a different category. They relate to an unforgiveable betrayal of trust reposed in them by their readers, friends, colleagues and followers. What makes the betrayal odious is that these individuals professed to promote highfalutin principles of moral and spiritual rectitude. All three of them emasculated the substance of their calling and, in the process, polluted the “software” that is expected to keep state and society in India in fine fettle.
The intricacies of the cases continue to be subjected to close and critical scrutiny in the media. But the larger picture they reveal hasn’t attracted the requisite attention: the growing disconnect between the “hardware” and the “software” of Indian democracy. The “hardware” of democracy include legislative and executive institutions (Parliament, state assemblies, panchayats etc), the judiciary, official statutory and non-statutory bodies, political parties and the media. And the “software” relates to the observance of rules and regulations, conventions and precedents to enable the institutions to function in a transparent, accountable and effective manner. What is the record?
Judged according to these standards, our Parliament and state assemblies are little more than a hotbed of interminable intrigue, confrontation, mud-slinging, filibustering and sometimes also outbursts of violence. This numbs the nerves of the executive and paralyses the legislature. The one cannot govern while the other cannot enact laws, adopt policies or, so far as the opposition is concerned, even act as a watch-dog of the government of the day. What stands out, therefore, is a mockery of their constitutional responsibilities.
The political parties are no better. Their public spats are less about policies and programmes and more about the acquisition of power and pelf. Many of them are akin to privately-controlled family businesses. Inner-party democracy is a rumour to them.
The Congress, which has had the longest innings in power since independence, leads the pack. But others are not far behind: Thackerays and Badals, Karunanidhis and Pawars, Reddys and Yadavs. And then you have individuals without kith or kin who rule the roost in their parties: Mamata, Mayawati, Jayalalithaa, Patnaik et al. None dares cross their path. What “software” of democracy can they possibly bring to the table? Precious little.
But these permanently feuding parties from one end of the political spectrum to another can and do make common cause when their interests as a corporate class are in jeopardy. Consider their opposition to any serious effort to keep politicians with criminal backgrounds at bay. Consider, too, the alacrity with which they refused to come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. Such “software” contains far too many bugs to serve any worthwhile purpose.
The ailments of the judiciary, including, in the first place, that of the Supreme Court, are of another order. The alleged moral turpitude of some of the judges is only one of them. Even on this count, however, the judiciary is loath to allow an impartial and transparent probe by anyone other than the members of its own fraternity. The most recent instance concerns allegations of sexual misconduct against a recently retired judge of the apex court by an intern.
Add to this the growing interference of the apex court in legislative and executive areas that are, strictly speaking, beyond its remit. It is argued, doubtless with good reason, that such interference is inevitable when the government and the legislature are unable or unwilling or both to shoulder their constitutionally-mandated tasks. Governance, like nature, abhors a vacuum. But the danger in this argument is that it upsets the delicate balance of power between the three estates of the republic that the Constitution decrees. On this count, too, a lethal virus could render the “software” of democracy obsolete.
That danger is no less acute when governments, both at the Centre and in the states, deploy official agencies to get even with rivals. More often than not, such deployment is initiated outside the framework of laws, rules and regulations. Fake encounters and fabricated cases are evidence of this conceited insouciance.
But so is the intrusive surveillance of citizens suspected of making life difficult for the rulers of the day: rival politicians, nosey media persons, un-cooperative civilian and police officials, NGOs and, in one instance at least, an individual who posed no such threat. We recently witnessed such conduct in, among other states, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat. Surveillance of this nature, especially if it is pervasive, also contaminates the “software” of democracy.
The cases of Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary of Tehelka and of Asaram Bapu fall in a different category. They relate to an unforgiveable betrayal of trust reposed in them by their readers, friends, colleagues and followers. What makes the betrayal odious is that these individuals professed to promote highfalutin principles of moral and spiritual rectitude. All three of them emasculated the substance of their calling and, in the process, polluted the “software” that is expected to keep state and society in India in fine fettle.
The partisan trap
Democracies are susceptible to traps of their own making. One trap, much in discussion these days, is what David Runciman calls the “confidence trap”. Democracies seem to have hypochondria about their own lack of capacity for decision-making, particularly in international crises.
Autocratic governments seem to seize the initiative and do much better. Democracies seem to fumble. But this disadvantage turns out to be mostly illusory. Democracies may be bad getting into crises, but they are much better at getting out of them. Their dithering is more than compensated for by their flexibility. It is a very democratic thing to think that democracy is in crisis.
But there is another trap. This is the partisan trap. On one hand, partisanship is, as Russell Muirhead argued, the lifeblood of democracy. It is a principle of accountability: competition is what we use to keep others in check. Partisanship is necessary for the formation of political identities, for creating durable institutions around political ideas, and for giving us a team to cheer.
A battle against a worthy political opponent is far more exciting than an anaemic politics of consensus building, of gathering together in fuzzy warmth and vapid agreement. On the other hand, partisanship can unnerve a democracy. It can produce rancour and gridlock, and convert citizens into enemies. The prospect of successful democracy depends on how it negotiates this tension.
The coming election has thrown up deeper challenges of partisanship than usual. It is a deeply exciting election. There are new political formations, new leaders who may take India into uncharted territory. But the excitement also unleashes unprecedented partisan fury that threatens to corrode all sense of proportion. Our partisanship is of an unusual kind. It does not involve the usual battle of different sensibilities balancing each other: left versus right, the politics of privilege versus the politics of dispossession, freedom versus restraint.
There are elements of these principles, but the practices and commitments that give them content are often too vague or scattered across the political spectrum. To be sure, there is some general talk of governance. But that rests on the attributes of persons, not principles. Our partisanship in this election is strong because it is centred on a discourse of virtue and vice: its very essence is not that ideas must be defeated, but that persons must be brought down.
To an extent, this is inevitable. Narendra Modi’s candidacy was bound to generate this response. For his passionate critics, the core issue is his moral culpability, and focusing on anything but that or even suggesting that he might have some other virtues is an act of deep betrayal. For his loud and relentless defenders, there is now a mystique of infallibility around him: to so much as concede that he might have made mistakes is to bring him down.
The AAP’s politics rests largely on showing how every party other than itself is compromised: it is shot through with the confidence of a self-declared virtue. It is not an accident, therefore, that much of the argumentative space in this election is colonised by charges of hypocrisy: who can expose whom, in fantasy, at least, if not in reality.
Some of this is healthy. It is a necessary corrective to the veil of silence that political collusion had drawn over so much vice. But we should be under no illusions that its lasting effects will go beyond the usual partisanship in politics. The charges are traded and the contest is defined in such personal terms that the process of formal reconciliation that democracy depends on will be so much harder.
But there is another danger. The very excitement of this election has drawn in new constituencies, most notably journalists. Cynics might be tempted to say that the interrogatory nature of this contest is particularly suited to journalistic talent. In case we are being too harsh on our journalist colleagues, it is worth remembering that Tocqueville had written that “the job of a journalist in America is to attack coarsely, without preparation or without art, to set aside principles in order to grab men”. But the danger is slightly broader than simply journalists joining politics or having normative commitments.
They are citizens and entitled to make these choices. It’s a good thing if people from several walks of life hitherto unconcerned with politics directly engage in it. The danger is slightly different: the enchantment of partisanship may breach all boundaries and engulf any sense of proportion or objectivity. The partisan contagion may corrode professional roles and judgement. This corrosion comes in two forms. In the most egregious cases, it leads to selective reporting, misplaced importance to certain facts, sometimes even falsehoods. In a more subtle form, the worry is not falsehood but a certain monomania: where journalists become more like lawyers for a prosecution or a defence. Their facts may not be wrong in a literal sense, but their vocation is reduced to exactly the same partisan contest in politics: take down the opponent, no matter what.
Such partisanship can, like political partisanship, be greatly motivating and productive. But it can also be corrosive. For one thing, it is coming in a context where the media as an institution has a serious credibility crisis. But more importantly, it tends to collapse the intellectual and the political. It is the essence of partisanship, particularly one centred on the conviction of virtue, to assume that virtue cannot be divided across parties. It has become anathema to suppose that even though we may be convinced about who is best for India, virtue and vice may not come in such neat packages.
John Stuart Mill saw the advantages of partisanship. We should have a tolerance for “the one eyed man, provided their eye is a penetrating one: if they saw more they would not see so keenly, nor so eagerly pursue one course of inquiry”. But he also realised that combative partisans rarely convince their opponents. Where this clash has a salutary effect is on non-partisans. This collision of arguments has an educative effect on them. But the danger is not just that partisanship produces a vicious politics: it is that it colonises everything else as well. For politics to work, someone has to be above it.
Don’t underestimate the costs of misjudged partisanship. The crisis of confidence in sections of American democracy are linked to it; partisan rancour excessively slowed down progress in India as well. As partisans become more personal, the scars of battle are also likely to be deeper. There is no magical balance between partisanship and detached objectivity. But a democracy that loses either is in danger of a partisan trap.
The franchise as the fulcrum of democracy
In the run-up to the polls to elect India’s 16th Lok Sabha, pages from the freedom struggle provide some background on why the ballot remains the bedrock of our democracy. It may also tell us something about the reasons why, despite the robust expansion and protection of the practice of political equality, socio-economic inequalities are allowed to persist in post-independence India.
Paradoxically, the Constitution that enshrined universal adult suffrage in the world’s largest democracy was drafted by a Constituent Assembly that was composed of members elected by restricted franchise. But then, the demand for universal adult suffrage had been gathering momentum for some decades before independence. The Motilal Nehru report on a draft constitution for free India advocated unlimited adult franchise and equal rights for women. The resolution of the 1931 Karachi session of the Indian National Congress regarded the affirmation of political equality, encapsulated in the notion of universal adult franchise, as fundamental to the future of Purna Swaraj or total independence. Britain had removed the remaining arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of the vote for adults only recently, in 1928. The principle of one man one vote galvanised large sections of the youth behind the anti-colonial struggle. A vindication was the overwhelming victory of the Congress in the 1937 provincial elections, held under limited suffrage based on income and education.
Free India enacted a succession of measures to make the electoral process more participatory, inclusive and transparent from the very first general election of 1952. Foremost among them was the casting of votes by joint electorates to choose representatives from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. To be sure, there have been recurrent instances in recent years of intimidation of candidates and voters belonging to disadvantaged communities. This scenario, if anything, underscores the need to persist with the policy of reserving a proportion of electoral constituencies as a prerequisite to ensuring adequate representation for them.
Adapting a Westminster style of democracy to domestic conditions called for devising a simple and intelligible medium for political parties to appeal to a predominantly non-literate voting population. The introduction by the Election Commission, of ballots as well as drop boxes that bear symbols to denote different political parties to voters achieved this end admirably. The most recent measure to empower voters to express a negative opinion against candidates is a further advance in terms of evolving a more transparent election process.
Equally, there are elaborate formalities enjoined upon people’s representatives and concomitantly upon the political parties they belong to. The stipulation to furnish information on the conduct of internal party elections may be seen as an explicit expression of the commitment to democratic principles at various levels.
Curtailing political defections
The once rampant practice of political defections, that had a detrimental effect on the representative character of popular elections, has been considerably curtailed in recent years. A legislator is now disqualified from membership of a house when he voluntarily gives up membership of a political party, as per the Constitution 52nd Amendment Act. He also forfeits membership when he votes or abstains from voting contrary to the direction of his party.
Recognition of a merger only when backed by at least two-thirds of a legislative party, under the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, is a further curb on political defections. At the same time, the provision to approve the formation of a new party by some legislators, as well as to allow others not to accept the merger and opt to function as a separate group are important protections of the basic democratic principle of political dissent.
In the context of the 2014 election, it may be relevant to recall that the right to universal adult franchise was not an isolated demand put forward in the 1931 Karachi session of the INC. The proposal was in fact part of a comprehensive package of measures seen as crucial to emancipate the masses from poverty, exploitation and oppression; and thus give substance to the idea of self-rule.
The pledge included the provision of free and compulsory primary education, a living wage, the prohibition of child labour, the promotion of trade union rights and many others. The spirit of the Karachi resolution may be reflected in the constitution of independent India. But the substantial features are mere entries in the non-justiciable directive principles of state policy.
Among them, the goal of realising free and compulsory education within a decade of the commencement of the new Constitution was elevated as a fundamental right in 2002. It was another seven years when an enabling law was enacted in 2009 to guarantee elementary education free of cost for children in the age group of 6-14 years. The employment of children below the age of 14 years was declared a cognisable offence just a year ago, following an amendment to the original law of 1986 on the prohibition of child labour.
Although the law on minimum wages came into force in 1948, the concept of a National Floor Level Minimum Wage was adopted only in 1991. The NFLMW is still neither universally applied, nor is it a statutory provision. Finally, the landmark 2011 report of the High Level Empowered Group constituted by the Planning Commission has recommended the provision of a fully state-funded universal public health care. Many of these measures were initiated after pressure from advocacy and voter groups.
There are, admittedly, many pitfalls in the current electoral system. Its susceptibility to advance narrow and sectarian ends; not to mention the not so insignificant limitations of the first-past-the-post method of election. With the benefit of hindsight however, it is obvious that the franchise remains the fulcrum of Indian democracy. While we may feel justified pride in the relative stability of our democratic institutions, it is time some of these challenges were addressed urgently.
Democratic Decentralisation and Citizenship
This article discusses the scope of democratic decentralisation to deepen democracy for the poor. While processes and platforms for citizen engagement like the gram sabha have been incorporated into policy and operational guidelines, the capability of the poor and marginalised to access them is severely compromised, leading to a subversion of development initiatives meant for the poor. The article attempts to understand the local citizen space and governance space as distinct from and complementary to each other, and demarcate the role of panchayats and community-based organisations with respect to these spaces.
This article seeks to answer the question whether democratic decentralisation can pave the way for the alleviation of poverty. It also addresses the question of whether panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) have become parallel institutions which are fighting for the same development and political space. Finally, the article also attempts to understand how it would be possible to realise the mandate of deepening democracy through a government-led initiative to build institutions of the poor.
Development practice over the years has attempted to build self-reliant local communities of the poor through CBOs. CBOs come in various guises – as user groups, management committees, or as self-help groups (SHGs) and their federations. This article discusses the CBO primarily in its manifestation as federations of SHGs of poor women. In India, the ascendance of the SHG and its federation has coincided with the space and importance formally given to PRIs as local governments. The onset of the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), the centrally-sponsored scheme for poverty alleviation, which set great store by livelihood activities through SHGs, followed close on the heels of the 73rd and 74th amendments and the institution of elected panchayats in the states. The programme was later restructured as the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), which went one step further and insisted on federating SHGs of poor women at village and block or cluster levels, capacitating local women’s leadership and routing financial assistance as “capital in perpetuity” for livelihood support through the federated CBO.1 Over time, it is expected that all villages of the country would have CBOs under the NRLM.
It is important to look closely at the concept of democratic decentralisation and elite capture while discussing the relationship between PRIs and CBOs. Democratic decentralisation can be defined as “meaningful authority devolved to local units of governance that are accessible and accountable to the local citizenry, who enjoy full political rights and liberty” (Blair 2000: 21, cited in Johnson 2001). It implies a system of governance in which citizens possess not only the right, but also the capability to hold local government to account.
Does democratic decentralisation provide an ecosystem for the exercise of citizenship by the poor? Craig Johnson2points out that democratic institutions frequently embody an elite bias, along the lines of class, gender, religion, and other social groupings, and that this in-built bias discriminates against pro-poor policies. Very often, such policies in favour of the poor (with regard to, say, access to common property resources or to market space, or for raising minimum wages) would come at the expense of local elite groups and their interests. A totally normative and transparent poverty alleviation programme would also reduce the clout enjoyed by way of patronage by the political elite, and by way of control exercised by the local bureaucracy.
Numerous studies (Blair 2000; Crook and Sverrisson 2001; Dreze and Sen 1996; Manor 1999; Moore and Putzel 1999: 15) have pointed out that one of the dangers of decentralisation is that it may simply empower local elites and, worse, perpetuate existing poverty and inequality. As Moore and Putzel (1999: 10, cited in Johnson 2001) have argued, agrarian institutions may be structured in a way that prevents poor people from engaging in direct political action. An important concern here is that poverty will have a debilitating effect on the ability to engage in formal political processes. Marginalisation from centres of power and influence, from knowledge about rights and entitlements, and from democratic platforms can act as huge brakes on the deepening of democracy, and on the ability of poor voters to influence the democratic process. Very often, this marginalisation is deliberate, and systematically reinforced by local power structures.
The CBO ‘Alternative’
It is against this potent dysfunctionality of institutions of local governance that the CBO’s space has been carved out, as an alternative for ensuring the advancement of the interests of the poor. Mudaliar et al (2011) discuss civil society’s need to organise and mobilise people by creating SHGs and village development committees (VDCs), when democratically elected bodies such as the panchayat are already present. They also discuss why non-governmental organisations (NGOs) prefer to expend their energy in setting up new village-level institutions, instead of strengthening the already existing panchayats.
They contend that while the main purpose behind the creation of panchayats was to ensure better resource allocation, participation, efficiency, equity, and sustainability, and to promote local democracy, panchayats have tended to be dominated by those in the community who have traditionally been its elites, while the voices of the marginalised continue to be ignored. On the other hand, they see NGOs as an attractive alternative for individuals and funding agencies, who find formal structures too slow and cumbersome and unworthy of their trust, and state that many of those who have found themselves excluded from the processes underway at the panchayat have been finding a home within the community-based organisational structures spawned by the NGOs. There is an implicit assumption here: that the PRI has both the authority and the resources to execute programmes benefiting the poor; however, this is rarely the case.
The contentious relationship between CBOs and PRIs has been discussed in the Mani Shankar Aiyar Expert Committee (MSEC) report on leveraging panchayats for efficient delivery of public goods and services (2013).3 In Chapter IX, on convergence with the NRLM, which looks at the roles of local governments in poverty alleviation, it states that the inefficiency of livelihood programmes relate to different aspects of service delivery, and direct participation of the poor in the conceptualisation, organisation and delivery of services is needed. The report points out that PRIs are the only institutions obliged to be accountable to the community at large through gram sabhas, which comprise all the poor and vulnerable, and states that therefore, PRIs and gram sabhas should be given centrality in the planning and implementation of all NRLM programmes.
However, the extent of centrality of the PRI in the implementation of schemes and provisioning of services targeting the poor depends on the extent to which it has authority and power with regard to the conceptualisation and implementation of such schemes and services. The power and authority of the PRI in a state is dependent on the delegation made to it by the state laws, and the resources made available to the PRI from the state. While the Indian Constitution provides for the PRIs exercising a central role in many areas of public service delivery and poverty alleviation, PRIs are incapacitated from fulfilling that role by deficient laws and policies on the one hand, and by inadequate human and financial resources on the other. The politics of representation have also made the elected PRI apparently representative of the interests of the local power elite rather than of the common man; and the legacy of social inequity has impaired the capability of women and scheduled communities to convert their presence in the PRI into active participation, vouchsafing their interests.
State and central governments, in their desire to control outcomes on the ground, would rather establish and promote local user groups and committees and run programmes through them – bypassing the panchayats – positing these groups as less politicised or corrupt and, therefore, more representative of the marginalised. SHGs, which began as thrift and credit entities, have by virtue of their regularity and pliability metamorphosed into conduits for state-led schemes. Delivery was faster, and complaints fewer. Various schematic initiatives of state and central governments for decentralisation have aided the establishment and empowerment of local resource user groups and SHGs. What works in favour of the CBO is its ability to concentrate singularly on the poor and the marginalised, beyond political patronage (which is admittedly exclusionary of the most vulnerable and powerless). What goes against it is the absence of democratic processes that will ensure its accountability to its constituency of the marginalised. The very arguments arrayed against the panchayat can be raised against the CBO if it takes on the role of dispenser of benefits and entitlements. As against political patronage by the elected representative, patronage by the community leader can become the norm. The elected government is at least bound by processes of scrutiny and accountability (no matter that the practice of those processes is faulty). No such processes can be mandated upon the CBO, which is technically not a public entity.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the CBO created and supported by an NGO would be seen as taking over the elected panchayat’s role as representative of the community, and usurping the legitimate space of the local government for service delivery and development. The MSEC report contends that the contesting ideologies – of being led through peoples’ organisations or through local governments, and the reasoning that peoples’ groups are efficient substitutes for “corrupt or political” PRIs – have been behind this stand-off between PRIs and CBOs, and that this argument forgets the fact that the PRI is accountable to the entire population of a panchayat and not only to a small circle of beneficiaries, unlike the SHG network. Although community-based, CBOs are neither elected nor accountable to the community as a whole. But even while agreeing with the above, it must be remembered that the larger society or the “entire population of the panchayat” actually comprises interests that are more powerful than the interests of the poor, and which therefore carry credence and weight with the system, often easing out the interests of the poor. Poverty alleviation cannot be about majoritarian interest.
Civil Society and the Gram Sabha
As far as democratic decentralisation is concerned, the most significant platform for exercise of voice made available by the state is the gram sabha. In almost every state, the citizen who participates in the gram sabha is poor and vulnerable. The challenge before democratic decentralisation is to convert the passive participation of the poor in the gram sabha into an active churning of opinion, feedback and expression of need. Despite the extent of participation of the poor, gram sabhas across the country have not been able to demonstrate the idiom of participatory democracy in their working, and have been either hijacked, co-opted, or routinised to the extent of being ineffectual and trivialised. In a study by Johnson et al (2005), delivery of specific schemes to the poor was examined in the states of AP, Gujarat and MP, and the role of state and local governments in ensuring outreach was compared, especially in the context of devolution to panchayats. The authors observed that in the villages of MP where research was conducted, the systematic marginalisation of the gram sabha was the direct result of the failure to challenge the well-entrenched authority of village sarpanches (see Behar 2003; Johnson et al 2005). This in itself is an indication that local governance, as currently practised, has been unable to free the voice of the poor and the marginalised in society.
The development of a strong and vibrant civil society is also inextricably linked to the ways in which poor and marginal groups in society are able to exploit the political opportunities that the state makes available (Luckham et al 2000; Moore and Putzel 1999). Governments are unlikely to pursue substantive redistributive programmes unless ruling elites are ideologically and politically committed to the goal of poverty reduction (see Luckham et al 2000). Such political commitment can be brought about only if the poor coalesces into an identifiable constituency with clear needs and demands that are articulated. It would be too much to expect the political leadership to forgo an existing constituency in order to nurture another that is too sparsely spread out, and has neither muscle nor elbow space. While a vibrant civil society, more particularly, a vibrant civil society representative of the poor and the marginalised, is a precondition to meaningful democratic decentralisation, the impetus for the creation and nurture of such a society cannot come from the very government that is to be held accountable to it. This is the space of the CBO.
Citizen Space, Governance Space
An important distinction needs to be made between the governance space and the citizen space. The space of governance belongs to the local government, that is, the panchayat. But the space of the citizen cannot and should not be owned or controlled by the local government. The CBO is often alleged to be transgressing into the space of the local governance of the panchayat. This needs to be deconstructed, and the question as to whether there is an attempt to control the citizen space of the CBO also needs to be asked. Is the CBO, which obtains funds for supporting the thrift and credit and livelihood activities of its constituent segments – the village organisations and SHGs – functioning as a parallel government? Should it be under the control and supervision of the local government to ensure that it does not usurp the space of local governance? Can the exercise of autonomy by a CBO be seen as bypassing the authority of the local government? Does the very presence of a CBO that does not owe its existence to the local government contravene the principles of local democracy? Should the membership of the CBO be determined by the local government?
If the answer to all of the above is in the negative, then when would a CBO actually function as a parallel body? A CBO that takes on the role of government – taking responsibility for service delivery, driving the agenda for local development, undertaking all programme delivery (like conducting immunisation camps) – on its own could be said to be running parallel to the local government. But while the governance space has to be necessarily led by the PRI, this does not mean that the CBO cannot participate as a citizen body in participatory management.
What is the governance space for service delivery and local development that the panchayat is expected to occupy? Johnson (2001) identifies the following roles that governments typically play in poor and predominantly rural areas:
(1) The provision of public goods, such as universal education and healthcare.
(2) The provision of divisible goods, such as irrigation, agricultural extension and credit.
(3) The determination and enforcement of laws regulating key economic inputs, such as land, labour and capital.
(4) The recognition and protection of rights allowing for organisation, association and entitlement in the eyes of the state.
Where the good is a universal entitlement, as in education or health, the role of the local government is paramount in ensuring the quality and consistence of its delivery. But even where the entitlement is universal, there are bound to be issues of differential access and differential treatment, which would be loaded against the weaker segments of society. Social exclusions and knowledge barriers are likely to come in the way of exercising these entitlements. In such an instance, the CBO should come in as claimant and monitor of universal entitlements. There would also be opportunities for a synergetic collaboration between the local government and the CBO for overcoming barriers to participation and access, in the form of committees and forums.
It must be remembered that mere constitution of participatory mechanisms will not lead to equal participation if the civil society of the poor is weak and intimidated. The enforcement of laws surrounding the right of access and livelihood, and especially land and water rights, is also the domain of the local government; however, here too issues of violation or undue privileges, as well as interventions for positive discrimination in favour of the poor, would get highlighted only if an articulate, proactive civil society is in place and has the institutional platforms to engage the local government on the same.
The provision of divisible goods is a more tricky area. The funds are public, but the good is private, and is meant for a targeted population. It could be the small farmer, it could be the welfare pensioner; but even where specific categories are targeted, the resources are not adequate to cover all claimants. Therefore, some sort of screening or selection needs to be made. This is where the ground lies wide open to patronage. With patronage, nepotism, influence and corruption also come into play. The challenge before governance would be to ensure the normative provision of such goods, and eschew patronage. The local government could come in as dispenser of benefits; however, it would be far more appropriate if it came in as a regulator and a grievance redressal mechanism. (This, however, is particularly difficult where political patronage by the elected representative has already been legally sanctioned as a right or privilege – as in the case of MP/MLA funds and quotas in educational institutions.)
The Context of NRLM
Take the case of the community investment fund (CIF), made available under the NRLM to the SHG federation to use for onward lending against micro-investment plans made by SHGs and for meeting urgent financial needs, but also as leverage with banks for obtaining credit at affordable rates. What would be the logic behind requiring such a fund to pass through the PRI to the CBO, rather than directly to the CBO? Routing such funds through the PRI can be a double-edged sword. One can argue that this makes the utilisation of the fund accountable to the PRI, as these are public funds, but this begs the question as to why the utilisation for essentially private needs are to be subjected to the clearance of the PRI. Ideally, the PRI should, through a process of consultation with the stakeholder community, approve the norms of utilisation, but the management of the funds should be the responsibility of the CBO. The statement of accounts could be made available to the PRI, and the PRI should also be in a position to monitor any violations of norms, and function as a grievance redressal forum. For instance, the CBO would need to have prioritised the most vulnerable SHGs for receipt of CIF – an SHG that has been overlooked should be able to have its concerns addressed. The CBO itself can over time become co-opted, partisan or exclusionary, and the checks and guards against such partisanship and exclusion would need to come out of public scrutiny, and accountability to larger citizen platforms. A parallel to the PRI-CBO relationship in this regard can be drawn between the relationship of the District Planning Committees (DPCs) and the PRIs in Kerala. The allocation of plan funds to the PRIs is independent of the DPC, but the DPC approves the panchayat plan and releases funds. The right to plan for its resources is vested with the PRI – the DPC’s role is to ensure that the process of planning complies with agreed norms. It does not have the right to direct the panchayat to change its priorities or plan components, provided there is no violation of norms. Once the plan is approved, the DPC is allowed no discretion in the release of funds. In the case of the CIF, the PRI would need to play a role similar to that of the DPC of Kerala.
The Mani Shankar Aiyar Expert Committee report proposes that the CBOs of NRLM act as community wings of the panchayat, or as thematic or cross-sectoral sub-systems to generate demand, suggest priorities, and be a vehicle for the convergence of resources and services. It accepts that the autonomy of the CBO is to be ensured, but insists that PRIs should have the right of information monitoring and coordination.
How the role of the state in “the recognition and protection of rights allowing for organisation, association and entitlement” (Johnson 2001) is interpreted would have a major bearing on how the autonomy of the CBO is understood. In many states where SHG federations have come into existence as CBOs, under the supervision of a state government programme or aided project, the identity of the CBO is clear and distinct from the identity of the PRI. This is the case with the Targeted Rural Initiatives for Poverty Termination and Infrastructure programme in Odisha, the Aajeevika in Rajasthan, the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty in Andhra Pradesh, Jeevika in Bihar, and the Jharkhand State Livelihoods Promotion Society in Jharkhand. However, in states like West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the distinction is blurred. The PRI has clear powers over the CBO in West Bengal, and the CBO is in turn deemed to have membership in the standing committees of the panchayat. In Tamil Nadu, a convergence platform called the Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC) takes on some of the roles meant to be undertaken by the cluster-level federations (the second tier of federation of the SHGs, above the village organisation), although structurally, the cluster-level federation is independent of the panchayat. In Kerala, the CBO did not originally enjoy structural autonomy as the PRI-elected leadership were ex officio members of the CBO, and an officer of the panchayat was made member-secretary of the CBO. This was partially undone through a revision of the bylaws in 2008, but the control of the panchayat official continued.4
The responsibilities of the SHG network listed in the NRLM framework include participating actively in gram sabhas and other forums of PRIs, providing feedback through community-based monitoring, and supporting PRIs in their development initiatives and planning exercises. The roles identified for PRIs in the NRLM framework include identifying and mobilising BPL households into SHGs, with priority given to the poorest and most vulnerable amongst them; facilitating SHG federations at various levels and providing accommodation and other basic facilities for their effective functioning; incorporating and making suitable financial allocations to the priority demands of SHGs and their federations in the annual plans/activities of the PRIs; and coordinating with different departments and agencies on behalf of the network. Apart from the vital area of citizen engagement, there are traditional areas of cooperation between the PRI and the CBO which can be mutually beneficial, especially in service delivery and programme outreach. A strong CBO can aid in mobilisation and participation, as well as in the dissemination of knowledge that will help the panchayat improve the reach of its interventions. From the point of view of the CBO, this would facilitate greater access of its members to entitlements.
The panchayat leadership would like the CBO coming up through government initiatives to be under the control of the panchayat and answerable to it, the logic being that the CBO is created through the instrumentality of the state, and is dependent on the state for its space and activities. However, especially from the angle of eradicating poverty, the CBO exists – or should exist – in a citizen space, and it is the local government that should be accountable to its citizenry. Thus, while the onus is on the panchayat to include the CBO in planning for the resources under its control, the responsibility is not limited to ensuring participatory planning processes, but goes further into providing a proactive, responsive governance. Any control by the panchayat on the activities of the CBO could extend its control over the CBO in the matter of exercise of voice and choice, leading to a direct infringement of citizenship rights. Even a panchayat leadership interested in delivering a common good could use the CBO as it uses its officials, as an implementation arm, where the role of the CBO would be to execute decisions, not participate in decision-making. Such a relationship between panchayat and CBO fosters subservience, not autonomy. It does not lead to a deepening of democracy, and it certainly does not create a vibrant civil society capable of engaging with its government, and holding it accountable.
Road Map to Pro-Poor Citizen-Centric Governance
As long as the matter of patronage politics and local elite capture is not addressed, a citizen-centric governance system will remain a mirage. Without organisation and acquisition of numerical strength, the poor and the marginalised will remain voiceless and peripheral to the local development debate. Today, the organisations in rural India that are most representative of the people on the periphery are the SHG federations of poor women. The CBOs of NRLM have the potential of being representative of extremely vulnerable populations, like bonded labourers, manual scavengers, scheduled castes, migrant workers, destitutes, and tribals. Mere inclusion in the CBO would not automatically generate a voice. The responsibility of the CBO is to inculcate citizen capability, to claim the citizen space, and convert the gram sabha into a vibrant institution of democracy.
So, while the panchayat needs to institutionalise the space for citizen interaction, the CBO needs to build citizen capability to occupy that space. It needs to be remembered that the citizen space here refers specifically to the space of groups that have been traditionally marginalised by local political processes. This is doubly challenging and doubly relevant for the CBOs of NRLM, which are exclusively institutions of rural women, as the institution would need to combat the strong value systems of gender inequity – over and above the social distances of poverty and marginalisation – in order to be paid heed to.
However, monitoring and feedback are experienced by CBOs today as additional chores to be undertaken, and not as rights to be exercised. Institutional mechanisms would have to be set up as part of the operational framework of the CBO if it has to find the time and resources to undertake monitoring and feedback systematically from a rights perspective. The democratic capability that needs to be acquired through the medium of the CBO would include, among others, the capability to organise, participate, protest, confront, agitate, articulate needs, raise claims, and hold to account. It should manifest as individual capability and as the capability of the collective. It also needs to manifest as the capability to protect the interests of the marginalised “other”.
There has to be a sustained empowerment process targeting the CBO that works towards internalising knowledge, motivation and self-esteem, and through these, is able to infuse democratic capability. This cannot be a one-off capacitation, but an engagement that evolves over time, and develops the capacity of the leadership and members of the CBO to become sensitised to their citizenship rights, as well as to the means and processes of participation in governance. The CBO becomes the space to rehearse democracy and apply the lessons learnt in the public domain.
The impact of the persistent citizenship training of the CBO is perhaps best captured in the observation of Laly Baby, panchayat member of Udumbannoor, Kerala, on the strength of the Neighbourhood Groups (NHGs) of Kudumbashree:5
Democracy succeeds when it is able to hear the voice of the poor. The CBO is the tool for this, which is also working as the sub committees of the gramasabhas. The role of the NHGs in improving the social status of women has been important. The thousands of women who didn’t have the courage to hold their own in any conversation totally panicked coming to the NHGs for the first time. These women who would at first only listen during the discussions, slowly began to take part in them. Those who did not know about their rights began to understand them. Once they got to know their rights they began to claim them and this made a world of difference to the activities of the NHG. Women who had been too shy to come out began to take on executive positions in the NHGs. Our NHGs had become workshops to catapult women into public life.
In order to guard against coteries developing within the CBO, the CBO itself would have to become a practitioner of those very principles of transparency and accountability that it expects of its local government. These principles will not evolve automatically; they have to be structured into the organisation. The checks and balances brought into the systems of administration of the CBO and the nature of capacity building it undergoes will determine the extent to which it is able to break the barriers to participation. The extent of internal participation and outreach that the CBO can generate on a regular basis will determine the extent of transaction of information and knowledge to its membership, which will in turn determine its ability to articulate demands and extract good governance.
Notes
1 The NRLM framework for implementation states:
Capital Subsidy fund would be mainly to inject financial resources into the institutions of poor and catalyse investments into the livelihoods of the poor. This would also help SHGs develop a track record for attracting mainstream financing from banks. CS along with other own funds leverages repeat bank financing. Once banks respond to the needs of the SHGs effectively, this fund could be used to support collective initiatives for strengthening livelihoods of the poor. Thus, it would become a capital resource/corpus for institutions of the poor.
2 See Johnson (2001). Since democratic institutions have an “in-built” bias against pro-poor policies, on account of the zero-sum character of redistributive policies, the dispersed and extensive group that constitutes the poor, the lack of scope of patronage, and the institutional changes necessitated by comprehensive, universal poverty eradication programmes, it is contended that it is the process of democratic politics – of contestation, self-determination and struggle – that will lead to the deepening of democracy.
3 Mani Shankar Aiyar, chairman of the committee, says that the purpose of the committee was to examine why this devolution has not taken place and our answer is we have not really understood the process of activity mapping of functions, finances and functionaries. Provided there is political will after this report in Delhi to ensure that centrally-sponsored schemes are delivered through the panchayats through a process of devolution that approximates the activity maps that we have here in our report, then you will find a sudden spurt in the effectiveness of devolution. What is required is a partnership between central, state and panchayati raj institutions (livemint.com/politics: interview with Mani Shankar Aiyar, 24 April 2013).
4 The state-sponsored Kudumbashree programme originally envisaged the CBO as a sub-system of the panchayat. The panchayat had control over the community network, including in the matter of conduct of elections and appointment of the member secretary. The restructured bylaw of 2008 sought to revisit the terms of engagement and establish the autonomy of the CBO.
5 Testimony of Laly Baby, panchayat member of Udumbannoor panchayat, Idukki, Kerala, during the workshop to share the experiences of members of Kudumbashree, held in Idukki, 2011. The Kudumbashree programme has over 2.45 lakh neighbourhood groups, and is unique for the convergence of the three-tier community network of the panchayats and urban local bodies. Extensive experience-sharing workshops were held in all districts of the state, in collaboration with PRIs, in 2011, with the specific intent to familiarise PRIs and the larger public with the transformation taking place within the community network.
Moment of victory as moment of doubt
Delhi 5th in India, way behind world
New Delhi:
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
|
Survey Ranks It Low For Lack Of Politically Representative Civic Systems And Transparency
It’s not a patch on the likes of New York and London, but the bad news is that Delhi even trails other Indian cities in terms of civic systems. A survey by Bangalore based Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy has ranked it fifth behind Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Bhopal and Patna.The annual survey evaluates the performance of 21 cities, including 18 state capitals, on four parameters: urban planning and design (UPD), urban capacities and resources (UCR), empowered and legitimate political representation (ELPR), and transparency, accountability and participation (TAP).
Although Delhi leads Indian cities in urban planning and urban capacities, which includes budget and staff strength, it lags in terms of political representation and accountability. Janaagraha claims some audit queries on financial and project related discrepancies are pending in Delhi since 1964—50 years.
“Imagine if this were a company instead of a city, it would have been immediately delisted from the stock exchange,” said Ramesh Rama
nathan, co-founder, Janaagraha. Delhi also has error rates of more than 20% in its municipality election voter list.Delhi with a large staff strength of 140,000 and Mumbai with a huge budget of Rs
30,000 crore have mayors with terms of one year and 2.5 years, respectively . Delhi does not have a public disclosure law, neither do Kolkata, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh. Thiruvananthapuram is the only city to have a local body ombudsman to resolve inter-agency disputes which often slow down projects.And unlike Ranchi and Patna, Delhi does not have independent external auditors (a panel of chartered accountants). All these facts have
gone against Delhi.While the benchmark cities, London and New York, have average scores of 9.6 and 9.3 (on 10), all Indian cities have scored in a range of 2.5 to 4. Chandigarh, famous for being a planned
city, has slipped to the bottom with 2.5 points for coming up short on contemporary planning needs, public disclosure and a community participation law.Delhi also has some catching up to do with major cities in the developing world. It has 1.4 lakh civic employees for a population of 1.7 crore while Sao Paulo in Brazil had more than 1.7 lakh employees in 2004 for a smaller population. Mexico City has one of the most “open” or accessible municipalities while Delhi doesn’t even have a citizen’s charter.
On the brighter side, Delhi is the only Indian city to have legal provisions of decentralization to a local level in its town and country planning Act. The other cities have archaic plans, with Hyderabad following an Act that was drafted in 1920. Delhi is the only Indian city with ward-level spatial development plans and has scored 3.8 for planning but zero for implementation.
Smaller cities have better and relatively newer legislations compared to the bigger cities, hence Thiruvananthapuram, Bhopal and Raipur find a place in the top 10.
Janaagraha benchmarked the 21 cities on 83 questions covering 115 parameters.
Although Delhi leads Indian cities in urban planning and urban capacities, which includes budget and staff strength, it lags in terms of political representation and accountability. Janaagraha claims some audit queries on financial and project related discrepancies are pending in Delhi since 1964—50 years.
“Imagine if this were a company instead of a city, it would have been immediately delisted from the stock exchange,” said Ramesh Rama
nathan, co-founder, Janaagraha. Delhi also has error rates of more than 20% in its municipality election voter list.Delhi with a large staff strength of 140,000 and Mumbai with a huge budget of Rs
30,000 crore have mayors with terms of one year and 2.5 years, respectively . Delhi does not have a public disclosure law, neither do Kolkata, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh. Thiruvananthapuram is the only city to have a local body ombudsman to resolve inter-agency disputes which often slow down projects.And unlike Ranchi and Patna, Delhi does not have independent external auditors (a panel of chartered accountants). All these facts have
gone against Delhi.While the benchmark cities, London and New York, have average scores of 9.6 and 9.3 (on 10), all Indian cities have scored in a range of 2.5 to 4. Chandigarh, famous for being a planned
city, has slipped to the bottom with 2.5 points for coming up short on contemporary planning needs, public disclosure and a community participation law.Delhi also has some catching up to do with major cities in the developing world. It has 1.4 lakh civic employees for a population of 1.7 crore while Sao Paulo in Brazil had more than 1.7 lakh employees in 2004 for a smaller population. Mexico City has one of the most “open” or accessible municipalities while Delhi doesn’t even have a citizen’s charter.
On the brighter side, Delhi is the only Indian city to have legal provisions of decentralization to a local level in its town and country planning Act. The other cities have archaic plans, with Hyderabad following an Act that was drafted in 1920. Delhi is the only Indian city with ward-level spatial development plans and has scored 3.8 for planning but zero for implementation.
Smaller cities have better and relatively newer legislations compared to the bigger cities, hence Thiruvananthapuram, Bhopal and Raipur find a place in the top 10.
Janaagraha benchmarked the 21 cities on 83 questions covering 115 parameters.
Diversify this
Ever since the swearing-in of the NDA government on May 26, the media has been highlighting the under-representation of Muslims in the new cabinet. Muslims make for around 14 per cent of India’s population. However, of the 45 ministers in Modi’s cabinet, Najma Heptulla is the lone Muslim face. Among others representing religious minorities is a Sikh woman, daughter-in-law of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal. This is a sharp contrast to the outgoing UPA government, which not only had a much larger representation of Muslims and Christians but was also led by a Sikh. Even though the BJP is known to be a Hindutva party, it did not go into elections with a majoritarian agenda. On the contrary, it approached all sections of Indian society with promises of good governance, development and a stable government.
In India, diversity does not just mean a descriptive account of the country’s demographics. It has also come to be a core value of popular politics. There is something different and critical about the value of diversity in the ways in which democratic politics has come to be institutionalised in India. The idea of a modern constitutional democracy was invented in the West. The nationalist leadership that led the fight for India’s independence, in the name of freedom and democracy, had acquired these values from Western political cultures. Large parts of the Indian Constitution, too, were adapted from the constitutions and practices of democratic countries of the West. However, over the last six decades, India and its political cultures have evolved locally. They offer something different and much more advanced than what we see in the West today. In academic circles, Indian democracy has come to be viewed as a distinct model, which could perhaps offer important lessons to other democratic countries of the emerging world today, including the Western world.
Democracy and the bourgeois economy are believed to be open systems, founded on the ideas of freedom, liberty and equality. However, the modern democratic politics of western Europe appeared along with the emergence of nation states. It is within the framework of nation states that most of its practices were institutionalised. Within their territorial boundaries, democratic regimes promised equal citizenship, but nation states were by definition “closed” and exclusionary.
Each nation state in the European context was founded on the notion of a homogenous ethnic and linguistic region. The diversities of dialect and dress, if any, were to be overcome by rapid expansion of a common education system, market economy and effective reach of the state. Over time, national identity emerged stronger, more important than identities of local culture, kinship and community.
Each nation state in the European context was founded on the notion of a homogenous ethnic and linguistic region. The diversities of dialect and dress, if any, were to be overcome by rapid expansion of a common education system, market economy and effective reach of the state. Over time, national identity emerged stronger, more important than identities of local culture, kinship and community.
The rise of democratic politics and the nation state has followed a very different trajectory in other parts of the world. Of these, India is a very special case. Notwithstanding its weaknesses and failures, it has, by and large, been able to work with democratic institutions over the past six decades. India’s achievements are laudable because democracy is generally believed to survive only in regions with some degree of economic prosperity. A majority of Indians continue to be poor. Despite vast inequalities, the faith that the poor and those on the margins have in India’s political process is quite high.
What is even more surprising and unique about India’s democracy is its diversities: social, cultural and ecological. No other democratic country in the world has been able to engage with such diversities with such success. Unlike countries of the West, the Indian attitude towards diversity has mostly been open. There have always been some who argue for cultural homogenisation, but their influence has only been in the realm of wishful thinking. Even those who coined the slogan “unity in diversity” aspired for unity while recognising diversities. On the ground, regional identities have not only survived but, many would argue, also flourished. This has not come in the way of a simultaneous strengthening and spreading of national identity, of the idea of being Indian. This is not to deny the occasional strong ethnic movement that has contested such an idea.
How has this been possible? Evidently, through an openness and acknowledgement of diversities, their institutionalisation in the state system. As we know, India has had two kinds of diversities, vertical and horizontal. Interestingly, it has been easier to accept and institutionalise vertical diversities, the diversities of caste and other forms of historically inherited deprivations. The accommodation and institutionalisation of horizontal diversities, those of language, region and community, have been more challenging. But here too, India’s achievements have been commendable. Even in the absence of a clear perspective, India’s democratic processes enabled it to deal with the complicated realities of such diversities. The accommodation of diversities has only strengthened the Indian nation state. These accommodations have given those who represent such diversities a stake in India’s progress.
But accommodations have to be both symbolic and substantive. Representation in the political system is one aspect of this. But it is unfortunate that the question of such representation is reduced to a single religious minority. This not only communalises the discourse of diversity but also reifies the enormously diverse population of Muslims in India.
A prime ministerial form of government
last 30 years saw fractured mandate and coalition government leading to emergence of multiple power center and erosion of pre eminent position of PM.
Situation is different this time.
Past experience shows that in our federal set-up, a Prime Minister with a national image can be more powerful than an individual who is identified with a region of the country. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi emerged as strong Prime Ministers. In this context it appears that with the victory of Mr. Modi, India has reached the stage of a prime ministerial government.
In Germany, the powerful position of the Chancellor diminishes the role of the cabinet. The prime ministerial government in Germany is called the “Chancellor Democracy.” The Chancellor answers to Parliament and the ministers answer to him/her.
But the Indian Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, to the people, and to his/her own party. The American president acts with the help of advisors, who sometimes overshadow the authority of the ministers.
At the heart of the Cabinet
Article 74(1) of our Constitution expressly states that the Prime Minister shall be “at the head” of the Council of Ministers and should aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.
The Prime Minister is at the heart of the Cabinet. Under the Westminster model of government, policy formulation and decisions on important matters are the responsibilities of the ministers. Despite the constitutional provisions of the Westminster model of cabinet government in India, the Prime Minister is the undisputed chief of the executive.
The twin objectives of the Prime Minster appears to be to grant greater autonomy to the States and have a centralised structure for governing the Union.
A centralised structure of governance in which the leader has a strong control over decision-making would work best for India. A government headed by a dynamic, efficient and strong Prime Minister who can wield enormous powers by virtue of his personality, is described as a prime ministerial form of government.
What Modi did?.
--> sought more cooperation from state by meeting with many CMs and tried to understand problems they r facing .
--> in speech in parliament described gujrat model as identifying strength and ideas of other state and applying them in setting of gujrat ( kudumshree model ).
--->sought to give states more space to strengthen their strong points .
( a federal approac )
At central level
--> deadline of 100 days to chart out course of action .
---> DOs and DONTs circulated
---> secretaries were given assurance of backing for their initiative and small mistakes.
---> secretaries can directly contact PM if required .
--->he would meet all the ministers and department secretaries individually for ideas and feedback.
for clean and participative administration
-->He has asked ministers to communicate with the public extensively and carefully, and use social media effectively.
-->He has asked all the ministers in his cabinet to submit to him the details of their assets, liabilities and business interests within two months.
--->directed the ministers to sever all connections with businesses in which they had interests before being appointed ministers. (incorporated in code of conduct)
MERITS & DEMERITS OF COALITION POLITICS
Merits
**The coalition government addresses the regional disparity more than the single party rule.
**Coalition government is more democratic, and hence fairer, because it represents a much broaderspectrumofpublic opinion than government by one party alone. In almost all coalitions, a majority of citizens voted for the partieswhich formthe government and so their views and interests are represented in political decisionmaking.
**Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer choice at election time. It is also easier for parties to split, or new ones to be formed, as newpolitical issues divide opinion, because new parties still have a chance of a share inpolitical power.
**provide good government becausetheir decisions are made in the interests of a majority of the people.A coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.
**Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. **Amore consensual style of politics also allows for amore gradual and constructiveshift ofpolicy between administrations.
**Such government functions on principle of politics of consensus. **Besides, states are given more powers, and the base of concept of federalismis strengthened.
**Government will be more consensus based: resulting policies will be broadly approved of for the benefit of the nation.
Better representation of the electorate’swishes 10. Better quality of policy: enhanced scrutiny and increased attention paid to each policy
**Increased continuity: election does not lead to dramatic overhaul whichcan producefragmented rule
**Yet instability apart, coalition governments have been effective in enhancing democratic legitimacy, representativeness, and national unity.
**The coalition government addresses the regional disparity more than the single party rule.
**Coalition government is more democratic, and hence fairer, because it represents a much broaderspectrumofpublic opinion than government by one party alone. In almost all coalitions, a majority of citizens voted for the partieswhich formthe government and so their views and interests are represented in political decisionmaking.
**Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer choice at election time. It is also easier for parties to split, or new ones to be formed, as newpolitical issues divide opinion, because new parties still have a chance of a share inpolitical power.
**provide good government becausetheir decisions are made in the interests of a majority of the people.A coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.
**Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. **Amore consensual style of politics also allows for amore gradual and constructiveshift ofpolicy between administrations.
**Such government functions on principle of politics of consensus. **Besides, states are given more powers, and the base of concept of federalismis strengthened.
**Government will be more consensus based: resulting policies will be broadly approved of for the benefit of the nation.
Better representation of the electorate’swishes 10. Better quality of policy: enhanced scrutiny and increased attention paid to each policy
**Increased continuity: election does not lead to dramatic overhaul whichcan producefragmented rule
**Yet instability apart, coalition governments have been effective in enhancing democratic legitimacy, representativeness, and national unity.
Demerits
**Coalition government is actually less democratic as the balance of poweris inevitablyheld by thesmall partieswhocan bartertheir support for concessions from the main groupswithin the coalition.
**Coalition government is less transparent, Because a party has no real chance of forming a government alone, themanifestos they present to the public become irrelevant and often wildly unrealistic.
Coalitions providebad government because they are unable to take a long termview.
**governments are very unstable, often collapsing and reforming at frequent intervals – Italy, for example, averages more than onegovernment peryear since 1945. This greatly restricts the ability of governments to dealwith major reforms and means that politicians seldom stay in any particularministerial post for long enough to get to grips with its demands.
**Coalition governments are definitely far less effective, not durable, and non-dependable as compared to the governments formed by any one party with a definite ideology and principles.
**In coalition governments, MLAs and MPs from all the parties are given portfolios/ministries and appointed as Ministers. These ministers are appointed on the recommendations of the parent party, without taking the qualification, characterandcriminal /clean record of the MLAs and MPs.
**Coalition government is actually less democratic as the balance of poweris inevitablyheld by thesmall partieswhocan bartertheir support for concessions from the main groupswithin the coalition.
**Coalition government is less transparent, Because a party has no real chance of forming a government alone, themanifestos they present to the public become irrelevant and often wildly unrealistic.
Coalitions providebad government because they are unable to take a long termview.
**governments are very unstable, often collapsing and reforming at frequent intervals – Italy, for example, averages more than onegovernment peryear since 1945. This greatly restricts the ability of governments to dealwith major reforms and means that politicians seldom stay in any particularministerial post for long enough to get to grips with its demands.
**Coalition governments are definitely far less effective, not durable, and non-dependable as compared to the governments formed by any one party with a definite ideology and principles.
**In coalition governments, MLAs and MPs from all the parties are given portfolios/ministries and appointed as Ministers. These ministers are appointed on the recommendations of the parent party, without taking the qualification, characterandcriminal /clean record of the MLAs and MPs.
What is the Actual Position of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet System?
The personality and the outlook of the Prime Minister determine the nature of the authority that he or she is likely to exercise.
We can delineate at least three models of Prime Ministerial leadership in India. The first, typical of the Nehru era, may be called, the 'pluralist premiership'.
It coincided with the one-party dominant phase under the aegis of the Congress both at the federal and state levels. Jawaharlal Nehru was more than primus inter pares although until the death of Vallabhai Patel, Nehru was often questioned on many of his decisions.
After Patel's death in 1950, Nehru did assert his pre-eminence and the Cabinet functioned in conformity with the basic norms of 'Prime Ministerial government'. But Nehru continued to have several political stalwarts from the party in his Cabinet, including Abul Kalam Azad, Govinda Ballabh Pant and later Morarji Desai and they were still allowed to play important political roles.
Nehru's successor, Lai Bahadur Shastri also maintained the status of the Cabinet by not trying to override it, but his position was not pre eminent as that of Nehru. Despite being, Nehru's right hand man for years, Shastri developed his own style of functioning. He was a great believer in consensus. His Cabinet therefore, worked as team of near-equals out of whom consensus had patiently to be constructed, during his tenure the Cabinet functioned more like a collegial body without too many controversies.
The second model of Prime Ministerial power may be called 'neo-patrimonial premiership'. This was exemplified by Indira Gandhi at the height of her power, mainly 1971 to the end of internal Emergency in 1977. During the first phase of her Premiership (till 1969), Mrs. Gandhi had to depend on senior leaders and to accommodate their views on various issues. There was considerable discussion and debate in her Cabinet. With persons like Morarji Desai in her Cabinet, she was not in a position to impose her views on every matter.
The second phase of Mrs. Gandhi's Prime Ministership began in 1969 with the Congress split and continued up to 1975. During this phase, Mrs. Gandhi faced practically no challenge either in the cabinet or in the party. The 1971 general election brought her faction to parliament with overwhelming majority. Indeed the mid-term general elections brought to India, for the first time, the 'Imperial Prime Ministership'. Mrs. Gandhi enlarged the role of Prime Minister's Secretariat. Her firm grip was also evident from her frequent reshuffle of the Cabinet and change in the portfolios of the Ministers.
She firmly justified these changes as Prime Ministerial prerogative. Mrs. Gandhi's reliance on the Kitchen Cabinet' undermined the importance of the Cabinet. With the promulgation of Emergency in June 1975, the third phase of Mrs. Gandhi's premiership began during her first tenure.
It is important to note that the decision to impose internal emergency was taken by the Prime Minister herself and not by the Cabinet. Thus the emergency saw the complete eclipse of the Cabinet system.
Mrs. Gandhi, however, lost the Lok Sabha elections in March 1977 and the Janata Party came to power. The new Cabinet headed by Morarji Desai included many stalwarts of the erstwhile opposition parties, who had come together on the Janata platform.
For the first time since the emergence of Mrs. Gandhi as 'the single leader' and the consequent decline of the Cabinet system, the Cabinet again functioned as a collegial decision-making body.
Despite of that the clash of personalities, over- ambitiousness of some leaders and lack of political homogeneity in the Janata Party caused problems in the functioning of the Cabinet. Collective responsibility of the Cabinet was put to severe test.
After the gap of two and a half years Indira Gandhi restored the pattern of prime ministerial dominance of a weak cabinet after her electoral victory in 1980.
The third model of Prime Ministerial power may be designated as the 'federal' one. The Janata Government and the Rajiv Gandhi government, which, despite the persistence of oligarchies tendencies in the two respective parties, were more amenable to federal pressures than any other preceding governments, presaged it.
Rajiv Gandhi's premiership saw the rise of Imperial Prime Ministership in its fullest form. During his five-year tenure the Cabinet was reshuffled over a dozen times.
The Cabinet was shorn of its real designated role. At time even most crucial decisions were taken outside the cabinet, by his unofficial 'coterie', which changed from time to time.
The electoral mandates in 1989, 1991, 1996 and 1998 failed to produce a clear parliamentary majority for one party and invariably gave rise to minority or coalition governments, often both. Coalitional history at the centre first began when the Congress under Indira Gandhi during 1969-71 was a minority government kept running by the support extended by the Leftists.
In parenthesis, minority and coalition government fall in the same family, the line of demarcation being thin, usually unclear. Coalition means a temporary alliance for some specific purpose. The Morarji Desai (1977 - 79) and V.P. Singh (1989 - 1990) regimes were coalitions the latter being, in addition, a minority government also. In 1979, Charan Singh with nearly 85 MPs formed his minority government with Congress support. Later, in 1989 Chandra Shekhar followed the same example.
The PV. Narasimha Rao Government in 1991 was a minority one, to begin with but by methods of questionable nature converted itself into a majority one, lasting for full five years. It completed its term only with the support of some regional groups.
It was followed by the unsuccessful attempt by the BJP under the leadership of A.B. Vajpayee's 13- day rule at the centre. Soon after that, H.D.Deve Gowda formed coalition Government at the centre with the help of the Left parties and the Congress supporting it from outside. It remained in power for a few months and collapsed after Congress withdrew the support to the Government.
I.K. Gujral, then formed new government with the outside support was also a coalition government. Barely eighteen months after the formation of the UF Government, was the country forced to go to the mid-term elections in 1998.
Again a coalition government led by BJP Prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee was formed with the alliance of 17 parties and four independents. Out of that only Qmarties and three independents joined the government.
But the Government failed to last its full term when one of the coalition partners AIADMK withdrew support to the Government. General elections were held in 1999 and again the National Democratic Alliance government under the leadership of A B Vajpayee was formed at the centre.
The Government is functioning at the centre and recently the government defeated a no-confidence motion moved by the opposition on the floor of the House. The Government under Vajpayee succeeded in providing a stable government at the centre.
The personality of the premier Mr. Vajpayee helped in containing the divisible forces in coalition. It also provided the much needed stability and continuity in governance to the country. The present government is a combination of Prime Ministerial Authority and pragmatic politics.
The government made various compromises to keep the party in power and at the same time took some firm decisions against the allies to keep the standard of politics at acceptable levels.
Coalition government implies consensus politics, a collegiate style of functioning. It can hardly help the government if every individual minister feels free to make improper statements at variance with the stated policy of the government, or to pronounce unilaterally on issues that have yet to be thrashed out in House.
By its very nature coalition politics is subject to contradictory motivational pulls and pressures as the ultimate and expedient goals of parties do not merely coexist in the constitutional framework but more often than not, they are juxtaposed against each other.
There are competition and fragmentation/ fractionalizations of coalition situations. A coalition government strives for rational decision-making at least in theory, in the face of incompatibilities among the participants. In fact, durability of coalition would greatly depend upon the degree of accommodation and competition amongst the coalition partners.
Though the Janata Party cabinet led by Morarji Desai was theoretically not a coalition government because the erstwhile opposition parties had merged together in 1977 to form one political party, the Morarji cabinet did function like a political coalition.
Though free discussion was permitted in the Cabinet and the Prime Minister did not hesitate to withdraw his proposal for a unanimous decision. Yet collective responsibility of the cabinet was put to severe test during Janata party rule as most members were unable to forget their previous political identities.
The National Front Government - a minority coalition government also faced problems - administrative and political from within. The internal constraints of a tangled coalition was further demonstrated in the composition and functioning of the UF government.
Both Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral did not have full choice even to choose members from their party. Most members of the council of ministers represented their respective parties. This certainly severely circumscribed the capacity of the Prime Minister to lead the Council of Ministers even as primus inter pares.
It had both negative and positive impact on the functioning of the Council of Ministers. Positively, some of the ministries under able leadership took advantage of the autonomy by default and functioned efficiently, taking bold initiatives.
Ministries of Finance, External Affairs and Industries, to name a few, received accolades for their performance. On the negative side, the Council of Ministers could not function as a cohesive team, for as a leader the Prime Minister could not lead it from the front. Some of the ministers seem to be talking in different voices.
The BJP led coalition government is also working under constant pressure with the support of its pre and post allies. At last, it seems the country is ready for the coalitions and in the future there will be two broad coalitions, one led by the BJP and the other by the Congress. The present UPA (United Progressive Alliance) led by Manmohan Singh is also a coalition government led by the Congress party under the leadership of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. It also has pre and post election allies and is running the government.
Thus the functioning of the cabinet coalition politics would remain a question mark for two reasons:
(1) Because the cabinet as a body is as non-homogenous, if not heterogeneous, as it could be under the circumstances and,
(2) The members of the Cabinet do not owe their position to the Prime Minister.
Conclusion
As the above discussion highlighted, there emerged at least three models of Prime Ministerial leadership in India. (1) 'Pluralism premiership' emerged during the Nehru era, which coincided with the one-party dominance (Congress dominance) both at the federal and state levels (2) 'Neo-patrimonial premiership' exemplified by Indira Gandhi at the height of her power, mainly from 1971 to the end of internal Emergency in 1977.
Unlike the pluralist power structure and internal democracy in the party in the Nehru era, Indira Gandhi's Congress dispensed with organizational elections following the split of 1969 and State Chief Ministers and Pradesh party presidents came to be nominated by the Prime Minister herself. With this unprecedented centralization of powers in the Prime Minister hands, she also gave the call for 'committed' bureaucracy and judiciary.
The Prime Minister's Secretariat (renamed by Morarji Desai later as PMO) was greatly expanded to buttress her enormous powers. (3) The Federal model was presaged by the Janata government (1977-79 - when BJS, BLD, Congress (O) and Socialists merged to form the Janata Party). This model too came to have a fuller denouncement in the post-1989 period, when minority government was being formed with the support of other parties.
In sum, the Indian Union executive has functioned predominantly in the Prime Ministerial mode so far, but with the growing regionalization of the party system, especially since 1989, the Prime Ministers have been required to operate within a political framework with increasingly active federal component. Now, in the present circumstances, pattern of Prime Ministerial dominance of weak cabinets has been replaced by less effective Prime Ministerial leadership of divided cabinets.
Executives (Prime Minister, Cabinet & The Core Executive)
The cabinet. Still relevant as a policy making hub or just one of a series of drivers of government policy?
BBC’s Radio 4 series on Prime Ministers
Questions often revolve around power resources of the PM ie has PM power increased in recent years? Main thing to remember is the George Jones ‘elastic band’ theory of power – that power resources change over time according to the particular circumstances of the time. Power resources are thus not static.
Often, questions ask about extent to which Cabinet government is threatened….this is relatively straightforward.
Yes – threatened because PM is helped by party discipline and control over party; because power resources are flexible – there is no requirement to consult Cabinet, there are only conventions; institutional innovations – creation of a mini PM department for instance – have strengthened PM; rise of independent power of the PM – presidentialism theory – through direct appeal to publicvia media it appears that PM is the most powerful political actor etc etc
Yes – threatened because PM is helped by party discipline and control over party; because power resources are flexible – there is no requirement to consult Cabinet, there are only conventions; institutional innovations – creation of a mini PM department for instance – have strengthened PM; rise of independent power of the PM – presidentialism theory – through direct appeal to publicvia media it appears that PM is the most powerful political actor etc etc
No – at certain times (of weakness) the PM requires the protection of collective cabinet government; authority based on support of ‘big beasts’ in cabinet; even though institutional supports have increased they are far smaller than ie the US president, so PM still relies heavily on Ministers who have their own departments and set of civil servants working for them; related to this is the idea that government is so complex that one individual cannot control the whole show; ultimately, while Cabinet government in the traditional sense ie of collective decision making around a table doesn’t really exist, Cabinet is still crucial because in the UK system government is still formally a collective enterprise
There are related questions about whether PM power has increased
There may well be a question also about the effect of coalition on PM power (p265-270). Try to make sure you revise this – it’s important.
PRIME MINISTER, CABINET AND EXECUTIVE LESSON MATERIALS
PRIME MINISTER
The prime minister is the single most important figure in the UK political system. He or she is the UK’s chief executive. But what this means in practice is the subject of considerable debate and argument. Until the 1980’s, the post of PM had little official recognition. The person who held the post was technically the first lord of the treasury. However, the power attached to the office has grown enormously. Some even highlight the trend towards presidentialism. Who becomes the PM, and what role does the PM play?…
To become the PM, a politician must fulfill three qualifications:
Prime Ministers must be MPs.
They must be a party leader.
His or her party usually has majority control of the House of Commons.*
*There are two post war exceptions to this – February 1974 where Wilson became PM even though Labour were 33 seats short of an overall majority and May 2010 when David Cameron became PM with the Conservatives 18 seats short of a majority.
ROLE OF THE PM
The role of the PM is, in the UK’s uncodified constitution, a matter that has developed over time and been shaped more by practical circumstances than the allocation of formal responsibilities. The traditional view of the role of the PM was summed up by Bagehot. “the prime minister is ‘first among equals’”. This view implied that the PM is seen as:
‘First’ in the sense that they are the primary representative of government. The Official Title of the PM is First Lord of the Treasury
‘Among equals’ in the sense that all members of the cabinet had an equal influence over decisions.
However, this traditional formulation has long since ceased to be accurate. It fails to capture the full range and significance of the role of the modern PM. The key aspects of the modern PM are…
Forming governments.
Directing government policy.
Managing the cabinet system.
Organizing government.
Controlling parliament.
Providing national leadership.
IS THERE A PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT?
On taking office in 1997 Tony Blair said “We will run from the centre and govern from the centre.” As well as taken to mean that Labour backbench MPs needed to be loyal to the government in parliament, (the so called “Blair Code of Conduct”) it was also taken to be a signal of intent that Blair was to govern in a dirgeste fashion.
Why was this? There were 4 main reasons. Firstly it was to ensure that the party elected as New Labour would govern as New Labour. No member of the party or the government was allowed to be off message. When Social Security minister Frank Field went ‘off message’ he was briefed against in the press and then sacked. Secondly, the Major years had been viewed as shambolic because of disunity at all levels of the Conservative party. They had been punished with an elctorl ‘tidal wave’ as Blair put it and he was determined that Labour would not follow this example. Thirdly government policy had been fragmented. Policy would need to be ‘joined up’ from the centre. Fourthly political control and authoritarian leadership (being strong instead of weak) was seen as a political and an electoral asset.
On taking Office Blair issued orders in council allowing staff members Alistair Campbell and Jonathon Powell to issue instructions directly to civil servants. This wrested control of civil servants from individual ministers.
Blair also took control of the Cabinet Office and fused it with the Prime Minister’s Office.
The number of Special Advisors to ministers and government was also increased to act as a countervailing force against civil service self interest.
Blair also created a strategic communications unit, a forward strategy unit and a social exclusion unit. These ‘task forces’ were responsible for overseeing government policy as a whole. Ministers would have to account for initiatives to each of these units.
Finally Blair had inherited a policy unit, a press office, a private office and a political office. These were all ‘beefed up’ to ensure strategic control from the centre.
THE CABINET
The cabinet is a committee of the leading members of the government. It comprises usually 20-23 members, most of whom are secretaries of state responsible for running Whitehall departments. Within the cabinet there is a pecking order, with the posts of Chancellor of the Exchequer, foreign secretary, home secretary and, if appointed, deputy PM being regarded as the ‘plum’ jobs. This may also mean that such minister form an inner circle of ministers who are consulted more frequently by the PM, sometimes in the form of a kitchen cabinet. Since the time of Thatcher, the cabinet has met once a week, on Wednesday morning although it may be convened at other times as the PM chooses.
ROLE OF CABINET
There is a major gulf between the role of cabinet in theory and in practice. In constitutional theory, the cabinet is the top body in the UK executive, the highest decision-making forum. The UK therefore has a system of cabinet government based on the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. However, it is widely accepted that over a long period, and possibly, accelerating in recent years, the cabinet has lost out to the prime minister. The idea, anyway, that all major government decisions can be discussed and decided in once-a-week meetings rarely lasting over two hours is simply absurd. It is now widely accepted that meaningful policy debate is, in most cases, conducted elsewhere. Nevertheless, the cabinet still plays a significant role. In short, cabinet meetings still have a purpose…
THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE ROLE OF THE CABINET ARE:
Formal policy approval.
Policy coordination.
Resolve disputes.
Forum for debate.
Party management.
Symbol of collective government.
MINISTERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
The two main groups within the executive are minister and civil servants. But how do they differ? Traditionally, a very clear distinction existed between the roles and responsibilities of ministers and civil servants. This was based on the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. Ministers are expected to run government departments in the sense that they make policy and oversee the work of civil servants. They are appointed by the prime minister, usually from the ranks of the majority party in the House of Commons. However, all ministers must be MPs or peers, emphasizing that the UK executive is a ‘parliamentary’ executive. There is, nevertheless, a hierarchy of ministers, creating a ministerial ladder…
THE MAIN RUNGS ON THIS LADDER ARE:
Secretaries of state.
Ministers of state.
Parliamentary under-secretaries of state.
Parliamentary private secretaries.
Civil servants, by contrast, are appointed government officials. Their two key roles are to provide ministers with policy advice and to implement government policy. In so doing, they are meant to abide by the following three traditional principles.
THESE PRINCIPLES ARE:
Permanence: civil servants remain in post as ministers and governments come and go.
Neutrality: civil servants are expected to be loyal and supportive of any minister and any government, whatever its political views.
Anonymity: civil servants are ‘nameless’ in the sense that they are not public figures.
The purpose of these principles was to improve the efficiency of government and the effectiveness of policy-making. Permanent civil servants who did not come and go as governments changed could accumulate expertise and specialist knowledge. Moreover, neutral policy advice would be more worthwhile than politically biased advice; it would make government policy more ‘workable’.
HOWEVER, THESE APPARENTLY CLEAR-CUT DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN MINISTERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS WAS ALWAYS MORE BLURRED IN PRACTICE:
Minister could not make all policy decisions.
Ministers’ policy decisions were largely based on the advice they received from civil servants.
Civil servants controlled the flow of information to ministers.
Civil servants may have been politically biased.
In the light of such concerns, major changes have been introduced in the civil service since the 1980’s, especially by the Thatcher and Blair governments. The net impact of these changes has been to reduce the traditional reliance that ministers had on civil servants by providing alternative sources of advice and ensuring that senior civil servants are ‘one of us’, as Thatcher put it. These changes have been upheld by all subsequent governments and have led some to conclude that the civil service now has too little power, rather than too much power.
A NEW MODEL CIVIL SERVICE
The traditional tripartite model of permanence, neutrality and anonymity came under increasing stress from the 1970s onwards as successive governments sought a series of civil service reforms.
- The Fulton Report, 1968, sought to modernise the ‘amateur civil service’ into a ‘professional’ bureaucracy
- Heath created the Central Policy Review Staff in 1971 to act as an independent assessor of civil service advice. It was abolished in 1983 after it criticised the government’s health policies.
- A new Policy Unit was established in 1974 as a separate source of advise for ministers.
- Between 1979 and 1986 there were massive cuts in the number of civil servant somewhere just less than 200,000. This was part of Thatcher’s attack on the bureaucracy of the state, itself called ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state’ through privatisation, removal of subsidies and deregulation.
- In 1980 a new initiative to monitor what the civil service does was introduced. It was called MINIS (Ministerial Information Systems) and started in the Department of the Environment before being rolled out to other departments.
- In 1982 the Financial Management Initiative was introduced in an attempt to curb what the civil service spent administering itself.
- In 1988 The Ibbs Next Steps Report gave the green light for the fragmentation and privatisation of the administering of government policies.
- MARKETISATION – Thus over the last 25 years we have seen a phenomenal rise in the number of private contractors carrying out state services and policies. The private sector currently obtains, handles and disburses nearly £500bn of public funds annually.
- John Major’s Citizen’s Charter
10. Blair’s Policy Units. COI resignations over political interference. Orders in Council and expansion of PFI.
All these reforms have weakened and eroded the power base of the civil service. Blair also introduced THE SERVICE FIRST INITIATIVE designed to increase transparency, accountability, responsiveness of government services to citizens, (Note the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 designed to entitle citizen’s the information from public bodies) innovation and integrated IT systems across government departments.
WHO HAS POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE - THEORIES OF EXECUTIVE POWER
Debate about the location of executive power has been one of the recurrent themes of UK politics. Different views have been fashionable at different times, but the question has remained the same – who runs the country? It would be a mistake, however, to treat these contrasting models of executive power as simply ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. So complex and ever-fluctuating is executive power that none of these models fully explains who has power in all cases, and in all circumstances. Each of these models, nevertheless, captures some ‘truth’ about this thorny issue.
THE MAIN THEORIES OF EXECUTIVE POWER ARE:
Cabinet government.
Prime-ministerial government.
Presidentialism.
Core executive model
CABINET GOVERNMENT
Quotes on Cabinet
“Although it does not decide many policies it is the area in which most important decisions are made” (Kavanagh)
“Nor can it be said that Mrs Thatcher destroyed cabinet government – though she certainly dominated it, bypassed it and weakened it.” (Kavanagh)
“The obituaries for Cabinet Government are premature; cabinet government is alive and kicking: you can tell by the kicking.” (Hugo Young)
“The Prime Minister exists on a diet of insoluble dilemnas. All the most difficult problems in the end finish up with the PM; and very few of them have an obvious solution. So that at least is a very great limitation on their power” (Hennessy)
“The Post War epoch has seen the final transformation of cabinet government into Prime Ministerial Government” (Crossman 1963)
“The PM is always consulted. Not so the Cabinet” (Madgwick)
“Cabinet committees are the engine room of government” (Hennessy)
“The Prime Minister is a medieval monarch living in No 10” (Benn)
The ‘traditional’ view of the UK executive emphasizes that power is collective and not personal. It is located in the cabinet rather than the PM. Moreover, within the cabinet, all ministers are equal. Each of them has the capacity to influence government policy and shape the direction in which the government is going. Such a view has clear implications for the PM, who is regarded as ‘first’ in name only. In other words, the PM has no more power than any other member of the cabinet. The theory of cabinet government is underpinned by the convention of collective responsibility, in which all ministers are expected to support publicly decisions made by the cabinet, or resign from the government. This helps to ensure cabinet collegiality, in the sense that disagreement or dissent is only ever expressed within the secrecy of the cabinet room and never in public.
However, collective cabinet government in its formal sense is clearly outdated. It goes back to a period before the development of disciplined political parties in the House of Commons. In such circumstances, a minister’s threat of resignation could, potentially, threaten the life of the government itself. All ministers therefore had to be kept on board. However, as parties became unified, this threat diminished. The primary loyalty of MPs shifted from individual cabinet members- patrons or friends – to their party. Cabinet government and collective responsibility therefore diminished in significance.
WHAT DOES THE CABINET GOVERNMENT MODEL TELL US ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER?
It provides a reminder that, despite the growth in prime ministerial power, no PM can survive if he or she loses the support of the cabinet.
It is kept alive by the fact that the prime ministers authority is linked to the backing he or she receives from the ‘big beasts’ of the cabinet, some of whom may enjoy such widespread support within the government and party that they are effectively ‘unsackable’. Although Blair briefly toyed with the idea of sacking Brown for the constant disloyalty of his allies, following the 2005 General Election he came to the conclusion that Brown was just too powerful to be sacked.
THE SLOW DEATH OF CABINET GOVERNMENT
“The Cabinet’s customary role was to rubber stamp decisions already taken elsewhere” Nigel Lawson The View From No. 11 (1992)
There is an increasing tendency towards the use of Kitchen Cabinets or sofa government. Prime Ministers prefer bilateral meetings because no-one else in Cabinet can hear what they are being told.
The real engine room of government insofar as Cabinet is concerned is actually within the cabinet committee system. Typically the Prime Minister & The Chancellor between them will chair well over half of all Cabinet Committees. Where a Cabinet Committee has arrived at a consensus this is presented as a fait accompli to the Cabinet.
Cabinet meetings are often infrequent.
There is less debate in Cabinet overall.
Cabinet discussion is often dominated by a dirigeste approach
Devolution, the HRA, the European Union and other developments such as the normalisation of the use of Referenda have limited the role of Cabinet
PRIME-MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT
As the 20th century progressed, increasing concerns were expressed about the traditional theory of cabinet government. These were invariably fuelled by an awareness of the growing power of the PM. In many ways, this process can be traced back to the 19th century and the development of disciplined political parties, enabling the PM to use the leverage of party leadership. How could the PM any longer be dismissed as ‘first amongst equals’ if the focus of party loyalty focused on him as opposed to his ‘equals’? This led to the belief that cabinet-government had been replaced by prime-ministerial government. The core feature of this view is that it is the PM, and not the cabinet, who dominated both the executive and parliament. This happens because the PM is both head of the civil service and the leader of the largest party in the commons.
WHAT DOES THE PRIME-MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT MODEL TELL US ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER?
It highlights the undoubted growth in prime-ministerial power, particularly since 1945.
It acknowledges that the cabinet is no longer the key policy-making body.
PRESIDENTIALISM
Since the 1990s, some commentators have drawn attention to what they have seen as the growth of presidentialism in the UK. This suggests that UK PMs increasing resemble presidents, with PM such as Wilson, Thatcher and Blair usually being seen as key examples. To a large extent, this view overlaps with the prime-ministerial government model. Most importantly, both views emphasize the dominance of the PM over the cabinet. For instance, in no sense do US presidents share executive power with their cabinets. Rather, the US cabinet is a strictly subordinate body, a mere ‘sounding board’ and a source of advice for the president.
However, the process of presidentialization has allegedly altered the role and influence of the PM and affected the working of UK government in broader ways…
EVIDENCE OF GROWING PRESIDENTIALISM IN UK POLITICS INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
Growth of ‘spatial leadership’.
Tendency towards ‘populist outreach’.
Personalized election campaigns.
Personal mandates.
Wider use of special advisors.
Strengthened Cabinet Office.
Nevertheless, such trends suggest that UK PMs increasingly resemble presidents, not that they have become presidents. Quite simply, PMs cannot become presidents because the UK has a system of parliamentary government rather than presidential government. For instance, the UK does not have constitutional separation of powers between the legislature and executive, as characterizes the US system. Similarly despite the growth of personalized election campaigning in the UK, prime ministers continue to be appointed as a result of parliamentary elections, not by a separate electoral process, as occurs in the USA…
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENTIALIZATION THESIS TELL US ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER?
It stresses the growth of personalized leadership and draws attention to the importance of the direct relationship between the PM and the people.
It highlights the growing political significance of the mass media in affecting power balances within the executive and within the larger political system.
CORE EXECUTIVE MODEL
An alternative way of understanding where power lies is to go beyond the simplistic ‘cabinet versus PM’ debate and to recognize that both the PM and cabinet operate within the context of the ‘core executive’ (Smith, 1999). This model suggests that:
Neither the PM nor cabinet is an independent actor.
Each of them exercises influence in and through a network of relationships, formal and informal. This brings a range of other actors and institutions into the picture.
The balance of power within the core executive is affected by the resources available to its various actors.
Wider factors, such as economic and diplomatic developments, influence the workings of the core executive.
WHAT DOES THE CORE-EXECUTIVE MODEL TELL US ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER?
It emphasizes that Prime Ministerial power is not only constrained by cabinet collegiality, but also by the need to operate within a complex of organizations and procedures. Power is never monocratic.
It highlights that power within the executive is more about building relationships with key bodies and actors than simply being a matter of ‘command and control’.
UNDERSTANDING PRIME MINISTERIAL POWER
The formal powers of the PM are relatively modest, certainly by comparison with an executive president. They are derived from the Royal Prerogative, which is now, in the main, exercised by the PM (and other ministers) and not by the queen. These include the powers to:
Appoint ministers and other senior figures.
Dissolve and recall Parliament (reduced by fixed terms).
Sign treaties.
Grant honours.
HOWEVER -
This list of formal powers does not capture the full significance of the post of the PM. PMs are much more important than their ‘constitutional’ role suggests. But their power is largely informal rather than formal. It is based more on the ability to persuade and influence than to dictate. PMs are powerful basically because they stand at the apex of three crucial sets of relationships:
The cabinet, individual ministers and government departments.
His or her party and, through it, with Parliament.
The people, often through the mass media.
NEVERTHELESS
It is always dangerous to generalize about prime ministerial power. The extent of this power fluctuates not only from PM to PM but also at different times within the same premiership.
As H.H. Asquith (PM in 1908-16), put it, ‘the post of the PM is whatever its holder chooses and is able to make of it’. What the PM ‘chooses’ to make of his or her office highlights the importance of personality and the PMs leadership style.
Quite simply, PMs are not all alike; they bring different motivations, personal qualities and attributes to their office. On the other hand, what the PM is able to make of his or her office depends On:
Powers of the PM
Constraints on the PM
The existence of single-party government, minority government or , as we have at the moment, coalition government.
POWERS OF THE PM
The power to hire and fire
The ability to manage the cabinet
Leadership of the party
Institutional supports
Access to the media
CONSTRAINTS ON THE PM
The cabinet
The party
The electorate
The media
The pressure of events
PRIME MINISTER AND COALITION GOVERNMENT – (See the Extended Essay and Stimulus Response Question Plans for more on this – these can be found below)
Past Paper Questions and Guided response
UNIT TWO QUESTIONS ON PM CABINET AND EXECUTIVES
June 2009: Prime Ministerial Power
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
For centuries Prime Ministers have exercised authority in the name of the monarchy without the people or their elected representatives being consulted. So now I propose that in key areas important to our national life, the Prime Minister and executive should surrender or limit their powers. The exclusive exercise of these powers by the Government should have no place in a modern democracy.
These include:
the power of the executive to declare war – Blair over Kosovo (1998), Eden over Suez (1956) and Thatcher over the Falklands (1982). Even in circumstances where parliament has been consulted, such as Iraq in 2003, the legal authority for the exercise of war powers resides with the Prime Minister.
the power to request the dissolution of Parliament – the timing of a dissolution is particularly important. A PM will seek to chose a date most likely to yield electoral victory (Thatcher in 83 & 87, Blair in 2001 and 2005).
the power over recall of Parliament - Blair over the Omagh Bombing – 1998 – and 9/11. Cameron over the death of Margaret Thatcher in 2013 and Chemical Weapons attacks in Syria, also 2013.
the power of the executive to ratify international treaties Brown over Lisbon 2007
the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny – for example appointments to the security services
the power to restrict parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services – for example by redacting documents on grounds of national security or controlling the circumstances under which witnesses give evidence before the Intelligence and Security Committee (established 1994)
the power to choose bishops – & of course the power to appoint peers
the power to appoint judges – in conjunction with the JAC (The Judicial Appointments Commission)
I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open twenty-first century British democracy.
Adapted from Gordon Brown, speech in Parliament, July 3rd 2007.
a) With reference to the source, outline the reasons Gordon Brown gave for proposing that prime ministerial powers be surrendered or limited.
The people have not been consulted about the exercise of these powers. – As Tony Benn MP observed in 1990 parliamentary sovereignty is a “legal fiction” which disguises the exercise of these powers. Citizens are kept in the dark about the true nature of UK democracy and the arbitrary exercise of these powers. Not only are the people not consulted but parliament itself is not consulted.
The nature of these [prerogative] powers has no place in a ‘modern democracy’.
This would make for a more ‘open’ democracy. – In other systems, such as the USA, the legislature retains and exercises a much greater degree of control over presidential appointments which must be approved by the senate in public hearings before they can be confirmed.
b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the ways in which Prime Ministers are able to control Parliament
The material in the source is describing prerogative powers. These are powers exercised on behalf of the monarch by the prime minister and the executive. They do not require the sanction of Parliament and therefore, by implication, the consent of the people. Such prerogative powers have existed over a long period of time and are therefore traditional in nature.
Additional knowledge includes:
Prime ministers are leaders of the majority party normally and so can rely on party loyalty and the discipline of the whips. – The whip system and the desire of backbenchers for party political advancement are crucial here. MPs have in any case a natural allegiance to their party and will only rebel in circumstances where they feel diametrically opposed to such policies. Prime Ministers can also control rebellious colleagues through minor concessions that allow the MP to feel his or her voice has been heard.
The prime minister also has a ‘payroll vote’ among over one hundred ministers.It is a well established convention that all minsters ‘on the payroll’ are bound by collective ministerial responsibility. They must support the government’s policies publicly or resign their ministerial post. This principle extends right down to Parliamentary Private Secretaries or PPSs.
The power of patronage is a key element of control – Prime Ministers control all ministerial appointments. Loyalty is much favoured and likely to be rewarded in a reshuffle. Of course not all loyal backbenchers will gain preferment for a ministerial post but the possibility of advancement often keeps them loyal.
Since prime ministers are chief policy makers and control Cabinet they exercise great control over parliamentary business. The Prime Minister along with the Chief whip and now the Backbench Liaison Committee exercises a great deal of control over the parliamentary timetable. Prime Ministers are also able to recall parliament if a debate is required on a pressing issue.
Prime ministers can command a certain degree of popular authority to justify dominance of Parliament. This is especially true of both new and incumbent Prime Ministers who have enjoyed recent electoral success. They can claim the strength of the mandate personally as Blair did when he said he intended to govern from the centre as New Labour. The landslide result of 1997 gave Blair added authority. Thatcher’s landslide in 1983 allowed her to mould the cabinet more in her own image by ousting ‘wets’ such as Prior and Pym in favour of ‘dries’ like Tebbit and Lawson.
c) To what extent has prime ministerial power grown in recent years?
Ways in which power has grown include the following:
The growth of the Downing Street ‘machine’ and other sources of independent advice to the prime minister.
The are many such examples of an enhanced Downing Street machine. On taking Office Blair issued orders in council allowing staff members Alistair Campbell and Jonathon Powell to issue instructions directly to civil servants. This wrested control of civil servants from individual ministers.
Blair also took control of the Cabinet Office and fused it with the Prime Minister’s Office.
The number of Special Advisors to ministers and government was also increased to act as a countervailing force against civil service self interest.
Blair also created a strategic communications unit, a forward strategy unit and a social exclusion unit. These ‘task forces’ were responsible for overseeing government policy as a whole. Ministers would have to account for initiatives to each of these units.
Finally Blair had inherited a policy unit, a press office, a private office and a political office. These were all ‘beefed up’ to ensure strategic control from the centre.
The growing importance of foreign policy issues which are under the direct control of the prime minister. Since the 1980s Foreign policy has increased in importance. There are a number of reasons behind this such as membership of the EU and other international institutions (G8/G20, World Bank, the IMF, the WTO etc) and the rise of issues of global significance such as human rights, terrorism and the environment. All of these demand the careful formulation of a foreign policy that is coherent and which is represented abroad more often than not by the PM himself. This does not mean that the Foreign Secretary is less significant but it does mean that increasingly foreign policy is at the least co-authored between the Foreign Secretary and the PM and that the PM is often seen (as Blair was) to be largely concerned with geo-politics rather than domestic politics.
The growing tendency of the media to treat the PM as government spokesperson. This tendency of the media to treat the PM as the voice of the government and of the nation largely stems from three sources. The first is the increasingly presidential nature of UK elections. The second, mentioned above, is the tighter centralised grip the PM has over the machinery of government and the 3rd (also mentioned above) is the increased importance in Foreign Policy.
‘Spatial leadership’ has become more prominent. ‘ In 1993, Foley described what he called the rise of the British presidency, in which he drew attention to the similarities that were growing between the approach of the Prime Minister and that of a president, such as the President of the USA. In this thesis he identifies a tendency to “spatial leadership” among some British Prime Ministers, including Margaret Thatcher and John Major. This partly means that Prime Ministers have presented themselves as “outsiders” to the main thrust of government, are above party politics (Blair was very good at projecting himself as not ‘of’ the Labour Party and its traditions) and are in effect the leader of the nation.
The experience of dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair. Both had a dirigeste, controlling, almost authoritarian streak and at least early on (in the case of Blair) and mid-term (in the case of Thatcher) they became the centrally dominant figures of their governments. Thatcher famously wanted consensus, but only a consensus behind HER convictions. Cabinet could not be a forum for internal debate and discussion. Blair similarly dismissed cabinet by holding very brief sessions, rather than risk having discussion and disagreement, preferring ‘sofa government’ in the form of bilateral meetings with cabinet ministers. In the words of Madgwick ‘The Prime Minister is ALWAYS consulted. Not so the cabinet.” In both premierships the most important decisions (the Falkland Islands, the poll tax, the ERM, Kosovo) were largely decided away from cabinet and merely presented for cabinet to rubber stamp. Thatcher also retained her advisor on economic policy Sir Alan Walters even after he had denounced chancellor Lawson’s policies as ‘half-baked” in the Economist. Lawson demanded Walters’ resignation and Thatcher refused. Lawson resigned. Alistair Campbell (Blair’s press secretary) briefed off the record that Brown was ’psychologically flawed.’
The decline in the importance of the Cabinet. As a consequence of the tendency towards presidentialism, the innate dominance of the role of PM over the rest of Cabinet (the royal powers for example) and the increased growth in the use of cabinet committees (Hennessy’s engine rooms of government) the cabinet is now little more than a symbolic representation of government unity. The real work is done in the individual departments, their staff and bureaucracy, lobbying groups in Whitehall and, within the Cabinet Office, the PM’s Office and so on. Cabinet as a collective decision making body barely functions.
However, there are features which suggest a counter-argument:
Prime ministers may ultimately be removed and/or weakened if they lose the support of Parliament and/or Cabinet – this was the experience of Thatcher, Major and Brown and , arguably Blair. The PM’s powers of appointment are limited by the need to provide a balance of party views, as Major found when he was forced to include those who disagreed with his policies, such as Portillo and Lilley. Even Blair’s Cabinet has included ministers whose “old” Labour views are well attested, such as Prescott, and Beckett, and an important reason for this is the need for the PM to retain support from the backbenchers in the party. Margaret Thatcher discovered this to her cost when a rift developed between herself and prominent ministers such as Howe and Lawson. She was forced to concede to the Cabinet on the decision to join the ERM in 1990, and to their advice to stand down from the leadership contests in the same year. Major was racked by divisions particularly over Europe and subject to a leadership challenge by Cabinet colleague John Redwood in 1995. Blair was arguably weakened in authority as he struggled to win parliamentary votes on 90 day, detention, renewal of trident and education reform as was tainted by the accusation that he had misled parliament over Iraq. Brown was subject to constant sniping by former Blairite ministers such as Hoon predicting that the Labour Party was ‘sleepwalking to disaster’ under Brown’s leadership.
It may be that there is an increase in the ‘appearance’ of power, but this may be merely style without much substance. The experience of all Prime Ministers including and since Thatcher is that PMs rely utterly on continued Cabinet support. The most stark example of this is the haemorrhaging of support within the cabinet for Margaret Thatcher in 1990, but all PM’s since have been subject to subtle (or not so subtle) internal pressures. Blair was greatly restricted by having to ‘manage Gordon’ and his team especially following the 2005 election when Browns allies launched a ferocious campaign to get Blair to step down. Major was moved to refer to some of his cabinet colleagues as ‘bastards’ to ITN journalist Michael Brunson. Brown (again) was accused by Blairites such as Hoon as being an electoral liability and subject to media rumours that he had lost control of the cabinet and that a leadership challenge from David Miliband was imminent. All of this contributed to a loss of the PM’s authority and standing.
The power of the PM ebbs and flows according to political factors such as the size of the parliamentary majority, personal popularity, the unity or otherwise of the party and Cabinet.
Parliamentary Majorities under which PM power flows – Attlee 1945, (145) Wilson, 1966, (98) Thatcher 1983 (144) and 1987, (102) Blair 1997 (179) and 2001 (165)
Parliamentary Majorities which make control of the party more difficult – Wilson Oct 1974, 3, Major 1992 (21).
Cameron of course failed to secure a majority and special arrangements have had to be implemented in order to maintain the coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
All PM’s eventually suffer a loss of popularity. Mrs Thatcher in 1989-1990, Blair after Iraq, Brown after the financial crisis, and Major after Black Wednesday. Sometimes as Harold MacMillan once noted the greatest constrain on PM power is “events.” Hennessy also notes that the most insoluble dilemmas of government end up with the PM and act as a great break on their power whereas Major noted that as PM the office holder is ‘sometimes stuck between the bad and the bloody awful.”
Finally serious disunity (Major 1992-1997) can set in train a cataclysmic election result. 1997 was the Conservatives worst result since 1832.
June 2010: The Prime Minister and the Cabinet
Study the following two passages and answer the questions that follow.
Source 1: A Cabinet Meeting
The Prime Minister’s Spokesman began by giving a brief summary of Cabinet of the previous day to the assembled press. Cabinet had met for an hour and 40 minutes that morning. There had been the usual update from Geoff Hoon (Leader of the House of Commons) on parliamentary business, there had been a brief discussion on the Draft Legislative Programme being published tomorrow and there was an update from the Foreign Secretary on the situation in Burma. Most of the Cabinet was spent discussing the economy in a discussion led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he emphasised the global nature of the economic situation we were facing at the moment – not only the global credit crunch, but also rising oil and food prices.
Source: Prime Minister’s Office press briefing, 14 May 2008
Source 2 Gordon Brown’s First Cabinet
Gordon Brown unveiled an almost completely new Cabinet today as he attempted to make good on his pledge for a ‘politics of change’ after the Blair years, including Britain’s first ever female Home Secretary and its youngest Foreign Secretary for 30 years. As part of a huge overhaul, the Prime Minister appointed Jacqui Smith, formerly the Chief Whip, as Home Secretary, and David Miliband as Foreign Secretary. As head of the Home Office, Ms Smith will be in charge of the battle against terrorism, national security and policing. Standing outside the Foreign Office, Mr Miliband – who was himself widely tipped as Mr Brown’s rival for the Labour leadership, before ruling himself out – said: ‘I’m tremendously honoured’.
Source: adapted from ‘Brown shuffles the pack for new Cabinet’ in Times Online, 28 June 2007
a) With reference to Source 1, describe two types of issues discussed by the Cabinet.
The issues of Cabinet mentioned in the source are :
Discussing the great issues of the day. The cabinet itself now meets every Tuesday for up to 2 hours — a far cry from Tony Blair’s 45 minute affairs. Given its two-party composition cabinet meetings are said to involve genuine discussion of policy, with the prime minister always keen to listen particularly carefully to Liberal Democrat ministers. In the lead-up to the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 the full cabinet discussed proposed spending cuts at least nine times.
Discussing the economic situation of the day. Because the current austerity measures are politically sensitive for the Lib Democrats it is vital that decisions taken enjoy a broad consensus. This may be why Vince Cable as business Secretary enjoys a degree of latitude in sometime s critiquing austerity. It speaks to Lib Dem concerns and keeps them on board within the coalition
Hearing reports from senior ministers. Foreign Secretary William Hague briefed the full Cabinet a number of times on the situations in Syria, Libya and Mali.
Discussing parliamentary business and the legislative programme. Under coalition there is a necessity for this to be more convoluted. Cabinet and its committees have been greatly revived under the new government. For instance, specific and rigorous steps are taken to ensure that collective agreement is maintained:
all papers for cabinet committees must state what has been done to ensure collective approval
the policy must be checked against the coalition agreement
the chair and deputy chair of the committee (always one from each party) must have signed the paper off. Only then can parliamentary management begin with Cameron and Clegg taking responsibility for the internal discipline and cohesion of their own parties.
b) With reference to Source 2, and your own knowledge, what factors does the Prime Minister take into account when appointing cabinet ministers?
The factors that appear in the source include :
The ability of the minister - some MPs quickly make a mark and establish themselves as excellent ministerial material.
Miliband’s appointment suggests it is a good idea to bring a rival into the Cabinet. (as did Mandelson’s return to Cabinet in 2008). There may also be a need to mend the party after a rift. Heseltine, despite challenging Thatcher and standing against Major was brought back into the fold in 1990.
Collective responsibility will prevent them from being too obstructive. All members of the cabinet, and indeed the government, are bound by the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility. A colleague dismissed from a ministerial post could become a focus of backbench rebellion as Lamont did after losing the Treasury in April, 1993.
The source states that Brown avoided former Blair supporters staying in their existing posts, thus demonstrating a clean break with the past. But all PMs are wise to include members from differing tendencies and factions. It maintains party balance and facilitates control of all wings of the parliamentary party. Brown even made Miliband Foreign Secretary, despite Miliband being a serious Blairite rival to Brown.
He might wish to have a socially balanced cabinet. The factors that are not apparent in the source include:
A Prime Minister might appoint a member who has a substantial following in the ruling party (Mowlem, Prescott, Johnson). Prescott particularly showed his with to reformist Labour leaders by having a trade union background, a long labour pedigree and being particularly loyal to his leader. He demonstrated this in 1993 when the then Labour leader John Smith was struggling to secure support for one member one vote from trade union delegates at the Labour Party Conference.
He might want a balanced Cabinet, in which case he would appoint members from different sections of the party, with different political views. John Major had to do this. - with the appointment of Europhiles such as Ken Clarke alongside Euro-sceptics such as John Redwood and Michael Portillo. Similarly Ken Clarke could not be ignored by Cameron even if his views are more liberal than the Conservative mainstream. He is regarded as a heavyweight though has been slightly edged out by moving from Justice to Minister without Portfolio. In terms of Cabinet experience there are few if any in the current government to rival him. Callaghan (1976-1979), given the deep divide in the Labour Party included leftists such as Tony Benn and right wingers such as Denis Healey.
He might want to appoint his very close allies, sometimes as a reward for past support, Brown appointed Darling and Straw partly on these grounds. Major rewarded Norman Lamont for being his campaign manager in 1990 by rewarding Lamont with the Treasury. Darling was also rewarded with the Treasury for his loyalty to Brown
c) To what extent is the Cabinet an important body?
The Cabinet remains an important body for reasons including these :
It is still required to legitimise the policies of the prime Minister and the Government. No Prime Minister is able to wholly disregard the cabinet. Policy disasters are more easily avoided where there is genuine collectivism in arriving at decisions. A PM who acts against the instincts of the cabinet is likely to find themselves isolated as was the case with Thatcher over her stances on Europe and the Poll Tax in 1990. Collective Cabinet Responsibility has to be at least partially genuine for the doctrine to be maintained.
It remains a collection of senior party members who can discuss the key issues of the day (note the source on the economic situation). Burch (1996) argues that there is in effect an “inner cabinet” that does most of the driving of government policy. Even relatively minor cabinet posts can become important because of events. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in the spotlight for a number of reasons for most of 2012 including handling NewsCorp’s proposed takeover of BSkyB, the Levenson inquiry into journalistic ethics and managing the run up to the 2012 games. From late 1997 to 2001, the role of Northern Ireland Secretary was elevated to one of historic importance with the brokering of the Good Friday Peace Agreement.
It still manages the government’s priorities and its business through Parliament.This is especially true under the current coalition with the Quad (Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander) and the so called ‘quarterbacks’ – the Lib Dem presence in cabinet. Coalition politics makes careful management of parliamentary business by the whole cabinet near essential.
In some circumstances it does make key decisions (perhaps rarely), for example to bid for the Olympics or to pursue the introduction of ID cards. These are dated examples now. Austerity measures, welfare reforms and arguably defence cuts cut across departments and often need to be resolved in open cabinet. High Speed Rail is another example as is argument over the aid budget. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in favour of an increase but some Cabinet members feel it should be cut in line with other spending departments.
It can still deal as the final stage in settling disputes between ministers. Gordon Brown and Margaret Beckett had a serious rift over the level of the minimum wage in 1998 which was ultimately resolved in cabinet in Brown’s favour. Theresa May and Eric Pickles clashed over the likely number of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants in January 2013. There was also a rift over banking reform between Vince Cable and George Osborne in 2011. Serious rifts are usually only resolved when the cabinet comes to a collective decision which all ministers are then bound to support whatever their initial view was.
It provides important united support for the Prime Minister. All prime ministers must ultimately enjoy unity and support in the cabinet. Prime ministers who lose that support are usually on borrowed time.
Finally coalition means that cabinet has become more important in the first three years since 2010. Cabinet needs to be involved and included to enhance the prospects of the coalition running smoothly.
The Cabinet has lost importance for the following reasons :
Various factors have led to the growth of prime ministerial power – the growth of the Downing Street machine, bilateral agreements with ministers, media factors etc. Recent Prime Ministers have shown a tendency towards ‘spatial leadership’, presenting them as leaders of the nation and above party politics. This has to some degree increased the ‘presidentialism’ of British Prime Ministers. Also note the earlier point about Blair governing from the centre with a much more proactive style of central management. Also note the development of sofa government under Blair and the emergence of the ‘quad’ under coalition. All these development weaken cabinet’s influence on government.
Cabinet has become marginalised and meets for very short periods on the whole. It is not given time to conduct serious discussions. Blair for example reduced cabinet meetings to just 45 minutes
The growth of the use of private advisers has meant that ministers tend to act more independently (so called ‘baronies’), with Cabinet acting as little more than a ‘rubber stamp’. Each minister has his or her own department to run and a series of special advisors or SPADS who advise them closely on policy development. Few ministers would rate cabinet highly as a forum of real collective decision making. In “The View From No 11” former Chancellor Nigel Lawson stated that the role of cabinet was to rubber stamp decisions already taken elsewhere.” The implication, backed by Hennessy, is that Cabinet Committees are the real engine room of government.
Collective responsibility has become weaker, with ministers briefing the media and leaking information. The former Cabinet Secretary Gus O’ Donnell confessed in 2008 that leaks from ministers to the media were an inevitable consequence of the development of 24hr rolling news services along side minsters desires to shape the news agenda favourably. Ministers had increased the number of press advisers dramatically. Blogging was also increasingly a problem. The convention is that ministerial statements should be made in the house first. This convention is being rapidly eroded.
January 2011 Prime Ministerial Power:
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
It is often asserted that ‘the British prime minister is as powerful as he or she wants to be’. Margaret Thatcher wanted to be dominant and ensured this by removing her political opponents in the cabinet and replacing them with people she could rely on. Tony Blair similarly strengthened his position by including his closest allies in the cabinet. Prime ministers who want to be dominant will take their prerogative powers and stretch them to the limits. This can also be seen in the area of foreign affairs. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spent much time attempting to take a leading role in world affairs, including conducting wars and negotiating international treaties.
This picture may nevertheless be misleading. There are powerful forces which can be ranged against them. The prime minister’s cabinet colleagues can turn against him or her, as occurred with Thatcher in 1990. In the case of Blair, his position was undermined by growing criticism within the party, particularly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The media, too, can become hostile. Brown received unfavourable press coverage and he was presented as a weak and indecisive leader. A prime minister’s strength also depends on many factors beyond his or her direct control. These include the size of the parliamentary majority and the course of world events.
a) With reference to the source, describe two limitations on prime ministerial power.
Limitations on prime ministerial power referred to in the source include :
Cabinet can turn against them. The most potent example of this is the collapse of cabinet support for Margaret Thatcher in November 1990. But it is also true that Major, Blair and Brown suffered a dip in support. Major after Black Wednesday in 1992 and more acutely following difficult Maastricht negotiations in 1993. Blair after 2005, most notably over Iraq, but also over other issues including hostility from Brown’s aides about the timing of his resignation and disquiet over education reform
He may face criticism from his party. Leaders often come under challenge from within their own party. Cameron particularly has been challenged over Europe and Gay Marriage. Many Conservatives think his leadership should be questioned having failed to achieve a majority in the 2010 election. Brown was accused of sleepwalking Labour to disaster and Major faced huge problems with his party in attempting to pass the Maastricht Treaty. Miliband though not yet PM is coming under increasing pressure from a variety of sources in his party.
The media may turn against him. The Sun carried a headline early in 1994 – “What Fools We Were to Back John Major.” In 2008 they carried a headline saying “Labour’s Lost It” meaning that the Sun no longer supported Labour as it had done since 1997 (albeit only backing Blair rather than the Labour Party)
The parliamentary majority might be small. Parliamentary Majorities which make control of the party more difficult – Wilson Oct 1974, 3, Major 1992 (21). Cameron of course failed to secure a majority and special arrangements have had to be implemented in order to maintain the coalition with the Liberal Democrats. This makes it difficult to maintain the appearance of unity and thus makes the PM look weak and the governing party divided.
World events may turn against him. Perhaps the best example of this is Heath. Opec Quadrupled Oil prices overnight in October 1973. This crippled the British Economy and led to a wave of power cuts and strikes. This kind of international event is beyond the scope of influence of any prime minister and there is little they can do except try to make the best of a bad situation. It could be argued that the global financial crisis sunk any chance Brown had of re-election although other factors also played a part in Labour’s defeat in 2010
b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the prime minister’s prerogative powers.
Prerogative powers refers to the arbitrary powers of the monarch which are now exercised by the prime minister without parliamentary sanction.
Prerogative Powers include examples such as being commander-in-chief, signing international treaties, public appointments including ministers (dissolving parliament – until fixed terms were introduced).
These powers are solely in the hands of the prime minister, though he may or may not consult with ministerial colleagues or with parliament before exercising them.
Nevertheless parliament remains sovereign as it can, by statute, remove prerogative powers.
the power of the executive to declare war – Blair over Kosovo (1998), Eden over Suez (1956) and Thatcher over the Falklands (1982). Even in circumstances where parliament has been consulted, such as Iraq in 2003, the legal authority for the exercise of war powers resides with the Prime Minister.
the power to request the dissolution of Parliament – the timing of a dissolution is particularly important. A PM will seek to chose a date most likely to yield electoral victory (Thatcher in 83 & 87, Blair in 2001 and 2005).
the power over recall of Parliament - Blair over the Omagh Bombing – 1998 – and 9/11 & Cameron over the death of Margaret Thatcher and the Chemical weapons attack in Syria in 2013.
the power of the executive to ratify international treaties Brown over Lisbon 2007
the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny – for example appointments to the security services
the power to restrict parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services – for example by redacting documents on grounds of national security or controlling the circumstances under which witnesses give evidence before the Intelligence and Security Committee (established 1994)
the power to choose bishops – & of course the power to appoint peers
the power to appoint judges – in conjunction with the JAC (The Judicial Appointments Commission)
c) To what extent can the Prime Minister control the Cabinet?
The prime minister can control cabinet in the following ways :
He has patronage powers which promote loyalty. Ministers and Secretaries of State owe a duty of loyalty to the Prime Minister who gave them that post. Ambitious ministers also recognise that if they were to become leader appeals for loyalty would sound hollow if they themselves had previously been disloyal. This in fact happened to Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the opposition. He had been disloyal to Major and to a lesser extent Hague. When he came to demand loyalty it was not forthcoming. However in terms of Prime Minsters they can rely heavily on the convention of collective responsibility. This does not mean that colleagues will remain loyal. Brown will probably be assessed as having let his own people act in a disloyal manner towards Blair. Redwood resigned from the cabinet to challenge Major in 1995 and it is widely known that Major also had a core of his cabinet who were plotting against him. Miliband similarly was assumed to be preparing the ground for a challenge to Brown in 2009.
He has control over the agenda. Ministers and Secretaries of State have to conform to the agenda laid down before cabinet by the Prime Minister. It is the PM’s decision to decide what comes before the cabinet and how much time should be devoted to it. Minister’s must defer to the PM and the agenda he has set. Thatcher was famous for not wanting to waste time on internal argument and debate. She wanted ministers who were full-square behind her beliefs. Heseltine resigned from the government in January 1986 precisely over this dirigeste style of cabinet management on the issue of a rescue package for Westland Helicopters.
He may manipulate the outcome through bilateral meetings with ministers (sofa politics). . Blair was largely dismissive of Cabinet by reducing the number of minutes the cabinet met for each week. He preferred Bi-Lateral meetings so he would not have to deal with a united front in Cabinet. This was called sofa politics. Wilson was also famous for his use of inner cabinets, sometimes called Kitchen Cabinets. Furthermore ministers may find themselves sidelined by the use of Cabinet Committees. Tony Benn as Energy Minister in 1978 did not chair the Energy Cabinet Committee. This diminished his influence within the government.
He is considered to be chief policy maker (primus inter pares). The Prime Minister’s official title is First Lord of the Treasury. This elevates him above the Cabinet and makes him the chief architect of government policy. Policy making involves a complex series of interrelationships but crucially the PM is seen as the one who knits it altogether in his fashion.
He now has considerable sources of his own advice. For any PM this is crucial. Blair recognised from some of the failures of the Major years that control and co-ordination from the centre was crucial to maintaining party discipline, control over parliament and steering the cabinet collectively in the direction that the PM himself wishes to go. The sources of PM control, coordination and advice have been listed above.
Factors which limit his control include :
He remains only ‘primus inter pares’. Ultimately the PM cannot simply govern by command. There may be brief periods when this is possible (after a convincing general election victory such as Thatcher’s in 1983 or Blair’s in 1997) and even desirable (Such as Thatcher and the Falklands). But the PM must always carry the respect and support of his cabinet colleagues. If this evaporates then the PM is unlikely to remain in office. There may be a party coup as with Thatcher or a general build up of pressure as with Blair.
He can be challenged by a dissident minority (Major). He was challenged not only in parliament by the eurosceptics such as Bill Cash, Tony Marlowe and Theresa Gorman but also within cabinet by Portillo, Lilley, and Redwood.
He can ultimately be removed as happened to Thatcher and, arguably, Blair. In 1989 Thatcher had humiliated her Chancellor, by being equivocal about whether she supported his economic policies or preferred those of her own economic advisor Sir Alan Walters. As a result she suffered the resignation of a senior cabinet colleague. When she demoted Sir Geoffrey Howe the following year this created fatal difficulties. He resigned and made a devastating speech leading to the challenge of Michael Heseltine. As has previously been noted Blair also lost a degree of authority and command after the 2005 General Election. In part due to Iraq, it may also be attributed to a much diminished majority (he lost a hundred seats) and to policies which required Conservative support to pass such as educational reform in 2006.
Ministers in charge of large departments, such as the Treasury, have their own power bases (Blair-Brown) and (Osborne – Cameron – Alexander). As part of the agreement between Blair and Brown after the sudden death of Labour leader John Smith in May 1994 Blair offered Brown wide ranging powers as Chancellor to effectively govern economic and social policy if Brown agreed not to enter the leadership contest. Brown effectively took control of domestic policy across a whole range of fronts which mean that Blair was effectively a figurehead and foreign policy PM. Whilst Osborne has not been granted the same degree of latitude economic policy is so central to the coalition that he has enormous influence over government policy.
Special problems may arise under coalition government. Under coalition there is a necessity for this to be more convoluted. Cabinet and its committees have been greatly revived under the new government. For instance, specific and rigorous steps are taken to ensure that collective agreement is maintained:
all papers for cabinet committees must state what has been done to ensure collective approval
the policy must be checked against the coalition agreement
the chair and deputy chair of the committee (always one from each party) must have signed the paper off. Only then can parliamentary management begin with Cameron and Clegg taking responsibility for the internal discipline and cohesion of their own parties.
Factors which can enhance control include :
The extent to which cabinet is ideologically united. New governments or governments with a renewed mandate give the PM an opportunity to fashion the cabinet in his or her image. This happened in 1983 when Thatcher’s decisive majority gave her the opportunity to purge the cabinet of ‘wets’ such as Pym and Prior and replace them with ‘dries’ such as Tebbit and Lawson. Most of Blair’s first cabinet was ideologically united behind the principles of New Labour. Even over coalition where ideological unity is more difficult to achieve the coalition has been more cohesive than many could have predicted. Alexander and Osborne for example are in very close agreement on the government’s deficit reduction programme.
The personal popularity of the P.M. If the Prime Minster enjoys personal popularity it is easier to mould the cabinet. Blair was particularly popular early on and so the cabinet saddle their fortunes with that of the Prime Ministers.
The P.M’s dominance of the governing party. In 1997 in an address to all 418 Labour MPs in Westminster hall Blair stamped his authority on the party. There could be no return to the ill-discipline of the 1980s (the years of wilderness as Blair called them). If any Labour MPs were in any doubt they were reminded what impact the ‘great rebels’ of the Major years had given the Tories – an electoral tidal wave that crashed down on their heads. By all means speak you mind, Blair told his audience, but you must ultimately support your government. This is sometimes referred to as the Blair Code of Conduct. PMs ultimately may become involved in deselection processes for outspoken and rebellious MPs. However discipline is a double edged sword. When Major removed the Conservative whip from 9 euro sceptic Tory MPs, it hammered his parliamentary majority and make him look weak and out of control – the very opposite of what he intended.
Credit may also be given to candidates who address the special issues arising out of coalition government. Credit should also be given to candidates who can successfully deploy examples.
June 2012: Prime Minster & Cabinet
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow Extracts from the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform, May 2010
a) With reference to the source outline how coalition government has affected appointments to the cabinet
A coalition government is a formal power sharing arrangement between two or more parties when there is no one party that has secured a majority in a general election. This was the outcome of the May 2010 general election when the Conservatives obtained 307 seats , 18 short of an overall majority. The subsequent coalition agreement with the Lib Dems means that they occupy 5 seats and should a Lib Dem resign the agreement is that they will be replaced by another Lib Dem. This has happened twice. When David Laws resigned over expenses irregularities he was replace as Chief Secretary to the Treasury by Danny Alexander. Similarly when Chris Huhne resigned over a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice he was replaced as Energy Secretary by Ed Davey.
b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge explain why collective responsibility is an important aspect of UK government
The source identifies the following reasons why the doctrine is important :
It means that there will be collective discussion of policy making. For the PM to rely on collective responsibility there has to be some attempt at collective cabinet government. No Prime Minister would be able to rely on the doctrine if all policies were imposed by diktat without at least some discussion and deliberation. Collective cabinet responsibility is at its strongest when the cabinet feel their input is valued.
It means that deliberations inside the cabinet remain private. Of course disagreements and heated exchanges between ministers sometimes occurs. Part of the function of cabinet is to mechanism for getting disputes into the open and then resolving them privately. However it is sometimes also true that these disputes get publicly aired through briefings to journalists. In the main though cabinet discussions remain confidential.
It means that all ministers will support decisions made within the cabinet.Ministers are well acquainted with the idea that if they fight a losing battle in cabinet they will stick by the agreed policy. IF they feel that they cannot then the must resign from their post.
Additional knowledge of its importance may include :
Exploration of the idea of collective decision making, including collegiality.Collective Cabinet responsibility may encourage compromise and agreement. The principle is well established.
Exploration of privacy – the idea that any conflict remains secret and confidential. This means ministers can fee free within cabinet to express robust views and to challenge the views of others. This has already been dealt with.
The importance of cabinet unity, especially in the face of the media and the Opposition. Divided governments are rarely successful at the ballot box – Major 1997 is a case in point.
Government is strengthened by being able to rely on the ‘payroll vote’.
It can underpin prime ministerial power by silencing internal critics.
c) How important is the cabinet?
The importance of cabinet can be seen in the following terms:
It acts as the ‘clearing house’ for proposed government policy. Collective Responsibility, settling disputes and handling politically controversial topics or policies central to the government’s programme (e.g. austerity) are all indications that cabinet remains important. This is particularly so under coalition where there are senior Ministers with distinctive ideological traditions such as Cable and Osborne.
It grants official authority to government policy. Collective Responsibility can only be maintained where Ministers who disagree with a policy ultimately accept the authority of cabinet
It deals with disputes between ministers. Gordon Brown and Margaret Beckett had a serious rift over the level of the minimum wage in 1998 which was ultimately resolved in cabinet in Brown’s favour. Theresa May and Eric Pickles clashed over the likely number of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants in January 2013. There was also a rift over banking reform between Vince Cable and George Osborne in 2011. Serious rifts are usually only resolved when the cabinet comes to a collective decision which all ministers are then bound to support whatever their initial view was.
It may deal with emergencies or crises (COBRA may be included). COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A for example the July 2005 London Bombings. It will usually be staffed by the heads of the various intelligence agencies, the PM and Deputy PM, The Home Secretary, The Foreign Secretary and Chief Commander of the Metropolitan Police. Occasionally the Joints Chief of Staff (The heads of the Army Navy and Air Force) May be in attendance. Cabinet as a whole would be briefed on developments.
It manages government business and the presentation of policy.
Under coalition it reconciles the differences between coalition partners and may establish appropriate ‘agreements to differ’. Under coalition this is important. There will be numerous opportunities for disagreement. Each party recognises that at least for now maintaining the coalition and good working relations between the parties is important for BOTH parties.
It also has the potential power to overrule the prime minister or even remove him/her. In 1981 Mrs Thatcher, not yet at the height of her power, was overruled on no fewer than six separate occasions by Cabinet on issues such as public sector pension, trade union reforms and subsidies to the inner cities (Source Hugo Young, The Guardian)
However the importance of cabinet may have been diminished in the following ways :
Prime ministerial domination (arguably dual domination under coalition) has marginalised cabinet. After a series of bad headlines over policy u-turns Cameron has now adopted a more centrally controlled policy grip.
Increasingly policy is being made elsewhere, by party leaders, think tanks, policy committees or units and private advisers. In The View from No 11, former Chancellor Nigel Lawson said that Cabinet’s role was to rubber stamp decisions already made elsewhere. In this respect he was referring in the main to special advisers, bilateral meetings and cabinet Committees
Cabinet meets for less time than in the past and tends to be merely a rubber stamp for policy made elsewhere. Blair had very short cabinet meetings of perhaps just up to 45 minutes.
January 2013 - Prime Ministerial Power
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
The decision to introduce fixed-term Parliaments was one of the key features of the coalition agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in 2010. The policy was, in due course, enacted through the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, 2011. The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments had long been advocated by the Liberal Democrats. It is often claimed that the reform will reduce prime ministerial power, because it means that prime ministers are no longer able to use their prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and call a general election when events turn in their favour. But a fixed five-year Parliament also means that they can plan ahead to complete their programme by a known date in the future.
The issue of fixed-term Parliaments is part of a long-running debate about how powerful UK prime ministers are. In addition to chairing cabinet meetings and controlling the cabinet system, prime ministers have attracted increasing media focus and become the ‘brand image’ of their party at election time. Some commentators have gone as far as to claim that UK prime ministers have, effectively, become ‘presidents’. Concern about the growing powers of the prime minister has led, amongst other things, to calls for a fully codified written constitution, which would outline the role and responsibilities of the prime minister and government. This would establish clear guidelines for the exercise of prime ministerial powers, rather than allowing the prime minister to determine his or her own role as he or she sees fit.
Source: Edexcel, 12 October 2011.
(a) With reference to the source, describe how the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments affects prime ministerial power.
The source refers to two ways in which prime ministerial power is affected :
He cannot call an election when events are in his party’s favour. Prior to this reform it was held to be one the PM’s major advantages over the opposition. Thatcher and Blair elected on each occasion of choosing to favour four year terms. Callaghan on the other hand 1979 and Brown, 2010 allowed the parliament to run a full term and subsequently lost. Thatcher and Blair successfully exercised this power in 1983, 1987 and 2001& 2005 respectively. If the economy is favourable or there has been a foreign policy success Prime Ministers will look closely at the polls and seek re-election. Fixed term elections have removed this possibility.
Second he can plan his programme in the knowledge of when the next election will be held. It is assumed that fixed term parliaments prevent the PM from managing the economic cycle to his electoral advantage. In fact fixed five year terms do very little to alter the fact that all governments start to politicize the budget towards the end of their tenure. George Osborne for example announced in the 2013 Budget that the £10,000 tax thrshold would be in place by April 2014 a full year earlier than planned and one year before the election
In summary:
Events might be a favourable state of the economy, or a successful foreign policy (such as Libya), or some favourable crime figures.
Planning a programme might mean introducing more popular legislation just before an election, such as tax cuts or pension increases.
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain three reforms, other than fixed-term Parliaments, which could limit the powers of the prime minister.
A codified constitution would more clearly outline the powers of the prime minister and, by implication, preventing a drift to greater powers. It would prevent a prime minister from defining his own role.
Examples of possible reforms would be :
Forcing the prime minister to seek parliamentary approval for acts of war, the signing or treaties. This was a reform proposed by Brown. Although Blair did seek parliament’s consent for the invasion of Iraq the sole legal authority rests with the PM and thus it is perfectly constitutional and legal for the PM to authorize a war without the consent of parliament. It is not widely known that the Queen vetoed the attempt to give parliament formal control over the war prerogative.
Transferring some of his patronage powers to parliament or other bodies. The Prime Minister’s ability to make a huge number of appointments across the Judiciary, the executive, the legislature (peerages for example), the security services and quangos has long been a source of concern for critics such as Benn. It would be more democratic if their were some form of parliamentary oversight and an approval mechanism as is common in the Unites States where the Senate approves presidential appointments
Introducing fixed terms of office for him/her It destabilises the country when a sitting PM seems intent to go on and on as Thatcher once famously indicated she would. Most other democracies limit the terms of office to two for Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Making him more directly accountable to parliament. Blair was a somewhat paradoxical figure. He had the worst voting record in Parliament of any PM in living memory. Apart from PMQs and some debates and bills parliament has very little opportunity to scrutinise the PM. Blair on the other hand did innovate by making himself available for monthly scrutiny to the Liaison Committee.
Reform of the electoral system, making large majorities unlikely. Since the May 2011 decisive referendum rejection of AV reform of the electoral system for Westminster is unlikely for the foreseeable future.
The introduction of an elected London mayor and devolution generally create rival centres of power. It is clear that Boris Johnson is using the London Mayor’s office to establish his credentials as a future Conservative leader. The SNP is now challenging Westminster’s reserved matters in their campaign for full independence
Greater European integration.
An elected second chamber.
Reforms that limit the power of government as a whole do, by implication, limit the power of the prime minister and so are valid.
Constitutional reforms that have already been made are also valid. These would include the Human Rights Act, Devolution, and House of Lords reform. Since reform the Lords has increasingly challenged government legislation. In the first two years of coalition the government was defeated 48 times in the Lords on issues such as welfare reform, legal aid reform and health care reform
(c) To what extent have UK prime ministers become more ‘presidential’?
Candidates should be able to explain the term ‘presidential, both in terms of its constitutional implications and its broader, meaning. Typical knowledge of ways in which they have become more presidential might include :
The media concentrate more on the PM as government spokesperson. This tendency of the media to treat the PM as the voice of the government and of the nation largely stems from three sources. The first is the increasingly presidential nature of UK elections. The second, mentioned above, is the tighter centralised grip the PM has over the machinery of government and the 3rd (also mentioned above) is the increased importance in Foreign Policy.
The greater concentration on presentation of policy. The PM likes to be associated with the presentation of policy that will be received favourably. Blair famously announced on Breakfast TV that the government was to make significant investments in the health service. Brown exploded accusing the PM of stealing his budget – Brown had been due to make the announcement the following day as part of his spending review.
The greater importance of the ‘presidential’ role in terms of foreign policy, military issues, global conferences etc. Since the 1980s Foreign policy has increased in importance. There are a number of reasons behind this such as membership of the EU and other international institutions (G8/G20, World Bank, the IMF, the WTO etc) and the rise of issues of global significance such as human rights, terrorism and the environment. All of these demand the careful formulation of a foreign policy that is coherent and which is represented abroad more often than not by the PM himself. This does not mean that the Foreign Secretary is less significant but it does mean that increasingly foreign policy is at the least co-authored between the Foreign Secretary and the PM and that the PM is often seen (as Blair was) to be largely concerned with geo-politics rather than domestic politics.
The growth of the Downing Street ‘machine’, looking increasingly like an ‘executive office of the president’. There are many such examples of an enhanced Downing Street machine. On taking Office Blair issued orders in council allowing staff members Alistair Campbell and Jonathon Powell to issue instructions directly to civil servants. This wrested control of civil servants from individual ministers.
Blair also took control of the Cabinet Office and fused it with the Prime Minister’s Office.
The number of Special Advisors to ministers and government was also increased to act as a countervailing force against civil service self interest.
Blair also created a strategic communications unit, a forward strategy unit and a social exclusion unit. These ‘task forces’ were responsible for overseeing government policy as a whole. Ministers would have to account for initiatives to each of these units.
Finally Blair had inherited a policy unit, a press office, a private office and a political office. These were all ‘beefed up’ to ensure strategic control from the centre. More recently Cameron has decided to adopt a more centralised approach to policy following a series of government u-turns.
Spatial leadership issues. In 1993, Foley described what he called the rise of the British presidency, in which he drew attention to the similarities that were growing between the approach of the Prime Minister and that of a president, such as the President of the USA. In this thesis he identifies a tendency to “spatial leadership” among some British Prime Ministers, including Margaret Thatcher and John Major. This partly means that Prime Ministers have presented themselves as “outsiders” to the main thrust of government, are above party politics (Blair was very good at projecting himself as not ‘of’ the Labour Party and its traditions) and are in effect the leader of the nation.
The personality of some prime ministers, notably Blair, Thatcher. Both had a dirigeste, controlling, almost authoritarian streak and at least early on (in the case of Blair) and mid-term (in the case of Thatcher) they became the centrally dominant figures of their governments. Thatcher famously wanted consensus, but only a consensus behind HER convictions. Cabinet could not be a forum for internal debate and discussion. Blair similarly dismissed cabinet by holding very brief sessions, rather than risk having discussion and disagreement, preferring ‘sofa government’ in the form of bilateral meetings with cabinet ministers. In the words of Madgwick ‘The Prime Minister is ALWAYS consulted. Not so the cabinet.” In both premierships the most important decisions (the Falkland Islands, the poll tax, the ERM, Kosovo) were largely decided away from cabinet and merely presented for cabinet to rubber stamp. Thatcher also retained her advisor on economic policy Sir Alan Walters even after he had denounced chancellor Lawson’s policies as ‘half-baked” in the Economist. Lawson demanded Walters’ resignation and Thatcher refused. Lawson resigned. Alistair Campbell (Blair’s press secretary) briefed off the record that Brown was ’psychologically flawed.’
On the other hand there are counter arguments :
Prime ministers are not heads of state constitutionally. They are limited by party, cabinet and parliament. Ultimately the PM cannot simply govern by command. There may be brief periods when this is possible (after a convincing general election victory such as Thatcher’s in 1983 or Blair’s in 1997) and even desirable (Such as Thatcher and the Falklands). But the PM must always carry the respect and support of his cabinet colleagues. If this evaporates then the PM is unlikely to remain in office. There may be a party coup as with Thatcher or a general build up of pressure as with Blair.
The government may suffer defeats in parliament as Blair did over 90 Day detention with charge or Thatcher did over Sunday Trading and Student Loans in 1985 and 1986. Ultimately the party may turn against the PM as again was the case under Thatcher.
They can be removed from office in mid term. It is very much an issue of the individual’s ‘style’.
Events and other factors cause variations in dominance. Heath for example had to suffer the consequences of overnight quadrupling of oil prices. This effectively finished his premiership. Brown could do little against the global financial crisis. Blair’s reputation was heavily damaged by the revelation that Saddam did not possess WMD, the chief reason for going to war in the first place.
Essays on Prime Ministerial Power
January 2010: To what extent does the prime minister dominate the political system in the UK? (40 marks)
Evidence that the prime minister does dominate the system can include :
The argument that, as cabinet has declined, so has the power of the P.M. increased. Note less cabinet meetings and shorter duration.
Evidence of recent dominant prime ministers – Thatcher, Blair (Brown not at first, but then took over single handed management of the financial and economic crisis after 2007).
Growth of the Number 10 ‘machine’.
Tendency of media to see the P.M. as spokesperson for the whole government.
Weakness of parliament and ability of P.M. to force through his legislation
Dominance of the P.M. in increasingly important international affairs – note attendance at many world meetings etc. and importance of foreign policy since the 1980s. This enhances the P.M’s authority.
Counter arguments to this analysis might include :
Prime Ministers are only as powerful as circumstances allow them to be – note Major and the early Brown or late Blair. Size of parliamentary majority, economic and political context, media attitudes, strength of Opposition.
Dominance may also depend on the personality of the P.M. (Major).
Parliament has become increasingly active – note its obstruction of terrorist suspect detention without trial, super-casinos etc.
Note the argument that this is about ‘style’ and not substance.
P.M. can still be overruled by Cabinet and cannot force policies through powerful, reluctant colleagues.
June 2011: Is the UK Prime Minister now effectively a president? (40 Marks)
The arguments to suggest he is a president include –
the increasing use of prerogative powers especially in the field of foreign affairs and war,
the growth of the Downing Street machine,
the use of the media, concentration of the media on the prime minister as a separate leader,
growth of spatial leadership and the presidential style of the prime minister.
Much evidence is available from several recent prime ministers.
Countervailing evidence is that the prime minister is not head of state and, strictly, has no separate popular mandate as a president does.
However, the prime minister does appear to act as representative of the nation at times (e.g. over security, national crises etc.) rather than as narrow partisan leader.
Note the limitations which presidents do not have – the cabinet as a collective body and parliament in particular.
Understanding that prime ministers may adopt a presidential style while there is relatively little substance.
Use of examples of such limitations and style issues in relation to Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
January 2012: Are UK prime ministers as powerful as is sometimes claimed? (40 Marks)
The conventional view of prime ministerial power includes the following issues :
They enjoy multiple sources of authority, including their party, the electorate, prerogative powers and parliament.
They dominate the political agenda of the government.
They dominate cabinet government.
They are able to take advantage of extensive prerogative powers, notably in foreign policy terms.
They have extensive patronage.
They are treated as spokespeople for government by the media.
They often have developed a presidential ‘style’.
The experience of prime ministers is likely to include illustrations from the premierships of Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron.
The evidence from past premierships that the prime minister may not be as a powerful as is commonly believed, may include the following :
Power may depend on the size and security of their parliamentary majority (Major, Cameron).
Events are a key element in prime ministerial authority, and therefore power (Blair and Iraq, Brown and the financial crisis).
The prime minister may not enjoy a dominant personality and/or may lose the confidence of the media and the electorate (Brown, Major).
Coalition means the prime minister must share some power with the coalition partner (Cameron).
All prime ministers may be removed from office by their party or by parliament (Thatcher, Blair).
Prime ministers must carry cabinet with them and may not be able to do so (Thatcher – poll tax – Major – Maastricht).
Electoral Systems
Electoral Systems
First-Past-The-Post
How the System Works:
The current system for electing MPs to the House of Commons is called First-Past-The-Post. There are 659 separate constituencies across the UK each electing one single Member of Parliament. In order to vote you simply put an ‘X’ next to the name of the candidate you support. The candidate who gets the most votes wins, regardless of whether he or she has more than 50% support. Once members have been individually elected, the party with the most seats in Parliament, regardless of whether or not it has a majority, normally becomes the next government.
The system is used: for elections to the House of Commons and local elections in the UK and in USA, Canada and India.
Arguments used in favour:
- It is simple to understand.
- The voter can express a view on which party should form the next government.
- It tends to lead to a two-party system. The system tends to produce single party governments, which are strong enough to create legislation and tackle the country’s problems, without relying on the support of any other party.
- It provides a close link between the MP and their constituency.
- The system represents the views of the people, as the candidate with the greatest support wins through a fair process.
- The UK’s democracy is one of the strongest in the world, it works and since no system is perfect, why should we go through the massive overhaul of changing?
Weaknesses:
- Only one MP is elected in each constituency, so all the voters who did not vote for him or her are not represented. Their votes do not help elect anybody and so are wasted, they could have stayed at home and the result would not have been altered.
- In 1997, in Great Britain, 14.7 million voters cast ineffective votes – that is 48.2% of those who voted. A high proportion of these voters are the same people every time, e.g. Conservative voters in County Durham or Labour voters in much of Surrey.
- There is a lack of choice given to the voters. The candidates are selected by a small number of party members, and voters can only choose between parties. If the candidate selected for your party has views with which you disagree, you are left with no alternative choice within that party.
- Voters are represented unequally. In 1997, the average number of votes per MP elected was: 32,376 for Labour, but 113,826 for Liberal Democrats
- Concentrated support for a party produces results. In 1997, Conservative support was spread thinly over most of Scotland. They got 18% of the vote in Scotland, but no seats. The Liberal Democrats got 13% of the Scottish vote and a similar share of the seats because they had strong support in a few constituencies and minimal support in most of the others.
- The system leads to many people casting negative votes i.e. voting against the candidate they dislike most rather than for the candidate they like best.
- The way the boundaries of constituencies are drawn can affect the results. Governments are often accused of gerrymandering, adjusting the boundaries of constituencies to influence the results.
- In 1997, Labour won 43.3% of the total vote, but got 65.2% of the seats in Parliament, giving them power to form a government. Although 11 out of 20 British electors voted against the Government, it obtained a landslide majority of 179. A similar outcome was observed in the 2001 General Election.
How the System Works:
Each constituency would elect between 3 and 5 MPs depending on its size. Voters rank the candidates, putting a ’1′ for their favourite, a ’2′ for the next, and so on. If the voter’s first choice candidate does not need their vote, either because he or she is elected without it, or because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter’s second choice candidate, and so on.
In this way, most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted. An important feature of STV is that voters can choose between candidates both of their own and of other parties, and can even select candidates for reasons other than party affiliation. Thus, a voter, wishing for more women MPs could vote for a woman from their own party and then all other women candidates, whatever party they stand for.
The system is used:
in the Australian Senate, the Republic of Ireland, Tasmania, Malta and Northern Ireland for local elections and elections to the European Parliament.
Arguments used in favour:
STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is done by their elected representatives. STV is the best option for:
- Putting the power in the hands of the voters.
- Keeping MPs linked to the people who voted for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.
- Making parliament reflect the views of the voters.
- Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.
- It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.
- It is simple for voters to use.
- There is no need for tactical voting . Voters can cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
- It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.
Weaknesses:
- The system does not produce such accuracy in proportional representation of parties as the party list or additional member systems.
- It breaks the link between an individual MP and his or her constituency.
- Constituencies would be 3-5 times larger than they are now but with 3-5 MPs.
- MPs may have to spend an excessive amount of time dealing with constituency problems and neglect the broader issues.
- There are critics who say that this system could lead to permanent coalition governments, but this would only happen if the voters as a whole want it.
- It is disliked by politicians, since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors, and many MPs with safe seats would lose the security they feel now.
Answering the Common Arguments Against STV
It could destroy the link between MPs and the constituents
Under STV, the constituency link is retained, albeit between several MPs and an enlarged constituency. The accountability of MPs to their constituencies is actually increased in that, unlike the current single-member constituencies, no individual MP has a safe seat. Due to the reduction in security of tenure brought about by STV, all MPs will need to win their seats on merit. Voters also tend to feel a natural link with the whole of Leeds, for example, rather than an allegiance to Leeds North or Leeds Central. They may prefer to have real influence with the MPs representing the whole of the city, rather than hold one MP responsible for their sector. The idea of working together, as a team with other representatives in the area is the norm for local government, where working together for a local ward, is often seen as advantageous.
STV could cause internal party rifts
In most cases, party solidarity and loyalty will inhibit individualistic campaigning, and even if this were to happen, a party could exclude a future ticket to a recalcitrant candidate. There is intra-party competition in every election system. With First-Past-The-Post, it is internalised within the selection and re-selection process; with Party Lists, it becomes a permanent internal competition for a high place on the list. In order to maximise its total support in a multi-member constituency; a party is likely to put up a balanced team of candidates. Under STV all existing MPs can stand for election, and may have an advantage in being better known than their new colleagues.
MPs could become bogged down in casework.
There is no evidence in Britain that local casework-based candidates poll better than national names, often voters like to be represented by national names who may have little day to day contact with the constituency.
The ballot papers would be too complicated for the public too understand.
Electors are perfectly able to cope with STV ballot papers. The first Northern Ireland Assembly election under STV in 1973, which produced a 70% turnout, is a good example. The voters elected representatives from both sides of the community in every constituency.
The Alternative Vote
How the System Works:
The same constituency boundaries are used and voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an ‘X’ against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting ’1′ next to their favourite, a ’2′ by their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system. It looks most similar to the current electoral system.
The system is used: in the Australian House of Representatives
Arguments used in favour:
- The alternative vote retains the same constituencies and so the bond between members and their constituents is not lost.
- Extreme parties would be unlikely to gain support by AV and coalition governments would be no more likely to arise than they are under First-Past-The-Post.
- All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents.
- It prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote. In 1997 47.1% of British MPs were elected by less then 50% of the votes in their constituencies. In 1992, 40.1% of MPs were not supported by as many as 50% of their constituents.
- It removes the need for negative voting. Electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.
Weaknesses:
- Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.
- It also does very little to give a voice to those who have been traditionally under-represented in parliament.
- There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.
Party List Systems
How the System Works:
There are many variations of party list voting, but the most basic form is theclosed party list system. The system is quite simple; rather than voting in a single-member constituency for a specific candidate, electors vote for a party in a multi-member constituency, or sometimes a whole country.
Each party’s list of candidates, ranked according to the party’s preference, is published on the ballot paper. All the votes are counted and each party receives seats in the constituency in the same proportion as the votes it won in that constituency.
A quota is calculated for the constituency – the number of votes required to win one seat. Those who become the party’s MPs, will be those placed highest in the party’s list of candidates. Voters simply vote for the party, they have no say as to which candidates are elected.
An open party list system is one that allows the voter to vote either for the list as published or to vote for an individual candidate, wherever that candidate appears on the party’s list. The possible effect of this is to alter the order in which candidates have been placed on the list, and therefore the list of successful candidates, while still registering support for the voter’s preferred party. Seats are allocated according to the number of quotas won.
The system is used:
in most countries in continental Europe, South Africa, Israel and Russia, and was used in Britain for the 1999 European Election (Northern Ireland will retain STV).
Arguments used in favour:
- The strength of such systems are that they guarantee a high degree of party proportionality. If a party receives 32% of the vote, then it will get 32% of the seats in parliament. Every vote has the same value.
- The system is also very simple for voters, who have only to make one choice for a party out of a small selection.
Weaknesses:
- With closed party lists, voters have little or no effective choice over candidates, they only get control over which party is in government, but with no control over the members of that government.
- Party lists do nothing to ensure fair representation for traditionally under-represented groups in society, and in fact could do the opposite, since party leaders are most likely to choose people from a similar background to represent the party.
- Parties can stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. Because of the very large constituencies, there is little chance for accountability to voters and no local connection between members and voters. The system keeps power out of the hands of voters and firmly in the hands of party leadership.
The Supplementary Vote (SV)
How the System works:
With the supplementary vote, there are two columns on the ballot paper – one for the first choice and one for the second choice. Voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to. Voters mark an ‘X’ in the first column for their first choice and a second ‘X’ in the second column for their other choice.
Voters’ first preferences are counted and if one candidate gets 50% of the vote, then he or she is elected. If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote, the two highest scoring candidates are retained and the rest of the candidates are eliminated.
The second preferences on the ballot papers of the eliminated candidates are examined and any that have been cast for the two remaining candidates are given to them. Whoever has the most votes at the end of the process wins. The system is used to elect the Mayor of London.
Weaknesses:
- SV suffers from all the disadvantages of AV.
- Unlike AV, SV does not ensure that the winning candidate has the support of at least 50% of the electorate.
- SV does not eliminate the likelihood of tactical voting.
Additional Member System (AMS)
How the System Works:
Several variants of Additional Member Systems have been proposed, but basically they are a combination of the First-Past-The-Post system and party list voting. The purpose is to retain the best features of First-Past-The-Post while introducing proportionality between parties through party list voting.
Each voter has two votes, one vote for a single MP via First-Past-The-Post, and one for a regional or national party list. Half the seats or more are allocated to the single-member constituencies and the rest to the party list. The percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the party list vote determines their overall number of representatives; the party lists are used to top up the First-Past-The-Post seats gained by the party to the required number. So if a party has won two seats in the constituencies but in proportion to its votes should have five, the first three candidates on its list are elected in addition.
The system is used:
in Germany and it was also chosen by New Zealand in a referendum in 1993, (although in New Zealand it is called Mixed Member Proportional Representation or MMP). The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were both elected by AMS in May 1999 as well as the London Assembly in May 2000.
Arguments used in favour:
- It results in broadly proportional representation along party lines while ensuring that there is a directly accountable MP for each constituency.
- It retains a number of single-member constituencies.
- It has produced strong and stable governments in Germany (but not single party governments)
- Each elector has at least one effective vote. Even of they see no chance of winning in the single member constituency, people can use their second vote for a party they support and still have a limited say through an additional member.
- The separation of the vote, allows the voter to make an expression of popular approval or disapproval which is not possible under First-Past-The-Post. Because the first vote does not affect a party’s total representation, a voter can use it to express personal support for a candidate without necessarily helping that candidate’s party.
- AMS would give people the government they wanted, keeping the link between MPs and voters as well as giving some value to all votes, via the additional members.
Weaknesses:
- It combines many of the faults of First-Past-The-Post with many of the defects of the list systems of PR.
- Half of all MPs are not directly accountable to any voters, just to their party leadership, and have no constituency.
- It creates two types of MP, one with a constituency role and duties and one without such a base.
- To retain some constituency MPs, constituencies would have to increase in size.
- The parties would retain power over selecting candidates for constituency seats and would have complete control over choosing their Additional Members.
- Those who are under-represented today may not fare any better under AMS.
- In Germany a party can win more constituency seats than its total entitlement, and is allowed to retain its extra seat(s) and the total membership of the Bundestaag is increased by that number over the standard 656.
The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+)
How the System Works:
Like AMS, AV+ is a mixed system composed of two elements, a constituency element and a top-up. Voters would have two votes – one for a constituency MP and the other from a regional list.
The constituency MPs are elected by the Alternative Vote (AV). The so-called ‘top-up’ MPs are elected on a corrective basis from open party lists.
The system is not currently used anywhere in the world. It is the system proposed by the Independent Commission on the Voting System (chaired by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead) to be put to the electorate in a referendum as an alternative to First Past the Post for UK General Elections.
Arguments used in favour:
- In the constituencies, the winning candidate has the support of at least 50% of the voters.
- People can vote for the candidates of their choice without fear of wasting their votes. A voter can vote for, say, the Green Party, knowing that if the Green Party candidate is not successful then their vote will transfer to their second preference. Tactical voting is no longer needed.
- It is a broadly proportional system.
- Everyone will have an incentive to vote, because their vote will count.
- In the top-up section, voters will be able to choose the best candidate to represent their party.
Weaknesses
- Constituencies will be slightly larger than at present.
- As with AMS, there will be two categories of MPs.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS – JANUARY 2009
A) Outline the workings of the Additional Member System.
The key operational aspects of the AMS are:
The AMS system is a ‘hybrid’ voting system.
It is a combination of FPTP (first past the post) with the regional party list system. A plurality and a proportional combination.
The electorate make two choices when they vote, one for the candidate in their constituency the other from the party list.
This produces two types of representative one local and one regional (multi-member constituencies)
The party-list element is used to ‘top up’ the constituency vote. It is used correctively to achieve a more proportional outcome using the D’Hondt method.
In Scotland and London 56% of seats are filled by FPTP; in Wales this is 67%.
b) How has the use of AMS affected party representation in the UK?
It has meant that a wider and more diverse range of political parties have been elected than under FPTP.
This has meant that more political parties have enjoyed administrative power such as the Liberal Democrats who formerly shared power in the Scottish parliament with Labour.
The above introduces the fact that single party majorities are highly unlikely with AMS.
It has reduced the dominance of the Labour Party in both Wales and Scotland. It has not become the automatic or ‘natural’ party of government.
It has revived and enhanced the fortunes of the nationalist parties Plaid Cymru and the SNP.
It has revived and enhanced the representation of the Liberal Democrats
It has enhanced the representation of the Green Party.
It has allowed for minor party representation such as the Scottish Socialist parties in Scotland.
It had revived and increased representation for the Conservative Party in Scotland especially but also in Wales.
c) Should proportional representation be introduced for elections to the House of Commons?
Currently the House of Commons is elected by the system of First Past the Post, which is a simple plurality system. There has been a long running debate as to whether proportional representation (PR) should be introduced in its place. PR arises in many forms, its aim being to make the number of votes cast for a party to be accurately reflected in the number of seats gained in the legislature.
There are a range of arguments for the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons it is suggested that:
It will make the House of Commons more reflective of how the country voted.
It will eradicate many of the anomalies or the alleged unfairness of the current system. These include issues such as tactical voting, safe seats, marginal seats etc.
It will increase voter turnout at the general election.
It will revive the fortunes of the Liberal democrats and other smaller parties.
It will move to make votes nationally to be of equal value.
It will introduce a clear possibility of coalition governments.
However there are arguments that proportional representation should not be introduced for elections to the House of commons, it is suggested that:
It will produce unstable governments which fail to secure a working majority.
It will introduce coalitions as the norm.
There is no major demand amongst the public for change. This was illustrated in the May 2011 referendum on AV which saw 31% turnout and 70% majority against change.
The current system is easy to use and operate.
It will eradicate the link of MPs to a constituency base.
It will serve to allow extremist parties to gain credence and respectability.
There are many types of PR and no one system emerges as being appropriate for the House of Commons.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS – JUNE 2009
a) What is the doctrine of the mandate?
In a general sense the word mandate means that an individual or group has authority or permission to act, and that their actions are legitimate. From a political perspective the doctrine of the mandate has the following connotations.
A political mandate grants authority to the winning party at an election to form a government; this mandate may come from obtaining a majority of seats.
Following on from the above, the winning party has the mandate (or authority) to implement the policy options it outlined in its previous election manifesto.
It had been the Salisbury convention that the House of Lords should not and would not contest any policy set out in a winning party’s manifesto but was at liberty to challenge the ruling party when it deviated with new policy options from its manifesto pledges, here arguing that no mandate on this undisclosed area was in existence.
The concept of the mandate has been extended to cover the fact that a government can have a mandate to carry out whatever actions it sees to be in the best interest of the state; this may be referred to as the ‘doctor’s mandate’.
b) Explain the workings of three electoral systems used in the UK.
There are several electoral systems, which are in use in the UK.
Firstly there is the system of first past the post as used for Westminster
elections and local government. This operates by victory being gained when the victor has one more vote than his or her nearest rival. This is a simple majority, it is not proportional. For Westminster MPs the constituency returns just one MP.
elections and local government. This operates by victory being gained when the victor has one more vote than his or her nearest rival. This is a simple majority, it is not proportional. For Westminster MPs the constituency returns just one MP.
The Closed Party list is used for elections to the European Parliament. The UK is divided up into several large regions. Each of these regions returns more than one MP. Parties can put up as many candidates as there are seats available. The parties themselves determine who is on the list and the order in which they are ranked, hence the term ‘closed’ as opposed to ‘open’ lists. The electorate vote for a political party, not a candidate. Representation is calculated on pure percentage of the vote for seats. This method is acclaimed to be the most proportionate of all systems.
The AMS system is used for the devolved regions in Wales, Scotland and for the London Assembly. Essentially this system combines the existing first past the post system or simple plurality with a list element. The voter has two votes, one for the constituency candidate and a second vote for the regional list. This second vote is the one which carries the proportional element of this system. It does however produce two types of representative, one who emerges for the constituency and a second who comes through from the list without a constituency. The balance of constituency representatives and list representatives can and does vary.
A third proportional system is the single transferable vote or STV. Here the constituencies contain more than one MP, possibly up to 6 or 7. The voter ranks their preferences in numerical order. To become elected a representative has to reach a quota. This quota is calculated using the pre-determined formula calculated once all the votes are cast. The system is said to aim to avoid wasted votes. This system is used for the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, elections for the European parliament in the province of Northern Ireland and more recently it has been introduced for local elections in Scotland.
For elections for the Mayor of London the Supplementary Vote is used. Here voters nominate two choices, if a majority (over 50%) of the vote is achieved on first votes then the process ends; if not second preferences are then taken into account.
c) Assess the advantages of the ‘first past the post’ electoral system.
It is simple and easy to operate. All that is required is an ‘X’ in the desired voter choice. It is thus uncomplicated and allows all citizens clarity and confidence in use. Other electoral systems by contrast may appear cumbersome and complex.
However, it may be argued that this benefit is overrated. It may be the case that today’s electorate can cope with listing numerical choice and preferences. This happens in other developed nations there is no evidence that the UK is less educated than our European counterparts, who use various other electoral methods.
It is quick to produce a result, there is no delay and elected members and governments are soon in place. It is alleged that PR systems can take some time for the final outcome to be calculated and delivered.
However, some allege that this ‘speed’ attribute is overrated. If electronic voting was introduced then other systems would be equally as swift. Furthermore it is suggested that although speed is valued, accuracy and fairness are more desired virtues to be prized.
The system produces strong governments at Westminster with working majorities; other electoral systems can often produce coalitions.
Two points to consider here however. Firstly it may be seen that strong government comes at the expense of un-representative government. Secondly it may be wrong to assume that a coalition government is a weak or a bad government: the opposing case for coalitions can be advanced.
The system maintains the MP/Constituency link and preserves and nurtures an important geographical link.
The system maintains the MP/Constituency link and preserves and nurtures an important geographical link.
However, it may be seen that other electoral systems can equally maintain and possibly build on this link. It is not exclusive.
The system produces a good choice for the electorate and the two party format mirrors the natural divide in society.
However, It may be seen however that the choice on offer is illusory. It is hard for third or other parties to break a two party dominance, which is thrown up by FPTP. In addition the two party monopoly is not reflective of the political culture of the UK.
The system keeps extremism at bay. Minority parties with extreme and politically unsavoury or destabilising views are denied representation.
However, this may be true, but other electoral systems with in-built thresholds can equally achieve this outcome.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS JANUARY 2010
a) Define proportional representation.
Proportional representation is a generic term with regard to electoral systems.
It attempts to accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast for parties with the proportion of seats they win.
It can be described by some as ‘fair voting’ as it attempts to avoid the uneven outcomes of other systems
There are a number of proportional systems in the UK we use AMS the Closed Party List and STV.
b) Systems of PR were introduced in the UK since 1997, for the EU elections, the newly devolved assemblies/parliaments and mayoral elections. There are numerous reasons why they were introduced:
There was a growing dissatisfaction with the unrepresentative nature of FPTP
There was desire to achieve wide support for the newly established bodies from as wide a section of the body politic as possible
The Liberal Democrats were a key alliance for both the devolved bodies and the EU elections and did negotiate with the Labour Party
Buy in for the devolved bodies from the Nationalist parties was crucial and
It has been used for the European Election for the EU parliament where it was seen to be more in line with the PR systems which were used in the other member countries.
STV has been used in Northern Ireland for the Devolved Government it was selected here as it was intended to engineer a power sharing executive
PR was part of Labour’s commitment to constitutional reform and for democratic renewal
Some suggest that PR was ‘on trial’ for a possible introduction for Westminster which never materialised.
c) Assess the criticisms of the various electoral systems used in the UK.
There are a number of criticisms which can be alleged against the various electoral systems which are used in the UK some of these are:
The first past the post system (FPTP) has been alleged not to provide an accurate or fair reflection of how people voted and to give all political parties a justified share of the seats. In additions it is said that not all votes count or are of equal value. This system is said to sacrifice accuracy in favour of strong government. No governments in recent times have got 50% of the votes cast.
However, some indicate that FPTP does provide electoral choice in a straightforward manner. The winning party can claim a mandate and there are established clear lines of accountability. This can be seen as stable government with one party in power. FPTP provides strong government and that is to be prized above some of its drawbacks.
The Closed Party List used to elect MEPs. It is criticised for giving representation to too many parties too small to govern or provide leadership. The system is also said to break the close link between voters and a know representative. Where individual candidate appear on the closed party list also gives too mach party to the party machine.
However, it is the most proportional system that we use in the UK and is fair to all political parties; as such votes are not wasted as citizens vote for their first choice rather than tactically. Furthermore it aids not only smaller parties but helps minorities and women.
AMS has been criticised for creating confusion by providing two types of MP one based on a constituency basis the other from the party list. Furthermore this party list is numbered by the party not the electorate. It has meant that some members who failed to secure a constituency seat are still able to gain election through this route. As such these two types can be said to enjoy differing levels of legitimacy given their election routes.
However, many argue that the combination of FPTP with the list system is the best compromise possible for the UK, keeping a constituency base with some proportionality. It widens choice and attempts to reduce wasted votes.
STV is criticised for the uneven proportionality which may result in certain of the multi-member constituencies. It also attracts criticism in that it can lead to problematic in-fighting amongst party members as they search for popularity and votes in the larger constituencies. STV has been attached for the complexity of the calculation system and the difficulty in many electors has in understanding the system. Many votes were spoilt in Scotland when it was introduced for local government. However the survival of a difficult peace process under STV is testament to its suitability. The uneven proportionality is still much fairer than FPTP.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS – JUNE 2010
a) Outline two functions of an election.
Elections can be said to serve many functions in a democratic context.
They are a means by which citizens can participate in society. In a representative democracy voting is a crucial link in the participative process. Elections have a representative function. Constituents are represented by their geographically based MP and in a national sense the parties represent the nature of political opinion in the country.
They function to provide a government. Following a General Election a government will be formed. In May 2010 the elections produced a coalition government.
They are a method of conferring legitimacy on government and politicians. A new administration will claim a mandate to act based on victory in the preceding election.
They are a means of holding a resident government to account. In 1997 and to an extent in May 2010 the incumbent governments were rejected by a majority of the electorate.
b) Explain three advantages of the ‘first past the post’ electoral system.
The first past the post system (fptp) can be said to have many advantages some of which include:
It allows for a close constituency representation, providing a visible link between an individual and a region.
It offers a clear and unambiguous choice at the ballot box.
It is a simple to use system causing little in the way of voter confusion. It is also swift to produce a constituency result.
It is a system which keeps at bay extremist parties for getting as foothold in the political system and gaining undue influence
It is a system that brings strong government to power as usually one party can secure office and introduce its manifesto pledges
Governments elected by fptp are normally stable and cohesive, able to serve a full term, the recent Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition is an exception here.
c) Make out a case in favour of the introduction of proportional representation for Westminster elections.
Proportional representation (PR) is a generic term which refers to a range of electoral systems which attempt to make a close correlation between the percentage votes that are cast to a corresponding percentage of seats allocated. If a system of PR were introduced it is alleged that it would deliver many benefits for Westminster elections.
It can be said to increase participation as more people will vote knowing that their vote counts and will make a difference. On this basis elected representative and governments can increase their democratic legitimacy. It is alleged that participation rates may not rise but legitimacy credentials certainly will.
PR will improve the representation of parties thwarted under fptp currently at Westminster. A broader and more accurate range of parties increases democracy by allowing all shades of opinion some level of representation. Thresholds could be introduced to make the system effective and eliminate racist or other extremist parties.
You should cite the assumed benefits of coalitions which promote consensus and compromise. The experience of coalition after 2010 has been mixed in this regard.
Fair representation is well worth pursuing by introducing PR for Westminster. It is laudable to sacrifice strong government for accurate representation as a principle in its own right. Some coalition governments under PR can claim the support of at least 50% of the electorate.
PR for Westminster will make the governments more accountable to the legislature, thus avoiding accusations of elective dictatorship. Differing systems of PR all have certain alleged benefits and some may be more easily adopted for Westminster than others.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS JANUARY 2011
A) How do elections promote democracy?
There are several ways in which elections promote democracy.
They allow ordinary citizens to become involved in politics and enjoy democratic participation. This involvement creates choice in who is to hold office.
This involvement furthers democracy as those in power are given democratic legitimacy and authority. Democracy is also promoted as those in office are held to account at the end of a period in office, this can be at government level or at an
individual level.
individual level.
Elections are crucial in representative democracy as they allow parties to contest elections and secure a mandate to govern democratically.
b) Distinguish between majoritarian representation and proportional representation.
Majoritarian representation can be ascribed some of the following features
Parties can get a majority of the seats without necessarily obtaining a majority of the votes cast which means that governments are often formed without the support of 50% of those who voted
Majoritarian systems are said to engineer a ‘winners bonus’ in that one party is often over rewarded in terms of seats for the number of votes they received.
First past the post (a plurality system) usually produces majoritarian representation
In this sense the Westminster system of governments requiring 50% (+1) 326 seats is majoritarian.
This type of representation often ensures that one party obtains a majority of the seats in a legislature. It is associated with strong single party government
The Alternative Vote and the Supplementary Vote are majoritarian systems which attempt to provide majoritarian representation
Proportional representation can be ascribed some of the following features: There is a close correlation between the number of votes cast and the number of seats which are obtained. This means that often political parties are rewarded with a fair share of the
seats for the votes they obtained.
seats for the votes they obtained.
At its optimum level this would mean for example that if a party received 30% of the vote cast it should receive 30% of the seats available.
It is said to confer a greater sense of legitimacy on governments which are formed subsequent to an election
Often proportional representation means that a majority one party government is not achieved and that coalitions are the normal outcome of this system.
The list system, AMS and STV are proportional systems which aim to provide proportional representation
c) How far does the Westminster electoral system ensure strong and stable government?
There is evidence that general elections provide strong and stable government on the following grounds:
The election of May 2010 is the only once since 1974 where no single party has been in office without a clear majority.
Even the May 2010 outcome has been (thus far) a stable and strong government
The norm of the Westminster system has been to provide stability. Often with landslide majorities
This stability and strength has allowed governments to carry out their manifesto pledges with a clear mandate
Building on from the above this strength and stability can be reflected at general elections where with lines of clear accountability a strong government can be reviewed and held in check
Governments have invariably run for their full term and this has provided a clear strategy to plan for example in economic terms. Once again the Coalition agreement has drawn up plans for this.
Governments have the strength and conviction to carry out major decisions and fundamental reforms. Again still true as the current government has made significant policy changes.
The use of first past the post allows for, and by design produces strong and stable government
General elections provide the cohesion and impetus for party politics and this contributes to the strength unity and stability which results.
Strength and stability is provided at the expense of fairness in representation
However there is evidence that general elections do not ensure strong and stable government
Some have alleged that the workings of the Westminster system in May 2010 exposed its failings as opposed to displaying its strengths and stability.
Low turn out and participation in the Westminster system reduces legitimacy and may undermine stability and strength
Governments who have large majorities are not necessarily strong and stable. Brown had a large majority for instance, but in the final stages his government was often seen as weak and unstable
Strong and stable government, it can be argued, is more likely to arise from party discipline than from the electoral system
If a government has a small majority or no majority under the Westminster system, they can be seen as weak and unstable eg. Major (1992-1997)
It is possible that the Westminster electoral system could produce coalition governments which are weak and unstable
Governments can become unstable and weak, not as a result of the Westminster electoral system, but as a result of the vast range of external factors ranging from economic factors to sleaze.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS JUNE 2011
a) Distinguish between a mandate and a manifesto.
A manifesto is a document published by a political party in the run up to an election. It outlines, in more or less detail, the policies the party would implement if elected to power.
A mandate is an instruction or command that gives authority to a person or body to act in a particular way. A popular or electoral mandate gives a party that has won an election, in the sense of winning majority control of the legislature, the authority to carry out its ‘promises’, although there may be differences between a policy mandates and the broader idea of a ‘mandate to govern’.
b) Explain the workings of three electoral systems used in the UK.
There are numerous types of electoral systems in use in the UK these include:
First past the post (FPTP) which is used for Westminster elections. This is a simple plurality system where the winner requires only a plurality of votes in a single member constituency, each voter having only one vote.
For the European Parliament the UK uses the closed party list. Here the UK is split into regions and parties place names on a list and are allocated seats in terms of the % of vote they receive.
For the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales and for the members of the GLA the additional member system (AMS) is used. Here the voter casts two votes, one for the constituency based representative and the next from a party lists which servers to add additional members to those elected members. The balance between these differs from different bodies.
The system of single transferable vote (STV) is used for the Northern Ireland Assembly and for elections to local government in Scotland. It is a system of preferential voting where voters rank their preferences in order of choice with the vote eventually registering with a successful candidates. This stem employs multi- member constituencies and relies on the use of a quota.
The system of the Supplementary Vote (SV) is used for elections for the elected mayor in London. The voter has two preferences and can select two candidates in order of preference. On the first count if one person has got 50% of the vote they are declared the victor. If no candidate secure 50% then second preferences are taken into account and the winner is the first to reach the 50% level when their second preferences are allocated.
AV the Alternative Vote, is used extensively by major political parties for selecting their leader. It is a preferential system where a voter ranking their preferences in order.
c) Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed?
There are a range of arguments which suggest that the Westminster electoral system should be reformed. These include:
Poor votes to seats ratio, small parties such as the Liberal Democrats get an unfair return form the number of votes they receive
Fewer than one third of MPs get 50% of the vote in their constituencies
Governments unfairly claim legitimacy when in fact they often only have got about one third of the vote
Under this system few seats actually change hands and the election is won and lost in 20% of the seats contested
The current system gives poor social representation under other electoral systems this improves
However, there are a range of arguments which suggest that the Westminster electoral system should be not reformed. These include:
It keeps out extremist parties who may get a foothold and credibility if other systems were used
The recent result of the national referendum proves that there is little public support for the current system to be changed
The current system provides a constituency with an MP and this is an important link in representative democracy which may be lost if PR systems were to be used.
It delivers strong and stable government.
It allows mandate democracy to operate – voters get what they vote for.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS – JANUARY 2012
a) Outline the workings of the Party List electoral system.
The Party List electoral systems can be characterised as follows:
The system is one of proportional representation
The system requires voters to choose a political party and usually not an individual candidate.
Seats are allocated to reflect the % vote a party receives
Lists can be open or closed and regional or national.
Specific examples of the workings of list systems can be used such as the UK European elections and elsewhere.
b) Explain three criticisms of the ‘first past the post’ electoral system.
Note: ONLY CHOOSE THREE OF THE FOLLOWING AND EXPLAIN EACH ONE IN DEPTH WITH A RANGE OF EFFECTIVE EXAMPLES.
There are numerous criticisms of the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, some of which include:
It favours in the main the two largest parties, Labour and the Conservatives
By contrast it unfairly discriminates against smaller parties who may have widespread support but not concentrated numbers.
It creates electoral deserts and safe seats where voters may feel that their vote is worthless. This may disengage voters and lead to declining turnout
It leads to certain voters having to vote tactically instead of their first choice
It produces numerous anomalies, MP’s returned without 50% of the vote in their constituencies and governments elected with large majorities on less than 40% of the national vote.
c) Make out a case in favour of retaining the ‘first past the post’ electoral system for the House of Commons.
The current system of electing MPs to Westminster uses the first past the post(fptp) method. This is a plurality system where one vote more than your nearest rival secures the seat. It is also know as a single member, simple majority system as one more vote in a constituency secures the seat for one person. It is also referred to as a ‘winner takes all’ system where there are no rewards for those who come second no matter what the margin. Those who argue that it should be retained cite amongst other reasons some the following justifications.
It is a tried and tested system allowing strong governments to form. This means that a new government can carry out its manifest pledges and have a secure term in office to see these changes implemented.
It provides clear lines of accountability both at a constituency level but also at a national or governmental level. This means that MPs can have their post confirmed if they perform a good job. Similarly governments can have their terms renewed if the public are content.
If the public are unhappy the government can be ‘thrown out’ as were the Conservatives in 1997 and Labour in 2010
It is prized for its simplicity and speed. The public understand its operation and confusion that arises during voting and the distribution afterwards with some systems is problematical.
The public are in the main content with first past the post as seen in the results of the AV referendum. Other political issues are of more pressing nature than voting reform such as the economy.
Turnout has fallen but so has turnout where other voting systems are used hence it is not a voting system issue which explains falling turnout.
First past the post is less likely to lead to coalitions which some consider to be weak and unstable.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS JUNE 2012
a) Describe three different elections regularly held in the UK.
Elections occur in the UK across quite a wide spectrum and are a key component of the UK system of representative democracy. It is important that responses indicate where/when they are used. A definition of an electoral system alone will not secure credit:
General Elections which provide members of Parliament for all geographical locations in the UK. They also serve to determine the government of the UK and are seen as the most important elections in the UK
By-elections serve to provide representatives when a vacancy arises
Local elections provide representation at a lower level and elect councillors who administer certain services in the locality.
Elections to the devolved assemblies provide representatives for regional government in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.
Elections take place for regionally elected mayors which include London.
Elections take place to secure representatives for the EU. These are fixed term
b) Explain three strengths of “first-past-the-post‟ electoral system.
There are numerous strengths associated with the first-past-the-post electoral system:
It is said to be a simple system easily understood by the electorate with the candidate who secures the most votes secures the contest.
It is efficient in that it is a speedy process with results being quickly declared
It ensures a close and productive relationship with the representative and a designated geographical area.
It produces (in the main) governments who have a clear working majority to pass their legislation. These governments are associated with strengths
Also associated with fptp is stability, governments as noted can carry out their manifesto and serve their full term in office
It keeps extremism at bay, small extreme groups are denied access to wide scale representation.
c) To what extent do different electoral systems produce different outcomes?
Different electoral systems can and do produce different outcomes. This can be seen in relation to the party system, party representation, proportionality, coalition, single party government etc.
FPTP is said to produce stronger governments with a clear working majority. FPTP is said to be quicker and simpler. It operates in single member constituencies. It creates less fair representation. It favours large parties to the detriment of the smaller ones. It produces “safe seats‟ and “electoral deserts‟. It is alleged to drive down turnout as voters feel their votes are wasted.
AMS used in the devolved assemblies/parliament is confusing for voters who select two types of representatives and it appears that losers are compensated on party lists over which the electorate have no choice. Its outcome is made more proportional by its constituency list top up.
The Closed Party List is used to elect MEP‟s. This is the most proportional of all systems used in the UK. The two main parties collect less than 50% of the vote and the outcome more accurately reflects how people voted. The results are accurate and fair shares are given out, serving to show the unfairness of other systems.
SV, AV and STV may also be covered
Different electoral systems also produce similar outcomes. This can be seen in relation to the party system, party representation, proportionality, coalition, single party government etc.
FPTP in Westminster has produced a coalition government and AMS in Scotland has produced a single party government.
All electoral systems used in the UK provide geographical representation to varying degrees.
The major parties tend to dominate in outcomes whatever electoral system is used.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS – JANUARY 2013
a) What is meant by the term party system?
A party system examines political parties in the political structure and attempts to place them in to various categories or types
The party system attempts to define the relationships within the political structure as to how parties function and operate and importantly how close they are to achieving governing status/power
A two party system is where only two of the parties (out of many) who contest the election have any chance of achieving governmental power
A two and a half party system is where there are two major parties who can have a significant take in government plus a minor or ‘third party’ this is similar to the current situation in the UK
Other party system categories include multi-party systems and one party dominant systems.
b) Explain how and why party representation may be affected by any three different electoral systems.
There are several ways by which different electoral systems affect party representation
FPTP ensures a winners bonus whereby the governing party enjoys a higher % of seats that their vote collected, it also can discriminate against parties who have a geographical spread of votes as opposed to a concentration of votes
The Closed Party list ensures a more accurate % of vote to % of seats than other systems and is very proportional. It benefits smaller parties. The Closed List serves to reduce the bias to the large parties enjoyed under FPTP. Smaller parties who fair badly under FPTP may have an improved representation under the Closed List system e.g. UKIP
The list component of AMS compensates parties who have not been successful under the constituency element of the system. The Conservative Party has benefited from this in the Scottish Devolved elections.
c) Assess the advantages of using proportional representation electoral systems.
Many advantages have been cited for the use of proportional electoral systems.
It is claimed that proportional systems increase turnout as voters feel that
their vote will count and be effective, it will not be wasted and used to make a difference. However evidence is not conclusive as to this claim, for example turnout for devolved elections is not higher than those for Westminster elections.
their vote will count and be effective, it will not be wasted and used to make a difference. However evidence is not conclusive as to this claim, for example turnout for devolved elections is not higher than those for Westminster elections.
It is claimed that proportional systems increase legitimacy as the outcome is more accurate it means that both Governments and individual representatives can rightly claim victory with a ‘fair’ system of turning votes in to seats. However following elections in the UK under non-proportional systems such as FPTP there is no heavily contested argument over the victor, for even following the outcome of the May 2010 General Election the formation of the coalition was seen as legitimate and just
Proportional electoral systems will produce a more reflective and accurate outcome for small parties who under simple plurality systems will suffer, in reality this may mean growth and fair representation for the Green Party for example. However it may mean that some extreme parties gain a foothold in Parliamentary politics which have racist and un-democratic views and this could de-stabilise society.
Proportional electoral systems are more likely to produce a coalition government which has at its core compromise and conciliation between different views in society. However, coalitions can also be unstable and may fragment society as such proportional systems may harm democratic government.
Under proportional electoral systems there are less likely to be ‘safe seats’ as under plurality systems. Seats which do not change hands and where some voters feel that their vote will simply be wasted and does not count, under systems of PR this is less prone to occur. However it is inevitable that some votes will have to be wasted, we cannot all vote for the winner and elections have to be combative and produce an outcome and a winner, PR is prone not to deliver a clear end result.
Political Parties
• Definition
• Characteristics
• Roles and Functions
• Ideologies
• Programmes, Policies and Manifestos
• Changing Party Images, Consulting Wider Opinion, Involvement of Non Party members (for example in focus groups)
• Characteristics
• Roles and Functions
• Ideologies
• Programmes, Policies and Manifestos
• Changing Party Images, Consulting Wider Opinion, Involvement of Non Party members (for example in focus groups)
Definition
“An organised and relatively disciplined group of people who freely combine together to advance a set of political attitudes and beliefs with a view to translating them via victory at a general election into government decisions or parliamentary legislation.”Forman, Mastering British Politics, 1985
A political party is therefore voluntary, organised, possesses beliefs and translates these into policies or legislation. It also assumes that political parties have a set of core beliefs which may change slowly over time.
Characteristics
1. They are organisations which possess a relative degree of permanence.
2. They contest elections and seek to place members in positions of influence in the legislature.
3. They attempt to occupy key executive positions in the political system and if not then to exercise influence on the executive. (e.g. the opposition)
4. Parties hold distinctive labels and organisational structures which distinguish them from other political parties.
Roles and Functions
According to Mackenzie (British Political Parties, 1955) political parties fulfil a number of essential functions within the British system of government. These functions are as follows.
• A Governing Function
• An Opposition Function
• An Electoral Function
• A Policy Function
• A Representation Function
• A Participation Function
• A Communication Function
• An Organisation Function
Each of these functions requires some elaboration and exploration.
The Governing Function
Since (and including) 1945, there have been 18 general elections. In each of these, political parties have competed for the electorate’s mandate (or permission) to govern. In the British system of government a single party usually secures a mandate to become the single party of government. Since 1945, either theConservative Party or the Labour Party has formed the government and given the general level of bedrock support for these two main parties these are the only realistic contenders for office. Most of the other UK political parties seek to influence the government of the day and to secure parliamentary representation in the House of Commons in the form of seats gained.
The minimum number of seats required in order to form a majority government is 323 – 50% +1 seat over all other parties combined out of 646 seats. This gives the largest party a majority over all other parties in the House of Commons, though in practice any governing party will usually require a workable majority of about 40 seats.
In the 18 General Elections since the war there have been sixteen majority governments returned. The exceptions came in February 1974 when Labour obtained 301 seats, the Conservatives 297 and other parties 37 and in May 2010 when the Conservatives with 307 seats fell short of the required number of seats and joined a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.
in 1974, Labour was therefore the largest party but without an overall majority. Such Governments are termed minority governments and it is usually very difficult for such administrations to implement their programme without cross party support.
An Opposition Function
The party which obtains the second largest number of seats in the House of Commons following a general election is termed the opposition (The official title is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.) The function of the opposition is to oppose the government of the day and present alternative policies with which to persuade the electorate that it is ready to become the government. The opposition has a shadow cabinet, a team of ‘ministers’ ready to assume office if they win a general election. Watch this Clip of Harriet Harman opposing the coalition’s first Queens Speech.
The Electoral Function
During a general election the parties compete for seats on a constituency by constituency basis. This means that each of the 649 seats in the House of Commons represents a geographical area within the United Kingdom, termed a constituency. The electorate within the constituency choose between the candidates who have put themselves forward as prospective MPs (Members of Parliament). Candidates are usually adopted by the main political parties and put forward to contest the seat on behalf of the party. It is not unusual for candidates to put themselves forward as independents or fringe candidates but they are most unlikely to succeed. An exception to this rule from the 1997 General Election is when a former BBC journalist Martin Bell stood in the Tatton Constituency Division of Cheshire and beat the incumbent MP Neil Hamilton. In 2001 Dr Richard Taylor successfully contested Wyre Forest under the slogan ‘Save Kidderminster Hospital”
When making a choice between the candidates the electorate rely heavily on the party label in making assumptions about that particular candidates politics. The major parties tend to contest all the seats although the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not field candidates in Northern Ireland.
A Policy Function
Political parties are organisations of principle and practice. They hold, though not always rigidly, a set of core assumptions about human nature and society and attempt to design and advance policies which reflect those core assumptions. However it is the realisation that policies must be popular as well as ideologically pure that forces parties to translate their core assumptions into policies which will have broad appeal. Only in 1945 and 1979, 1983 and 1987 have parties been able to translate those core assumptions into policies which have proved electorally popular with the creation of the welfare state under Attlee and the privatisation programmes of the Thatcher administrations. When a party pursues its core assumptions with vigour this is normally likely only to appeal to a narrow section of the electorate, insufficient to win a majority in parliament. The prime examples of this are the Conservatives in 2001 and the Labour Party in 1983. According to McKenzie it is necessary for political parties in a democracy to moderate their policies in order to appeal to as wide a section of the electorate as possible.
A Representation Function
The British system of government is sometimes referred to as a representative democracy. This means that political parties fulfil the function of representing the views and opinions of the electorate. A general election is held to be the simplest way of ascertaining the views of the electorate although sometimes and more frequently under new Labour, referenda, an instrument of direct democracy, have been employed to obtain a mandate for a specific, usually constitutional, measure. M.P.s as representative both of party and constituents are one means by which parties are able to fulfil this key function.
A Participation Function
According to Mackenzie political parties are also vehicles of participation in the political process. It is difficult to imagine becoming involved in formal politics without first obtaining membership of a political party. Many people involve themselves in politics by joining pressure groups or engaging in other forms of extra parliamentary activity, but the primary route to influence is through joining a political party and advancing one’s career within a political party.
A Communication Function
Political parties serve the vital function of listening to (sometimes!) and communicating with the electorate. This allows for the electorate to make an informed choice between the parties and candidates at elections. The function of communication with the electorate is met by a number of strategies including:
• leafleting at a local or constituency level
• press, television and radio interviews with major party figures up to and including the P.M.
• the use of print and billboard advertising
• the televising of party conferences
• the publication of the manifesto
• photo opportunities
• focus groups
• party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts
• press, television and radio interviews with major party figures up to and including the P.M.
• the use of print and billboard advertising
• the televising of party conferences
• the publication of the manifesto
• photo opportunities
• focus groups
• party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts
Parties are increasingly aware of the need for effective communication and public relations. This has lead to the development that in presenting policies parties are more concerned with style, image and presentation rather than with the substance of the policies. The accusation that new Labour uses too much spin comes from this.
An Organisation Function
As vehicles of mass participation political parties have several layers of internal organisation, sometimes called the party machine. The relative importance of each of these usually reflects the internal distribution of power within the party. The key to successfully fighting a general election is that the party is very well organised internally. This in itself however is no guarantee of electoral success.
Ideologies
Ideologies are a set of coherent beliefs which may explain current social, political and economic arrangements, justify them or offer a prescription for change. Over the decades the main political parties have struggled between maintaining their ideological identities and adapting them to changing circumstances. All political parties recognise the importance of retaining their core beliefs and identities but must also square these with what has the potential to appeal to the electorate. In his 1st conference speech as Leader of the Labour Party Tony Blair said that “…we must change or die…”
• The Conservative Party
For significant periods of modern British history it has been the dominant governing party, but it has also suffered divisions, defeats and spells in opposition.
The Conservatives adapted to the agenda set by the Attlee governments whilst in opposition during the 1945-1951 Labour governments, and overhauled both organisation and policy. As a result, between the late 1940s and the early 1970s the Conservatives accepted the pillars of the post-war ‘consensus’: the Welfare State, the public ownership of certain industries, government intervention in economic affairs, and partnership in industry between trade unions and employers. Although Churchill remained rather unenthusiastic, these policies enabled the Conservatives to regain power in 1951 and then to remain in office continuously until 1964.
To general surprise, Heath won the 1970 election and became Prime Minister. Despite his personal achievement in taking Britain into the Common market, the failures of the Heath ministry of 1970-1974 have been the catharsis of modern Conservatism. The reversals of policy, the failure to control inflation or contain the trade unions through legislation on industrial relations, and two defeats at the hands of the coal-miners led first to the fall of Heath and second to the rise and development of Thatcherism. After losing the two elections of February and October 1974, Heath was forced to hold a ballot for the Party leadership in February 1975 in which he was defeated by Margaret Thatcher.
In opposition during 1975-1979 the new leader developed a radical agenda founded upon the ‘free market’, rolling back government intervention and leaving as much as possible to individual initiative. This was the core of Thatcherism.
Andrew Gamble of Sheffield University identifies six core components of Thatcherism. These are:
• Economic Liberalism
• Monetarism
• Anti Corporatism
• Individualism
• Populism
• Authoritarianism
• Monetarism
• Anti Corporatism
• Individualism
• Populism
• Authoritarianism
Concern over economic decline and the power wielded by the trade unions created a receptive public mood, and Thatcher led the Conservatives to three successive victories in 1979, 1983 and 1987. She was the dominant political personality throughout the 1980s, especially after securing victory in the Falklands war of 1982. She is widely credited with restoring Britain’s status as an enterprise-based economy and as a significant influence on the international stage. However, at the end of the decade economic recession, her commitment to the deeply unpopular ‘poll tax’, and internal disputes over European policy led to Mrs Thatcher’s defeat in a leadership ballot in November 1990.
From Major to Howard
The successor to emerge from this contest was the relatively unknown figure of John Major, the candidate thought most able to unify a divided and traumatised party. Major abandoned the ‘poll tax’ and presented a more ‘caring’ image, and support for the Conservatives improved enough for him to hold on to a narrow majority in the general election of April 1992. However, this margin was steadily eroded during the following parliament, and by 1997 his administration was clinging on by its fingertips.
The Major government of 1992-1997 was a painful period for the Conservative Party, and opinion poll ratings slumped to record lows following the economic fiasco of ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992. The most serious problems were caused by a recession which hit Conservative support in southern England, a collapse of normal party unity over the increasingly contentious issue of Europe, and ‘sleaze’ – a string of personal scandals involving Conservative ministers and MPs. Press hostility and a modernised Labour opposition prevented the Conservatives from recovering when the economic position improved, and on 1 May 1997 they suffered their third and final sweeping defeat of the twentieth century. Only 165 MPs survived, and Major at once resigned the leadership; in his place, the Party selected its youngest leader in modern times, William Hague.
The Conservatives were unable to recover ground during the 1997-2001 Parliament. The party remained unpopular with the public, whilst the Labour government’s careful management of the economy meant that it survived any other difficulties without lasting damage. Hague followed a more ‘Euro-sceptic’ policy, ruling out joining the single European currency. This caused tensions in the party but also led to its greatest success in the period, doubling its seats to 36 in the European Parliament elections of June 1999. However, concentration on Europe was less effective in the June 2001 general election, and Conservative hopes of at least a partial recovery were dashed. 166 MPs were elected, only one more than in 1997, and on the morning after the poll Hague announced his resignation. A new selection procedure had been introduced, and after ballots of Conservative MPs the two leading candidates went forward to a vote of the party membership in September 2001. Iain Duncan Smith secured 155,933 votes to Kenneth Clarke’s 100,864, and so became the new leader of the Conservative Party.
During the following two years there was little sign of improvement in the Party’s fortunes, as the domestic, political and economic situation remained largely unchanged. The Conservatives supported the policy of Prime Minister Tony Blair in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in the spring and summer of 2003. This was in tune with Conservative opinion whilst the Labour Party was deeply divided over the issue, but the war did not change the relative popularity of the two parties. A significant minority of Conservative MPs had been doubtful about Duncan Smith’s leadership from the outset, and the lack of improvement in the Party’s position caused this number to increase during the summer and autumn of 2003. The criticism and speculation culminated in a ballot of Conservative MPs on 29 October, in which Duncan Smith was defeated by 75 votes to 90. The desire of the party to avoid further disunity was shown when only one candidate was nominated for the vacant leadership, and so a contest was avoided. Michael Howard was declared Leader on 6 November; although older than both of his predecessors, he had the asset of considerable experience of government, having been a cabinet minister from 1990. After losing the 2005 General Election and remaining below 200 seats the Conservatives opted for the modernisation agenda of David Cameron who in 2010 returned the party to government, albeit as a coalition government with the LIberal Democrats.
• The Labour Party
The Labour Party has historically been held to be a socialist party. Though there are many definitions of socialism a basic characteristic of it is that it is concerned with the pursuit of equality. There are perhaps 3 basic dimensions: social equality, political equality and economic equality.
• Social Equality
This is the idea that all people are of equal worth regardless of social class, age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality or disability. In office Labour has legislated against forms of discrimination, in the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and the Race Relations Act (1976). Prejudice (an attitude) is of course much harder to tackle than discrimination (a behaviour).
• Political Equality
The idea is that all persons should have equal access to political rights such as the vote and the right to stand as a candidate.
• Economic Equality
Economic equality is of course very difficult to achieve. In fact it is so difficult that it is not truly an aim of the Labour Party. Instead, equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome, is the stated aim of the Labour party. Given wide ranging social class divisions even equality of opportunity is very difficult to achieve.
The degree to which the Labour Party has been ‘committed’ to socialism has often been called into question. An examination of how socialist the Labour Party is needs to take into account its record in office as well as changes in its commitments and policies when in opposition. It is particularly difficult to conceive of today’s Labour Party as a socialist party, given the emphasis on ‘New Labour’ by Tony Blair and other leading figures in the party.
The Labour Party: a brief history
In 1900 the Labour Representation Committee was formed to secure seats in parliament for representatives of the trade union movement and the industrial working class.
In 1906, at the General Election, 29 seats were obtained by the LRC and the parliamentary Labour party was officially formed.
In 1918 Sydney and Beatrice Webb drafted a constitution for the Labour Party. The key feature of the constitution was Clause 4, part four, which stated the aims of the party:
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and for the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”.
This clause has historically been referred to as the ‘nationalisation clause’
In 1945 Labour obtained a landslide majority of 146 in Parliament. Set against the context of the war, and of the hardships of the depression ridden 1930s, the Attlee government pledged to build ‘A ‘New Jerusalem’. In 1942 the Beveridge Report had identified 5 Giant Ills, which had stalked the 1930s: Poverty, Ignorance, Disease, Squalor and Want. The Welfare state, designed to care for citizens ’from the cradle to the grave’ was introduced. The key planks of the post war consensus were laid in the first term of the Attlee government:
• The Implementation of the 1944 White Paper on Employment – Full Employment
• The Implementation of the 1944 Butler Education Act: Free Compulsory Education to the age of 15
• The Nationalisation of the ‘Commanding heights’ of the economy: Clause Four
• The Creation of the Welfare state – a system of pensions, disability and unemployment benefits, based on national insurance contributions
• The Creation of the NHS in 1948 – free health care at the point of delivery.
• The Implementation of the 1944 Butler Education Act: Free Compulsory Education to the age of 15
• The Nationalisation of the ‘Commanding heights’ of the economy: Clause Four
• The Creation of the Welfare state – a system of pensions, disability and unemployment benefits, based on national insurance contributions
• The Creation of the NHS in 1948 – free health care at the point of delivery.
These reforms laid the planks of the post war consensus, observed by both Conservative and Labour Governments until the mid 1970s when the post war consensus collapsed and both parties moved away from the centre.
On taking office in 1997, Tony Blair said: “We were elected as new Labour and we will govern as new labour”. The concept of New Labour predates Blair’s leadership election in 1994. In fact, New Labour has its antecedents as far back as June 9th 1983. The election of Neil Kinnock in Oct 1983 marked the beginning of an extraordinary shift not only in the Labour Party’s ideological positioning, but also in its internal structure and organisation.
The political theorist Maurice Duverger (Political Parties 1959) argued that political parties experiencing defeat often engaged in a process of what he called “structural tinkering”. The theory is that, having lost an election, the party needs to change the internal balance of power, in order to ideologically reposition itself. The birth and development of New Labour is a case in point.
Under Neil Kinnock’s leadership, a series of internal reforms was initiated, designed to reduce the power of the left and the power of the trade unions. This reorganisation was also an attempt to relate to the electorate that Labour was changing, and that factors which made it unpopular, such as the dominance of the unions over the party, and the infiltration of the Party by members of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency, were being addressed.
In 1987, Labour ran a good campaign, but lost the election. A slightly improved performance appeared to vindicate the reforms thus far implemented. In the aftermath of the 1987 defeat, Labour launched a policy review, had already replaced the red flag (reminiscent of the Eastern European state socialism) with the red rose, emblematic of Western European social democracy. It was a visual cue to the electorate, symbolic of Labour’s distancing itself from hard left policies.
The policy review and the subsequent “Labour Listens” campaign, constituted further evidence of Labour attempting to persuade the electorate that it had changed. One negative perception of such initiatives was that Labour was unprincipled and would do and say anything to obtain office. Although Labour ran the Conservatives close in 1992, it lost its fourth general election in a row.
The death of John Smith in May 1994 gave the architects of New Labour, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, the opportunity to seize the party leadership and accelerate the transition from Old Labour to New Labour. Symbolic of Old Labour was Clause 4, Part 4 of the 1918 constitution, the so-called “Nationalisation Clause”. Tony Blair, in 1995, managed to persuade the party to ditch Clause 4 in favour of a new statement of values. John Prescott, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party called the new statement “traditional values in a modern setting”.
The New Clause Four
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so, as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential, and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity is in the hands of the many and not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
New Labour embraced the private sector in a way that Old Labour could never have done, and many of its policies were more radical than even the Conservatives could have contemplated, including the privatisation of air traffic control, privatisation of the Tube network, cuts in single parent benefits and the introduction of tuition top-up fees.
Tony Blair called the accusation that New Labour was just the same as the Conservatives, a lie. He pointed to the windfall tax on the privatised utilities, which created 1.5m jobs for the New Deal, which virtually eradicated youth unemployment. He pointed also to the constitutional reforms which the Conservatives have opposed every step of the way and he also introduced the national minimum wage and signed up for the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, which gives millions of part-time workers rights and benefits they previously did not enjoy.
Every Labour government since the war has dazzled and then disappointed especially on economic policy. The outstanding achievement of New Labour was to steer the economy clear of recession for 43 successive quarters and make Labour the electorate’s preference over the Tories for economic management, until the financial crisis of 2008 ripped that reputation and hard won confidence to shreds. Despite attempts to label the crisis as a global one (this worked for the Conservatives in 1991) the electorate never really warmed to Brown.
Old Labour Policies and Image:
• Nationalisation
• income tax rises for the well-off
• social spending
• no private engagement in the public sector
• party control over the manifesto
• strong links with unions
• reputation for economic mismanagement and inflation
• a reputation for extremism
• income tax rises for the well-off
• social spending
• no private engagement in the public sector
• party control over the manifesto
• strong links with unions
• reputation for economic mismanagement and inflation
• a reputation for extremism
New Labour Policies and Image
• A reputation for strong economic management
• public-private partnerships (PFI = private finance initiative in public services)
• national minimum wage and the New Deal
• tuition top-up fees
• cuts in disability and single-parent benefits
• constitutional reform
• moderate public image
• public-private partnerships (PFI = private finance initiative in public services)
• national minimum wage and the New Deal
• tuition top-up fees
• cuts in disability and single-parent benefits
• constitutional reform
• moderate public image
A recent argument for Labour to return to its 1945 heritage and roots
Some policies of the Labour Party:
i) Labour have stated that they want employee representation on committees where levels of remuneration (pay) are determined. The point of this is the general concern about wide disparities of pay between lowest and highest earners. This resonates particularly in difficult times when workers are suffering a pay freeze while executive pay at the top has continued to rise. Pay of top executives has increased massively over the last 20 years or so. This is obviously a Labour Party type policy that highlights the levels of inequality in society and aims to produce policies to tackle it.
ii) Labour have stated that he is concerned about the prospects of the bottom 50% of society, particularly those who do not go to university, and who have been disadvantaged in recent years by lack of job opportunities (unemployment in the 16-24 year old age group is high). He aims to expand the number of apprenticeships and to develop meaningful skills by encouraging organisations to take on and train young people. This again is related to concern for those toward the bottom of society. It aims to offer opportunity for all.
iii) Labour have previously brought in the minimum wage, and have supported a ‘living wage’. This is from the Independent in September 2012,
‘A future Labour Government could encourage the introduction of a living wage much higher than the national minimum wage, Ed Miliband suggested today. The Labour leader praised the growing grassroots campaign for an £8.30 an hour living wage in London and £7.20 an hour outside the capital to reflect the real cost of living. The figures are significantly higher than the legally-binding £6.08 an hour minimum wage…..The living wage could form part of a shift in Labour’s anti-poverty strategy from old-style redistribution through tax credits and state benefits to “predistribution”. The aim would be to boost wage packets by improving education, skills training and urging companies to pay more.’
This is clearly a policy that is again intended to support those earning the least. It fulfils the social democratic goal of attempting to achieve greater equality in society.
This is clearly a policy that is again intended to support those earning the least. It fulfils the social democratic goal of attempting to achieve greater equality in society.
iv) All parties are trying to think about ways to rebalance the UK economy away from what is seen as the excessive reliance on financial services. It has been argued that the UK suffered especially badly in the financial crisis of 2007/08 because of this – put simply, too much concentration on the City of London and banking, and not enough on other ways to generate wealth ie manufacturing industries. For Labour under Miliband one of the ways to address this is through the creation of regional banks – they would help to develop a more balanced economy, not just in terms of variety of industries, but also geographically. The UK has a huge wealth divide, roughly between north and south. These banks might help to address this disparity.
v) (September 2013) Labour have highlighted the ‘cost of living crisis’, focusing notably on energy costs. This chimes with their overarching theme that the fruits of economic growth over the past 20-30 years have not been enjoyed evenly. The top 10-20% have done well. The top 1% has done extremely well. But the lower & middle groups in society have done relatively poorly. They thus came up with the phrase ‘the squeezed middle’, referring to those people in work but whose salary is not keeping up with the cost of living. It is these people who are being targeted by Labour. Labour promised at their 2013 conference to cap energy costs. This is a clear social democratic aspiration again, because it aims to help the bottom 50%.
vi) This was not discussed at conference (September 2013) but the idea of moving back to some form of public ownership of the railways is being considered by senior Labour politicians. Clearly this would be a social democratic move, because it embodies the idea of collective ownership (see the socialism box in textbook – p113). The way it would be done might not be exactly like the old style nationalisation, but it would be similar enough to argue that this is traditional left wing policy (This is not official policy yet but it is interesting because it demonstrates a clear shift from the New Labour years under Blair/Brown – there is no way that this would be even considered)
Some policies associated with the Lib Dems (obviously there is a coalition, but some policies are more associated with one party rather than another):
i) House of Lords reform – the Lib Dems were (and still are) constitutional radicals. They want to reform a number of institutions. They want a more democratic system of governance in the UK, and an elected House of Lords would move some way to achieving this. All liberals want to disperse power away from the centre, and they tend to feel that an elected House of Lords would be more assertive in checking the power of the government.
ii) Electoral reform – Lib Dems want, ideally, to move to a more proportional electoral system. They favour the Single Transferable Vote (STV), but in the coalition agreement were forced to compromise and agreed to a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system. This was rejected by the public and we retain the FPTP system for general elections. The reason for their desire to move to another system would again be the aim to split power up – a more proportional system will tend to produce more coalition governments, which will (so the argument goes) lead to a weaker government (liberals have always been wary about concentrations of power in society – power within the central state is one of the main examples of this). It would also represent a ‘fairer’ distribution of seats in relation to votes cast – as the Lib Dems have been winning appoximately 20% of votes or more, and have won only 9% of seats (57 seats out of 650)
iii) The Lib Dems have been associated with the introduction of the Pupil Premium (extra money for schools that take poor pupils). They try to tell everyone (very loudly) that they are responsible for this in order to please their left leaning supporters (because it is supposed to help those toward the bottom of society), who don’t like being in coalition with the Conservatives.
iv) They have also been associated with the policy to take the lowest paid workers out of paying income tax. The plan is, eventually, for the first £10k to be tax free. Again this is supposed to be ‘progressive’ ie a policy that promotes greater equality, and highlights the differences between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives ie that the former are more to the left than their coalition partners.
Policies associated with the Conservative Party (see above re Lib Dems)
i) The austerity programme – cuts to public spending are presented by the Conservatives as being necessary in our current economic situation. Actually though this provides cover for a typical Conservative Party aspiration. Their instinct is always to cut the size of the public sector (civil service, local government, health service, education etc), and to cut spending on social provision (ie housing benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness and disability benefit etc). They have a number of reasons for this – notably they tend to feel that it is illegitimate to take money from people in the form of taxation (whether in the form of income tax, property tax, inheritance tax etc). They feel that this money is rightfully theirs – this is, for them, a moral issue. In his speech to the conference (September/October 2013), George Osborne continued to emphasise the desire for austerity. There is a debate here (see Heywood p122-124) about whether this austerity programme is driven by economics or politics. Heywood and others suggest that it is a clear political move designed to shrink the size of the public sector rather than being an economic necessity.
ii) Connected with point 1, the Conservatives, since the 1980s embarked on a programme of privatisation. This has continued. Institutions and organisations that until now have been in the public sector are being opened up to private business. Notably, this is taking place in the prisons and probation service sector. Prisons are going to be run by private organisations. The controversy over the recent NHS bill was so intense for a number of reasons, but much of the concern was around the way in which it opened up parts of the health service to private companies. They tend to feel that services run privately are more efficient. So even for public services it is better that they should be run by private organisations. They sell this to the public by arguing that their taxes will be lower for the same level of service because of this efficiency gain. The Royal Mail is currently in the process of being privatised (October 2013)…this is another good example of the continuing push to shift as much as possible out of public ownership.
iii) The Conservatives have also been encouraging private citizens to take over and run public services. This is related to the Big Society agenda. So called ‘Free Schools’ are an extension of New Labour’s academy programme. They allow any organisation, individual, religious group etc to bid to run a school. They will be free of local authority control, and able to run it as they want, as long as they satisfy some key criteria ie they cannot ignore the national curriculum, so certain subjects must be taught. The idea behind it is again to undermine the state at a local level – they would be outside of control by the local council, answerable only to the Education Secretary. Once again, the state should be minimal because it is less efficient, but also, in the Big Society argument because it erodes social solidarity. That is, it prevents ‘intermediate institutions’, which inhabit a space in between individuals and the state, from developing.
The Conservatives keep mentioning that we are in a ‘global race’ (see how many times you spot this phrase). Underlying this is a sense that we must do what is necessary, however unpleasant, to become more competitive in an intensifying struggle with emerging economies (ie China). Whether you agree with them or not it is clearly an ideological device to make us see the Conservatives as ‘hard headed’ and ‘businesslike’ when compared to a Labour Party that doesn’t know how the UK is going to generate wealth in the future. For the Conservatives the only way to do this is to be ‘business friendly’ through, for instance, tax cuts for business people (otherwise known as ‘wealth creators’). This is the way that they justify the need for lower state spending, and lower taxes, precisely in order to encourage business men and women in the UK, and to attract overseas businesses to the UK. This is much of the updated rationale for neo-liberal (see Thatcherism discussion p116) policies, and was always the rationale for Thatcherism initially – the sense of relative economic decline and the need for some harsh medicine.
PARTIES JUNE 2009
Please be aware that all guidance for parties questions is dated and therefore needs to be reworked so that it reflects the contemporary policies and ideas. Examples dating back 2-4 years are still valid but care needs to be exercised when using them.
a) Outline two functions of a political party.
Political parties perform several functions in a political system; some of the following may be noted:
Political parties contest elections essential in a representative democracy.
They provide a channel whereby the public can participate in politics via voting or standing for office.
They promote political education by explaining their beliefs and ideas.
They bring together a coherent set of ideas and policies.
They provide the personnel of government.
b) In what ways has the Conservative Party distanced itself from Thatcherism?
Mrs Thatcher was removed as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party in November 1990 after leading the party to three successive electoral victories. Her distinct ideas shaped the Conservative Party and gave it a distinct brand. Since that point successive leaders and moves in the party have been unsure whether to carry on with her ideas and policies or distance themselves from them. The following can be noted as moves to distance the party from those ideas:
A move away from aggressive individualism which advocated that ‘there is no such thing as society’ to an acceptance of the need for a social conscience. This can be seen in the moves of Ian Duncan-Smith to David Cameron. In overview, a revival in a belief in the community instead of a focus on the individual.
A more forgiving and tolerant view of crime, not solely rooted in punishment but one also versed in tolerance and forgiveness, the so called ‘hug a hoodie’ approach mooted by Cameron.
A growing emphasis on the environment above economic priorities, and a radical commitment to environmental schemes.
A clearer commitment to state provision in certain areas but especially health.
An acceptance of the constitutional change ushered in by Labour, opposed in the 1990s.
A move to help the less fortunate in society via the state and other actors. This may be seen as an endorsement of social justice.
A more focused belief in the value and worth of civil rights than in the Thatcher period.
A move away from a culture which prized business above other sectors of society and towards an acceptance of the needs of other groups in society.
In education, a move away from endorsing selective methods to ensuring good educational provision for all.
c) To what extent is the Labour Party still committed to its traditional principles?
The Labour Party in the UK is often defined as a left-of-centre or even left-wing party. It has a constitutional commitment to socialism and has a focus on traditional principles, which defined the party in its inception and continue to mould its future. However, there have been questions raised about the commitment to and degree of relevance of these traditional principles.
The Labour Party is committed to the needs of the working classes and sees them as the most deserving section of society. As such it has tailored policies to alleviating this section’s material poverty. This can be seen in welfare programmes, including welfare benefits, tax credits and the minimum wage. The hesitant return of the 10p tax band is a case in point.
However, it is alleged that in order to be more electorally successful the Labour Party had had to widen its appeal to all classes and sections of society. In so doing it has reached out to other classes in society and also to the business and city groups.
The Labour Party is committed to be pro-state and favours intervention in the economy to secure fairness in society. The Labour Party has intervened in the economy where possible. It has nationalised Northern Rock and encouraged banks to merge in order to survive in a global market.
However, the wide scale nationalisation programme, long a commitment of Labour before and after the Second World War, has gone. It may be true that the emphasis of the new Clause IV is to control rather than to own.
Building on from the above, it may be seen that the Labour Party was in favour of a managed economy where the Government was a key actor in securing outcomes on its own terms. There has been a move now in the Party to work with a market economy and be bound by the rules which a market system dictates, thus rewarding individual merit and hard work as a prime motivator .
The Labour Party traditionally was not very active or productive in terms of constitutional change. It may have favoured reform, but this was never at its core.
However since 1997 the Labour Party has delivered one of the most radical constitutional reform programmes in over 100 years and has changed the political framework of the UK.
The Labour Party was committed to the provision of universal benefits available to all.
Now either by financial restraint or policy direction benefits are targeted to achieve economic well-being.
In overview, the Labour Party may be seen as less ideological and focused and more pragmatic. More practical in achieving realistic outcomes than unobtainable ones.
There is the accusation that Labour has adopted for the greater part the reforms of Mrs Thatcher and the Conservative Party. The belief is the so called Third Way, which is a re-programming of the traditional principles of the Labour Party. This can be viewed as part of the change from Old Labour to New Labour.
JANUARY 2010 POLITICAL PARTIES
a) Using an example, define consensus politics
Consensus politics can be defined by the following;
It refers to a situation in which the major political parties agree about key broad ideological goals.
The result of this overlap is that policy pronouncements and actions can be very similar between the major parties.
The degree of agreement does not necessarily need to be total and cover every issue, but it is significant and extensive.
The opposite or contrasting position is adversary politics where fundamental differences on ideology and policy options exist.
An example of policy consensus is the Butskellite consensus after the second world war which lasted until the mid to late 1970’s
A second example is the post-Thatcher consensus which developed in the 1990’s as the Labour Party accepted many of the policies of the Conservative governments of the 80’s & 90’s
b) Explain the ideas and policies which link the current Labour Party to socialism.
The Labour Party in the UK has shown a commitment to socialism in the UK. This type of socialism can be seen as revisionist in that it seeks to reform capitalism, not overthrow it. The commitment to socialism has always been a feature but levels of this have varied. Current indicators of socialism could include:
A firm belief in welfare to improve the conditions of the most vulnerable in society.
The above may be expressed in targeting benefits for those in greatest need such as those on low incomes or who may have disabilities
A clear commitment to equality and to make society work more harmoniously with the reduction of class differences.
Commitment to the NHS free at point of delivery
A commitment to improving education for all so that social mobility can more readily take place.
A belief in state action in the economy to regulate and protect as seen by the bank bailout. This links socialism to the reform of capitalism.
A belief that to an extent crime arises out of social deprivation and therefore if this is addressed then crime levels will fall.
c) To what extent is the current Conservative Party influenced by ‘One Nation’ principles?
One Nation conservatism has been a form of conservatism which has influenced the Conservative Party in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is based around several core features these include paternalism, pragmatism and consensus. A call of One Nation conservatism is to introduce social reform to diminish but not eliminate social inequalities, with the rich fulfilling an obligation (noblesse oblige) to the needs of the poor. Evidence that the Conservative Party is influenced by these principles include the following;
A commitment to avoid social deprivation by supporting limited welfare
A commitment to the NHS
A willingness to intervene in the economy to a limited degree to prevent social breakdown this may be seen as social liberalism
A willingness to accept that ‘there is such a thing as society’
A drive to accommodate social inclusion. This may include, for instance, minority groups.
An emphasis on duty and obligations on those who have reaped rewards in a society to those less fortunate.
Large acceptance of the constitutional changes of the Labour Party in office, pragmatism.
However, there are those who suggest that the Conservative Party is still more heavily influenced by Thatcherism than ‘One Nation’ ideas and they cite the following;
A strong commitment to lowering taxation to boost growth
A reluctance to advance the role of the state.
A firm belief that the market, not the state providing the best or fairest provision in society for wealth and life chances.
Tough attitudes to crime and firm law and order policies
Strengthening national identity promoting patriotism.
JUNE 2010 POLITICAL PARTIES
a) Distinguish between left-wing and right-wing political ideas.
The terms left-wing and right-wing are extensively used today they are historically associated with the French Revolution whether people sat on the right of the king and supported him, or whether they sat on his left and advocated change.
Left-wing political ideas are those associated with a desire to introduce change into the political system. Often this change is of social construction to engineer a ‘better society’.
Left wing ideas are associated with welfare, economic intervention and wealth re-distribution. The left wing are optimistic in general about humanity and feel that the status quo is to be challenged not confirmed. Left-wing ideas will favour the collective or the group solution above the individual one.
Right-wing political ideas emphasises the desire not to change and a widespread acceptance of the status quo.
Those who hold right-wing political ideas stress the need for order and stability in society and fear that changes is de-stabilising and dysfunctional. As such there is an emphasis also on authority and its use in society. Those who have right-wing ideas will favour the individual in preference to the group or collective approach.
In the UK left wing ideas are associated with the Labour Party, right wing ideas with the Conservative Party.
b) Explain the differences within the Labour Party over ideas and policies.
Within the Labour Party there are differences over ideas and policies.
On one level these can largely be portrayed as the difference between New Labour and Old Labour. Each element harbours differing policy aims and ideas. This revolves around the degree of acceptance of the free market and a commitment to welfare; the debate between the ‘hand up’ versus the ‘handout’.
Differences came out in the party over its leader and the direction it was taking. Challenges came from ex-Cabinet members such as Purnell, Hoon, Hewitt and Byers who implied that Brown was ‘sleep walking’ the party to disaster .
Differences have emerged in the party over its green strategy, the leadership committing to new nuclear generators and a third runway at Heathrow with a concern over the environmental danger that this poses.
Differences have emerged over economic regulation and the pace and style of welfare reform. For example some have questioned the lack of control over the banks; others have questioned the imposition of tuition fees.
Differences have existed in the party over the Iraq war with several key members resigning from the Cabinet.
Differences exist in the party over the approach to civil liberties and the approach to anti-terrorism
As Labour now enters opposition the party is questioning its lack of radicalism or incomplete record over reform, such as the electoral system and Parliament.
c) To what extent are the ideas and policies of the Labour and Conservative parties similar?
To an extent the policies and ideas of the Labour and Conservative parties do have considerable similarities.
Firstly, the economy, for both parties there is a widespread acceptance of the need for economic growth and a commitment to the operation of a free market. However the Conservative Party has a more radical approach to reducing the current national debt. Labour plans were to half the deficit in 4 years, the Conservatives now want a £6 billion reduction in the current financial year
Disagreement between the two parties emerged over taxation. Inheritance tax would raise to £1 million under Conservative plans. The Conservatives were also opposed to the raising of National Insurance contributions made by employers.
There is agreement over EU membership and a close and ‘special relationship’ with the US. However the Conservatives are more sceptical of the EU and plan to introduce a Bill which prohibits any further transfer of power to the EU. Furthermore, William Hague as the new Foreign Secretary set off to Washington before he visited EU counterparts.
Both parties are committed to the welfare state and the NHS. However in terms of value for money the Conservatives argue that economies can be made and a better service delivered, they indicated the introduction of payment by results.
Both parties have delivered tough stances on law and order, for instance both wished to increase the number of prison places. However disagreement emerged over elected police commissioners and the attitude to ID cards.
The Labour and Conservative Parties differed in their approach to immigration. Both would not stop immigration but the Conservatives adopted a more restrictive entry criteria for non-EU nationals
Numerous other differences and similarities may be referred to over pensions, education, constitutional reform and civil liberties etc. It is clear that both parties are operating in the context of a post-Thatcherite consensus.
JANUARY 2011 POLITICAL PARTIES
a) Define two functions of a political party.
Political parties can be said to fulfil many functions in a democratic political system, some of these include the following:
Parties function to represent their members and support and promote their interests
Parties also act to formulate polices on a wide range of topics such as the economy, education and foreign affairs
Parties have a function to contest elections by putting up candidates and creating a manifesto of new policies.
Parties recruit members to provide not only candidates for elections but also officers in government and leaders in a national and local context.
Parties also function to provide education on contemporary topics such as defence and the environment
In a modern context a major function of political parties is to ensure legislation is passed and service Parliament
b) Explain what is meant by the term Thatcherism.
Mrs Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 when she replaced Edward Heath as leader. In 1979 she became PM and was both leader of the Conservative Party from then until she was removed from office be her own party in November 1990. As such after a long period in office her political ideas have been termed as Thatcherism and can be said to have some of the following features:
A preference for the individual as opposed to the state.
The above can be seen as ‘rolling back’ the state and the state doing less in social terms
A preference for the free market and open competition
The above can be seen in the process of privatisation where the state sold off its assets
A preference for strong law & order tactics, favouring prison and punishment
The above can be seen in a number of Criminal Justice Acts which increased sentences for offences.
Thatcherism was seen to be anti trade union
This was seen in the numerous statues which restricted trade union power.
In its latter stages Thatcherism was seen as being opposed to the integration of the EU and having a strong nationalistic character
The above was seen in the Bruges speech where Mrs Thatcher warned against the ‘United States of Europe’
c) To what extent do the UK’s major parties accept Thatcherite ideas and policies?
Despite leaving office and party leadership in 1990 the ideas and policies of Thatcherism still are alleged to be influential.
The case for the acceptance in major parties is as follows:
The Labour Party:
When elected in 1997 Tony Blair and New Labour did not set about reversing many of the Thatcherite ideas and policies in office.
No reversals of privatisations took place, indeed the process was extended
There was commitment to the ideas and principles of the free market and open competition
There continued to be a strong policy on law & order as prison places were expanded.
The Labour Party previously under Brown and currently Milliband have not set about to destroy this ‘post-Thatcher consensus’
There is evidence that the Conservative Party is Thatcherite in outlook.
The principle of free market economics is central to the party and can be seen in wide support for enterprise. Often seen as supply side economics.
An acceptance of inequality as a fulcrum to individual and group motivation o The principle of minimal state interference wherever possible
Widespread encouragement of individualism and self reliance
The lowering of taxation at every opportunity
A line of patriotic fervour latterly expressed as Euroscepticism. The Liberal Democrats can be noted. Aspects of free market support and Individualism has long been part of their creed.
On the other hand it can be argued that Thatcherism slowly but surely has been diluted or replaced over time with the more historically dominant ideas of One Nationism. These ideas being articulated more fully with David Cameron.
An acknowledgement of the limits of the free market
A growing acceptance of the harm to society of inequality
An acceptance of a safety net for state activity (welfare) in areas such as the NHS alongside a willingness to improve these
An acceptance of devolved power and a desire to engineer greater local democracy
An acceptance of cultural diversity
Taxation only lowered when possible and practical
Attempts to understand crime as well as to provide punishment
In the Labour Party there have been moves to reject the principles of Thatcherism
Moves on the constitutional agenda
A more Pro EU outlook
Increased welfare provision
JUNE 2011 POLITICAL PARTIESa) What is meant by consensus politics?A consensus being a general agreement that nevertheless allows for disagreement on matters of emphasis or detail. Consensus politics refers to a form of politics in which major political parties subscribe to broadly similar or overlapping goals and principles, but by no means rules out all forms of policy disagreement.b) Has consensus politics become more or less evident in the UK since May 2010?May 2010 saw the formation of the coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Evidence that consensus politics is now more evident include
Two political parties have agreed to modify their ideas and polices to become partners in government.
This has meant that the Liberals have accepted the spending cuts in the first year and that the Conservatives have accepted the increase in tax thresholds. A range of examples of this consensus may be cited
All political parties accept the need to cut public spending both the coalition parties and the official opposition
Evidence that consensus politics is less evident include
There are strains within the governing coalition on issues such as the NHS and constitutional reform. Added to the strains with the rejection of the referendum on AV in May 2011
The official opposition Labour have and are developing policy alternatives to those of the coalition and include amongst other things a rejection of the immediate and substantial spending cuts which have been imposed.
c) To what extent are the major UK parties internally united over ideas and policies?
There is evidence that the major parties are united over ideas and policies. Evidence of the Labour Party being united on ideas and policies include the following:
They are committed to the reduction of public spending and curbing governmental borrowing
In the final stages of the previous Labour government there were few major rift inside the party over ideas and polices, there may have been some minor dissatisfaction with Gordon Brown personally but there was unity over the manifesto and its contents
‘Old’ Labour views have been marginalised.
The Conservative Party is united on ideas and policies in a number of ways including the following:
There is a well founded acceptance of the need to cut public spending and reduce governmental debt
There is an acceptance of the cautious way in by which David Cameron has straddled the one nation v Thatcherite elements in the party in a pragmatic manner
The party is united it its attitude over a range of policy options including the EU and foreign policy
The Liberal Democratic Party is united on ideas and policies in some of the following ways:
The party accepted as a consequence of sharing power that they had to modify and abandon some of their manifesto pledges to share power
The party remains united and committed to achieve constitutional reform
Despite the result of the referendum the party remains committed to electoral reform
However despite this evidence can still be presented which shows disunity within parties over ideas and policies.
Evidence that the Labour Party is disunited on ideas and policies include the following:
Some sections of the party is now beginning to question some of the new Labour ideas and policies such as the entry into the Iraq war
The party is split over how it should react and position itself to cuts in public spending
The Conservative Party is disunited on ideas and policies in some of the following ways:
Tension remains with the one nation v Thatcherite elements
Tension is emerging with the party over the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democratic Party is disunited on ideas and policies in some of the following ways:
Some in the party are questioning how far the ideas and polices of the party have been abandoned to achieve becoming a partner in the coalition
A rift is growing between the parliamentary party in office and the wider rank and file members.
JANUARY 2012 POLITICAL PARTIESa) Outline two ideas associated with liberalism.Liberalism is a broad political ideology, it is comprised of many features and characteristics. Responses which make reference to ideas from classical liberalism and/or modern liberalism will be credited. These ideas include:Liberalism is associated with attempts to codify or limit powers of the state as such it welcomes a separation of powers and local governmentLiberalism is also associated with social welfare and the responsibility of the state to support the most vulnerable in society
Liberalism is also associated with economic intervention to support business and advocated Keynesian methods
Liberalism is associated with the promotion of individual rights and freedoms.
Liberalism is associated with the concept of tolerance.
b) Explain three policies of the modern Labour Party.
The modern Labour Party stands for a range of policies these include:
A less drastic approach to cutting the public sector deficit. Hence they hoped to reduce the deficit by half within 4 years of office. They did not propose to cut £6 billion in the first year
The Labour Party leadership under Ed Milliband has reconsidered its policy to the war in Iraq, though this was not negated in the 2010 manifesto
In the 2010 manifesto the party was committed to constitutional reform, this included introducing AV, House of Lords reform and other types of Parliamentary reform
In 2010 the party was committed to introducing compulsory ID cards
Other policies including policies introduced by previous leaders can be credited if still applicable and not obsolete.
c) To what extent have the parties involved in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition remained faithful, since 2010, to their traditional principles and ideas?
The Conservative Party have remained faithful to their traditional policies and ideas based on:
A commitment to favour enterprise and support the business sector
A commitment to reducing taxation levels, Corporation Tax has been cut and Personal Taxation thresholds increased
A commitment to reducing the role of the state and encouraging the private and voluntary sector to take up a greater role.
The Conservative Party have not remained faithful to their traditional policies and ideas based on:
They have not increased prison capacity as promised but acted to reduce numbers inside. Issues such as punishment of knife crime shows a leniency not associated with Conservative principles
They have agreed to a commitment to move to a tax free personal allowance favoured by the Liberal Democrats
They have not gone ahead with their declared aims to replace Trident The Liberal- Democrats have remained faithful to their traditional policies and ideas based on:
Moved to raise the threshold on tax to £10k
Scrap the ID card scheme
Moved to action the pupil premium
The Liberal- Democrats have not remained faithful to their traditional policies and ideas based on:
The introduction of increased student tuition fees as opposed to their abolition
Replaced Council tax with a local income tax
Ideas and principles on constitutional reform (including a preference for STV) have been watered down or abandoned.
JUNE 2012 POLITICAL PARTIESa) Define adversary politics, using an example.Adversary politics can be ascribed some of the following characteristics:It is a situation where there is deep and fundamental divisions between the main parties on a wide range of key issuesThere is little common ground over which the main parties can agree
These deep divisions are ideological and produce vastly differing policy alternatives
The divide exists when those who hold these polar views are major parties that have a reasonable chance/opportunity to gain governmental power.
Examples of adversary politics would be the UK in the early 1980‟s as the Labour Party under Michael Foot offered a significantly alternative option to the Conservatism delivered by the Thatcher governments.
b) Explain the divisions that exist within the Conservative Party over ideas and policies
The Conservative Party like all other political parties is a „broad church‟ and contains several grouping and tendencies within the body, there exists differing approached and attitudes to ideas and policies.
There are differences within the party over the approach to the EU. Nobody in the Conservative party supports withdrawal but there are groups who are termed Eurosceptic who fear any further integration and the Europhiles who are less apprehensive towards the EU.
There are differences between the Thatcherite and the One Nation groups, policy and ideas range here over economic and social issues. There has been debate within the party over the policy and ideas relation to law and order. There were misgivings surrounding the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and his reform agenda with the prisons and the more hard-line elements within the party who opposed this so called leniency.
Some in the traditional wings of the party are opposed to the deal with the Liberal Democrats and reject the compromises which the party leadership have made.
There are sections of the party who are less enthusiastic about the party‟s views on the environment, and whilst not rejecting them many believe that the first priority is not the environment but the success of business.
c) To what extent is the Labour Party still committed to its traditional principles?
The Labour Party came into existence at the start of the 20th Century. It declared itself to be a socialist party committed to a peaceful or parliamentary route to achieving that socialism.
There is evidence that the party is still a socialist party and that can be based on the following:
A commitment to a major role for the state in delivering public services The above will ensure that the less fortunate in society have some minimal form of protection
Interfering in the operation of a free market to curb the excesses of capitalism hence the privatisation of the Banks
Taxation at higher levels for the wealthy and thus redistributing wealth The setting of a minimum wage
Other factors may also be developed.
However there is evidence that the party is no longer a socialist party and that can be based on the following:
A process of continual revisions to that original socialist goal have included a re-wording of Clause IV which no longer commits the party to wide scale public ownership.
An acceptance of many of the Thatcherite reforms on the1980‟s and 90‟s which made the operation of a free market a paramount goal Building on the above the period in office of Blair and then Brown took the party in a post-socialist direction, this can be seen as the rejection of Old Labour and the creation of New Labour
The party no longer sees itself as the party exclusively of the working class but appeals to as wide an audience as possible. In the 2010 elections the votes the party received from the middle classes outnumbers the votes from the working class.
JANUARY 2013 POLITICAL PARTIESa) Describe two political ideas that are considered to be right wing.There are various political ideas which are considered to be right wing some of which include:Right wing political ideas stress a reduction in the role of the state and as such we see the reduction of the role of welfare and social security in the lives of the individualRight wing political ideas stress the importance of private ownership in business and for home ownership. There is a preference for privatisation of state assets.
Right wing ideas stress the promotion of a free market with minimal interference from the state.
Right wing ideas emphasise the need for authority and thus stress law and order as priorities in society and therefore we see policies linked to punishment and retribution for crime and criminals
b) Explain three ways in which any one of the major political parties is internally divided
The Conservative Party is internally divided along several routes some of which include:
The approach to the EU and the degree of integration within the body
The division between those who adamantly adhere to Thatcherite polices and those who favour a more one nationist approach to policy and ideas
There is some tension within the party over the coalition partnership with the Liberal Democrats and the concessions which have been made in government.
The Labour Party is internally divided along several routes some of which include:
The attitude to the last Labour government 1997-2010 and the policies it pursued such as war in Iraq
Tensions between how far the party should follow the free market agenda or increase the role and scope of the state
Tensions within the party over the style and direction of its leader(s) and the progress the party has made in opposition
The Liberal Democratic Party is internally divided along several routes some of which include:
Divisions between the Social liberals and the Orange Book liberals, with the latter having different agenda goals.
Tensions within the party over the compromises which have been made to share government with the Conservatives.
Tensions between the small parliamentary party and the wider grassroots’ membership.
c) To what extent do the major parties differ over policies and ideas?
There is evidence that the major political parties differ over policies and ideas
There is divergence over the approach to cutting the current deficit between Labour and the parties in the Coalition
There is some disagreement over economic policy this covers banking and business taxes, especially the reduction of the 50p tax rate to 45p
There is some disagreement over education policy, the creation of free schools for instance between Labour and the parties in the Coalition
There is disagreement between the major parties over welfare policy and how the state should support the vulnerable
There is fundamental disagreement between the Labour Party and the Coalition parties over the reform programme for the NHS
In recent years it has been alleged that there is little difference in policy and ideas between the major parties. The evidence is based on:
All parties subscribe to a post Thatcherite agenda. This includes a commitment to a free market
All parties subscribe to a post-Blair constitutional package
This sees a commitment to devolution and House of Lords reform
All parties follow a similar line in foreign policy. This is seen in the commitment to troops in Afghanistan and the commitment to the war on terror
All parties are committed to certain provision of social services
All parties subscribe to have green credentials. This is seen overlapping environmental policy and ideas of all major parties.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
Representation & Democracy
The Uk is a representative democracy. This means that we elect officials to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, councillors to represent us in our local councils and MEPs to represent us in the European Parliament. In Scotland and Wales citizens elect MSPs and AMs to represent them in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In many cities, Mayors are elected too.
In a direct democracy (such as the one which operated in ancient Athens) citizens vote on every issue which concerns them. This is considered unworkable in modern states and only really continues to exist in a few places, township meetings in New England for example. It does, however, remain in the form of the referendum.
The most recent referendum in the UK is the one conducted on May 2011, which asked the electorate whether they wanted to change the voting system in the UK to AV.
Other referendums include the referendums of 1997 on whether to set up a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers, the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday Agreement and the setting up of a Northern Irish Assembly and the 1998 referendum on the establishment of a Greater London Authority. We have not had referendums on joining the Euro or signing up to theLisbon Treaty.
How healthy is UK democracy?
The UK has Universal suffrage, free and fair elections, elections every five years, the rule of law and human rights, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act
However, there are certain concerns about UK democracy.
Elected Dictatorship
The Parliamentary system means that the executive have a majority in parliament and are able to force their legislative programme through. Parliamentary sovereignty means that legislation can be passed on any subject. The Prime Minister holds prerogative powers and there are concerns about the failure of Parliament to effectively curb the power of the Executive.
However, our system delivers strong government. A Justice Ministry review warns against weakening prerogative powers.
Participation Crisis
Turnout in the last election was 65%. There are particular concerns about voter apathy amongst young people.
Universal Suffrage
At present prisoners do not have the right to vote. There are many who think this is as it should be.
The Electoral system.
Some would argue that the FPTP electoral system is unfair. However, the recent referendum would tend to suggest that the electorate are satisfied with it.
Our Civil Rights
There is concern that our civil rights are not sufficiently protected. The pressure group Liberty, has a great deal to say about this
Unelected Elements
The Head of State is not elected and neither is the House of Lords. There is a debate about the future of the House of Lords
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
JANUARY 2009
(a) What are the main features of representative democracy?
(b) In what ways has political participation declined in the UK in recent years?
(c) Evaluate the effectiveness of the various ways in which participation and democracy could be strengthened in the UK.
(b) In what ways has political participation declined in the UK in recent years?
(c) Evaluate the effectiveness of the various ways in which participation and democracy could be strengthened in the UK.
(a) What are the main features of representative democracy?
Free, fair and regular elections at a range of levels. (For example Westminster, Devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh and NI Assemblies, Local, GLA, European, Mayoral and so on)
Universal suffrage/wide franchise. – equality of political rights
Assemblies or legislatures which pass laws, the UK parliament, or local authorities which pass by-laws, the Devolved Scottish parliament which has primary legislative powers in the devolved areas)
The public are not personally involved in office holding but do this via a representative.(The MP for Kensington is Sir Malcolm Rifkind)
Decisions reached on the basis of a majority.(In both the HOuse of Commons and the House of Lords)
Tolerance of differing viewpoints. ( A hallmark of liberal democracies)
Widespread civil rights such as the right to free speech, right to protest.
A range of political parties which represent differing policies and ideas. (UKIP, Greens, BNP, Nationalist parties and the mainstream national parties)
Pressure group activity.(Political pluralism and a diversity of pressure groups)
(b) In what ways has political participation declined in the UK in recent years?
Declining turnout at elections (all levels and types may be cited): (Just 14% for the election of Police Commissioners in November 2012, just 31% for the May 2011 referendum on AV; just 59% in the 2001 general election)
The above damages the legitimacy of the politicians elected.(Because it is held that the mandate they have received is weak)
There is damage to those elected politicians who go on to hold office and/or governmental power. (For example in 2005 only 22% of the electorate voted for Labour)
Declining political party membership: People are increasingly turning away from parties from the high point of nearly one million members in the 1950s and now less than around 200,000. People are increasingly turning to single issue pressure groups and fringe political parties)
This causes several concerns, firstly from the lack of interest within the electorate to join a party. Secondly it promotes a concern that there will be a shortage of politicians of calibre to hold office. It is also suggested that the levels of participation have fallen as the main parties who contest elections all hold similar views so there is a lack of choice and thus people fail to be engaged and participate.
This can be said to contribute to partisan dealignment. (The shift in support away from the two major parties)
It can be seen to produce a decline in political activists for the major political parties which in turn has an impact on raising levels of participation. (The Lib Dems are said to have suffered a substantial number of grass roots activists)
The level of political participation may be falling as the public become disillusioned with the behaviour and conduct of politicians (sleaze etc, most notably the expenses scandal and disquiet of lobbyists and party funding).
(c) Evaluate the effectiveness of the various ways in which participation and democracy could be strengthened in the UK.
Democracy and participation could be strengthened by the following methods:
The introduction of compulsory voting for all citizens. This automatically increases participation levels and makes the elected representatives more accurately reflective and thus advanced democratic legitimacy. However to force someone to make a choice and vote may be unreal, there may be no real choice for them. Many former regimes cited turnout in the high 90% but the choice on offer was false.
Reducing the voting age to 16. Here it is argued that matching the voting age to other ‘maturation’ levels is just and fair. It will develop political engagement and prevent frustration. The counter position notes that at 16 young adults are still not experienced enough to make that choice.
The greater use of referendums. As a means of direct democracy this instantly advance legitimacy to decisions. However the public can soon tire of referendums and their creation may reflect government drives as opposed to democratic advancement.
The use of initiatives and the process of recall. It is argued that this would invigorate life into politics and add democratic power to the public. Opposition hints that this creates political instability where a sensitive and scheming media may really create puppets out of the electorate.
The introduction of more electronic technology to aid participation. This makes both the process of voting easier and the scope of participation levels to be more accurate, swift and expansive. Opponents hint that this may simply alienate the public further and set them akin to a frivolous TV vote show as opposed to a major life changing decision.
A change to the voting system for Westminster elections. On the one hand this could revitalise politics especially at Westminster if PR were to be introduced, it would make citizens feel that their vote was equal and counted. However there is no agreed electoral system that commands universal approval. In addition where PR has been introduced it has not especially delivered increased level of participation.
Increased provision of political education. It is argued if the public in school and beyond were allowed greater levels of political education then levels of participation would increase as people both valued and understood the political process.
Constitutional reform by governmental structure may improve both participation and democracy – the House of Lords reform may be cited.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION – MAY 2009
(a) Define liberal democracy.(5 marks)
Liberal democracy is a type of democracy which combines both liberal and democratic features. Candidates may be credited if they identify detail on the ‘democratic’ features of this type such as free and fair elections, wide suffrage and the use of representatives to act on citizens’ behalf etc.
Candidates may be credited if they identify the ‘liberal’ elements associated with this type such as constitutionalism, checks and balances and the protection of individual freedom etc.
(b) Explain the main features of the UK’s democratic system. (10 marks)
The UK has a long tradition of democracy stretching back over time: certain clear features can be noted.
It is a representative democracy as opposed to a direct model.
There are regular, free and fair elections.
Parliament plays a central role as the apex of the democratic system, comprising of the Houses of Commons and Lords. Here decisions are reached on a majority basis.
As well as general elections for Parliament there are lower order elections for the devolved bodies and local government.
There are established rights and freedoms.
There is considerable toleration of differing viewpoints.
Pressure groups are seen as an integral part of the democratic system (pluralistic).
There are numerous political parties who contest elections.
The constitution, although un-codified, sets the parameters of the democratic system.
(c) To what extent is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK?
Democracy in the UK has been accused or considered to be in ‘deficit’ for a number of reasons.
Declining turnouts at all levels of elections.
Wider political apathy which renders questionable the democratic framework.
A deficit in political education as the wider public lack interest and knowledge in the political system.
A lack of the widespread use of referendums for the whole UK.
The continuation of one House of Parliament, the House of Lords with undemocratic credentials.
An unfair voting system which creates an ‘un-democratic’ outcome for Westminster elections.
Pressure groups with ‘elite’ status who may pursue narrow sectional interests which disadvantage the majority of the population.
However, it may be argued that there is not a ‘democratic deficit’ and that democracy is continually evolving to meet the needs of the population. The following may be cited:
Reforms have taken place to develop democracy such as devolution.
New systems of PR have been introduced.
Reform of the second chamber is underway.
Widespread pressure group membership and activity ensure that there is no‘democratic deficit’.
Human/civil rights are protected and have been developed.
Turnout, although not high, is in line with many other western democracies.
Popular and real choice exists at election times for the voting public.
Referendums have been held and their overuse could undermine their relevance.
JANUARY 2010
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION – January 2010
(a) Define direct democracy
Direct, constant and unhampered involvement of the people in political life.
There is no formal distinction between the people and the government for they are in practice one and the same. There are no professional politicians.
The people themselves make the decisions it is not done on their behalf.
It can be described as a system of self-government
Politics is constant: permanently consultative and active.
Referendums can be seen as examples of direct democracy
Ancient Athens is an example of direct democracy.
(b) Explain three forms of democratic participation.
YOU SHOULD REFERENCE THREE OF THE FOLLOWING IN DETAIL AND ILLUSTRATE THEM
There are numerous forms by which citizens can participate in a democracy. These may include some of the following:
Voting at elections, these take place at all levels, local, regional, national and European.Elections can be seen as participative as the public are selecting officeholders and a set of ideas or policies which they find favour with. Citizens may stand in elections or hold office.
Elections can also be seen as a form of participation to register discontent with the incumbent office holder. In 1997 the national vote was seen as participative comment on the last Conservative government.
Citizens may join political parties and this opens up channels of participation.
Citizens may join pressure groups for further avenues to participate in politics.
Citizens may take part in referendums and/or initiatives to advance their participation.
Citizens may sign petitions and write to office holders.
People can actively take part in protests to participate in democracy.
(c) Assess the arguments in favour of the greater use of direct democracy in the UK.
Direct democracy it is argued could be used to a greater extent in the UK. Direct involves a wide range of activities which include referendums, citizen juries, focus groups and other methods linked to digital media/e-technology. The greater use of direct democracy can be said to have the following points in its favour.
It is genuine democracy in action. With popular participation emerges the precise and true view of all the citizenry. The people determine their destiny and shape accurately their society. There is no vacuum or distinction between the government and the people.
However, the above may be more a reflection of an ideal and an aspiration than a functional practical possibility. In a large scale society direct democracy is not achievable, with a voting population of almost 45 million.
At a time in which confidence and trust is limited in representative officials or professional politicians, take for instance the more recent expenses scandal, direct democracy would remove them at a stroke. It would take away a layer of people who may distort the actual views of the people and make politics more relevant and purposeful.
At a time in which confidence and trust is limited in representative officials or professional politicians, take for instance the more recent expenses scandal, direct democracy would remove them at a stroke. It would take away a layer of people who may distort the actual views of the people and make politics more relevant and purposeful.
However, there is a need for experts in certain fields who can take informed decisions and have a practical long term view for the whole of society. Hence on major economic or health issues experts can be more informed and have greater insight.
Direct democracy will create a more informed and educated citizenry. A culture of education and progress will ensue. Regular participation in government creates a more vibrant society where people care about events and the factors behind a wide range of issues.
However, some argue that if more direct democracy were to be introduced, the public soon tire of the effort and commitment to the process and are more content with limited involvement.
More direct democracy in the UK it is argued would extend greater legitimacy to the government and its actions. For instance the more widespread use of referendums could develop this. Decisions reached in this way will carry greater authority .
However the constant reference and involvement of the public may create political instability and polarise opinion and possibly develop into a crisis.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
June 2010
(a) What is meant by legitimacy?
Legitimacy means rightfulness. As such it can be seen as an approval term which may sanction political behaviour or conduct.
Legitimacy confers authority on an action, institution or political system. As such it distinguishes between power and authority, authority being power cloaked in legitimacy.
Political legitimacy stems from two sources. Firstly it arises from below, through the consent of the public, usually provided by regular and competitive elections. For example the results of an election may extend legitimacy to a new government, basing their mandate on the content of a successful manifesto.
Second it is based on rule-governed behaviour, in this case achieved through the existence of a constitution. For instance the former PM Gordon Brown initially claimed legitimacy to continue as PM after the last general election results as the constitution conferred the legitimacy to stay in post until the time a new government could be formed with Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
Legitimacy is associated with political stability and order, by contrast, regimes which are seen as illegitimate tend to foster instability and disorder.
(b) Explain three strengths of representative democracy.
AGAIN THREE NEED TO BE SELECTED AND ANSWERED IN DETAIL
Government by experts or specialists. Representative democracy places power in the hands of the talented. For instance in terms of law and economics government posts are filled with people who possess detailed knowledge in these areas.
Representative democracy is the only practical form of democracy in a large modern society. Direct democracy is unpractical for a host of reasons.
Representative democracy relieves the burden on the ordinary citizen and allows them to carry on with their chosen pursuits; it provides relief from the chore of decision making and political meetings.
Representative democracy provides accountability. Through elections and free speech the public can hold office holders to account, throwing out errant governments and poorly performing ministers.
Representative democracy provides stability. Limited involvement of the public curtails extremism and agitation.
Representative democracy is pragmatic and evolves in a range of areas, in the UK it has adapted to the use of referendums. It could adapt to the use of initiatives and the power of recall over representatives.
(c) How democratic is the UK?
Democracy in the UK has been questioned as to its extent and to its quality.
There have been concerns over the electoral system. In particular the first- past-the-post system. On the one hand it is claimed to be a free and fair system which delivers strong government, but on the other hand it is criticised for not fairly translating votes into seats.
There have been concerns surrounding the effectiveness of Parliament a vital component of UK democracy. It has been alleged that it cannot fulfil its role, by acting as a sovereign body, for instance failing to hold the government to account. In addition the recent expenses/allowances scandal has damaged the creditably of the body. On the other hand the recent rise in voter turnout (up 5% in 2010 from 2005) and a cross party acknowledgement of the need to reform shows that the body is capable of meaningful change.
Democracy in the UK has been cited as open and free. Citizens can protest and show disapproval. For instance there is a strong pressure group presence to articulate democratic rights. However, the multiplicity of pressure groups can at time be seen to thwart the democratically elected government and as such a few pressure groups exert undue political influence.
It has been alleged that the changes to the political system since 1997 has made the country more democratic, changes such as devolution, referendums, the Human Rights Act and the Supreme Court. However despite these changes there are still undemocratic features, the House of Lords remains unelected and unaccountable, there is no codified constitution and no domestic Bill of Rights for UK citizens.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
JANUARY 2011
(a) Apart from voting in elections and referendums, describe two ways of participating in politics.
Joining a political party this may cover a range of participative methods from commenting on policy to attending party conferences or simply being a donor or fund raiser.
Joining a pressure group, again this may cover a range of activities from simply offering donations to joining protests and campaigns
Participation may involve expressing concern on political matters with the constituency MP this could be simple letter writing or attending a surgery to lobbying him/her in Parliament.
In a more modern context internet petitions and on-line facilities allow citizens to participate in politics
It may mean going on a protest or march
(b) Explain the arguments in favour of lowering the voting age.
Allowing voting at 16 places this right in line with other aspects of citizenship available at this age, which include the age of consent, the right to marry, entering the field of employment and income tax payment.
Earlier involvement in politics will capture the younger generation and commit them to committed citizenship and foster a great sense of civic pride and duty. It can feed on from citizenship in pre-16 schooling.
Developing from the above long term participation rates may rise as a consequence of this reduction.
Knowledge and competence are not significantly lower at 16 than 18. It can be argued that the decision to continue in education and employment are far more personally important issues reached at a younger age than voting
Involving under 18 will make youth issues a more relevant topic in elections. For instance career options and education are vital for this age group and political parties will have to make this a key topic in an election. It may thus be argued to spend time at the outset of an individual’s career and education is a wise investment.
(c) To what extent would the wider use of referendums improve democracy in the UK?
It is alleged that the wider use of referendums would improve democracy in the UK:
It would make the population more politically active between elections, it may lead to increased turnouts
It would be a tool of precision as on contested issues where elected politicians are not representative enough, for instance ethical issues such as the legalisation of euthanasia
On issues which divide parties the public could have the final and most important say, the rise in tuition fees would be a good example
They could be used at a local level for local issues, often a one size fits all policy does not work. Local solutions could be delivered by local referendums on such things as buildings policy
It would make governments less elitist and curtail the notion of an elected dictatorship
Referendums are useful when a political party is internally divided; they are also considered useful when all the major parties agree on a topic, here a referendum would offer the general public a choice.
They are good for important and major decisions such as changes to the constitution, the voting system or EU matters (as indicated the current coalition governments plan to offer referendums to any EU Treaty amendments)
However there are arguments against the wider use of referendums:
Greater use can lead to apathy, eventually
The public lack specialised knowledge on some areas such as economic matters
They have been cited as a tool of those in power not a democratic lever
The cost is excessive, a better use of money could be utilised
Excessive use undermines the principle of representative democracy and the role of Parliament.
There are other means apart from referendums to improve democracy, compulsory voting and the wider use of consultation could be employed.
A biased media may create an unfair arena in which voters may be unfairly influenced by elitist or specialist interests.
It is possible that referendums can become ‘mini elections’ on the performance of the current government.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
MAY 2011
(a) Outline the key features of a referendum.
Referendums have several key features, These include:
They are a popular vote on a an issue of public policy
They are examples of direct democracy
They may be either binding or advisory (in the UK they are affected by Parliamentary Sovereignty)
They are examples of direct democracy
They may be either binding or advisory (in the UK they are affected by Parliamentary Sovereignty)
You would need to give examples or additional background information on what referenda are for.
(b) Apart from referendums, explain three ways in which democracy in the UK could be improved.
There have been many suggestions apart from referendums by which democracy in the UK could be improved. These include:
Changing the Westminster voting system from FPTP to some form of proportional representation. This is now dated as the AV vote took place in May 2011
Lowering the voting age to 16
Introducing compulsory voting so that turnout increases.
Introducing the use of e-democracy
(c) To what extent does democracy in the UK suffer from a ‘participation crisis’?
In recent years concern has arisen that the UK is suffering from a ‘participation crisis’ and there have been rising concerns that the body politic lacks health and engagement of the public. Evidence that a participation crisis is apparent is based on some of the following:
Turnout over the past 3 general elections has been significantly lower than the average between 1945 and 1997.
Political party membership has fallen significantly in the last 50 years with now fewer than 1% of the public being members of political parties.
Counter arguments could include the following:
Turnout levels in general elections have risen from 59% in 2001 to 65% in 2010.
While participation related to voting and parties may have fallen, the number and membership of pressure groups, especially promotional groups, has significantly increased, as has involvement in protest politics.
This suggests that the nature of participation may have changed, rather than that overall participation has declined.
Both sides of this debate will require reference and discussion before a conclusion is offered.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
JANUARY 2012
(a) How does a referendum differ from an election?
Referendums and elections can be seen as different political mechanisms, below are some of these differences:
A referendums does not secure representation of officials whereas elections provide a mechanism to place officials in representative posts
A referendum is normally concerned with single issues and has a narrow remit compared with elections which provide a mechanism to secure a government mandate on a wide variety of issues.
The results of referendum can be seen as consultative whereas in UK the results of elections are seen as binding and final.
Referendums are held with the permission of the government or Parliament, whereas in the UK elections have to be held by law at set times.
Referendums are seen a deriving from direct democracy whereas elections are seen as an integral component in representative democracy.
(b) Explain the arguments in favour of making voting compulsory.
Voting is currently not compulsory in the UK however there have been several arguments levied that it needs now to be made mandatory, these have included:
It would increase participation levels for all levels of elections ranging from local and EU elections which are dangerously low to elections for Westminster
It has been introduced in other countries such as Australia and Belgium hence it is a practical possibility
Increased levels of participation could generate increased legitimacy
Compulsory voting would be a catalyst for wider civic duties in society
Compulsory voting may extend the citizens understanding of issues and the functions of government.
(c) How effectively does representative democracy operate in the UK?
Representative democracy has been cited as operating very effectively in the UK. The following points may be advanced:
All areas of the UK have elected representatives and there is a good MP/Constituency link
With a population of over 60 million the system of representative democracy copes admirably. New parties and pressure groups do form and are free to operate and challenge governments. Minorities and civil liberties are protected under the system.
The system provides Government by the specialists or experts who have both practical knowledge but high expertise in areas of governance, for example economic understanding and skills in administration
The UK is a mature representative democracy and the current system instils stability and continuity into civic life. A lack of widespread discontent may indicate a high approval rate.
However representative democracy has been challenged in that it operates in an ineffective manner. The following points may be advanced:
There is alleged to be a ‘participation crisis’ where electoral turnout and political party membership is low and falling. This damages the legitimacy of representative democracy
There are a range of alleged faults with the representative institutions and the processes which they are connected with. Issues arise for example with the electoral system and an unelected second chamber.
There are wider flaws in how ‘representative’ the system is with regards to gender, ethnicity and social class.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION
June 2012
a) Define democratic legitimacy, and outline one way in which it is achieved.
Democratic legitimacy is the accepted right to exercise and use power. When it has been achieved through a democratic route is it conferred by the people and also through the accepted political framework of the state.
Democratic legitimacy can be obtained through several routes some include:
Elections. These can be a General election, local, devolved or European
By popular consent through a referendum.
By adhering to constitutional practices, laws and customs
b) In what circumstances are referendums held in the UK?
Referendums have been held in the UK in under several circumstantial situations, which include:
To fulfil pledges made in party manifestoes. Labour in 1997 promised in their manifesto to hold a referendum on a Mayor for London
To provide legitimacy to major constitutional changes. Devolution of power to Scotland and Wales was such an event
To satisfy the terms for a coalition government between the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties.
To settle an internal party dispute over a contested issue. It was alleged that the national referendum in 1975 over continued EU (EEC) membership was more concerned with disputes inside the Labour Party than wider public concerns – in this regard it is also worth mentioning UKIP and Tory Eurosceptic pressure for an in out referendum on the EU. It may be that the electoral threat of UKIP to the conservatives is a factor in Cameron addressing this issue.
At local levels referendums are held for a multitude of reasons to solve issues ranging from planning proposals, locally elected mayors, schooling, and transport issues. At local levels referendums can be triggered by petitions.
c) Should referendums be more widely used in the UK?
Those who argue that referendums should be more widely used in the UK cite some of the following reasons:
They are a device of direct democracy and ensure several connected benefits which include, education participation and precision.
These benefits include greater legitimacy for decisions as opposed to major decisions being made by a government which may have less that 30% of the public‟s support.
They can settle long standing disputes and disagreements, for instance the referendum on AV has effectively halted the moves in generational terms for electoral reform.
They are excellent in a local context to bring different solutions to different regions of the UK.
However there are many who argue that referendums should not be more widely used in the UK based on some of the following reasons:
They are a detraction in a representative system of democracy and as such they surrender power of experts to the masses.
Wider and more prevalent use promotes irresponsibility and eventually apathy.
They are time consuming and costly, the AV referendum cost was a waste of money in times of economic recession.
They are done to suit political parties not the public and as such give the illusion not the reality of choice.
PAPER ONE PAST PAPER QUESTIONS
DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION & PARTICIPATION – January 2013
a) Outline two features of the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy.
The UK’s system of parliamentary democracy has many features, these include:
Two Houses of Parliament one elected the other largely appointed
The government secures its authority normally from a majority of MP’s in the Commons
These elections normally take place within a five year window although in theory the PM can call an election with permission from the Monarch at his/her choosing. This has been modified under the Coalition agreement to set a fixed term Parliament for this current session
Parliament is considered to be the highest source of authority in the UK’s democratic structure.
b) Explain how and why the use of digital democracy could make the UK more democratic.
Digital democracy refers to the various ways by which modern and often electronic mediums can engage and secure participation of the public in the political environment. It could work in the following circumstances:
The greater use of the internet to gauge public opinion by mini referenda and e-petitions.
The use of the internet to activate political debate by means such as twitter/facebook.
The incorporation of mobile phone or hand held medium to involve the public in decision making at various levels
E-technology could replace traditional voting methods of going to the polling station
All of the above are how it can be done, why it is necessary is because:
Turnout is declining at all levels of elections
It would lead to greater levels of direct democracy
It would hold politicians more to account if initiatives and recall could be part of the e-technology revolution.
c) Should direct democracy be more widely used in the UK?
Direct democracy should be more widely used in the UK because:
Turnout at various elections is low and direct democracy would engage and enliven politics to raise participation levels as people became more involved with decision making.
Direct democracy may reduce the power and control of organised political parties which are alleged to stifle representative democracy however direct democracy will hand power to the people. Building on from this it may mean that political choice and options multiply from the narrow party political spectrum
Wider use of direct democracy would mean that the bias or faults with electoral systems would be reduced as representatives’ power may be reduced.
A wider use of referendums will enliven political life and hand power directly to the wider general public
If the public had to make more decisions and become more involved in political life there is a greater chance that they would be better educated. This may foster a greater sense of civic duty and commitment to the political system
However the wider use of direct democracy may have an adverse impact in the UK
There is no substantial evidence that the public in the UK wish for more direct democracy
The turnout at referendums is not higher than the turnout for general elections, note the turnout at the referendum on AV in May 2011
The link between greater political education with direct democracy and the increased use of referendums is tenuous. There is little evidence that the general public were better informed about the electoral system after the AV referendum in May 2011
Political parties are essential in a mass society and are required to act as a filter for both ideas and representation, their role cannot be diminished
Wider use of direct democracy could de-stabilise political life and introduce far more volatility.
Concepts In International Politics
A2 Government and Politics: International Politics: Unit 3: Concepts
A concept most commonly associated with the cold war era (c.1945-1989)
The structure and development of the international system was heavily shaped and influenced by superpower relations during the cold war period.
Each of the two main blocs was organised according to power, ideology and regimes
Bipolarity assumes a zero sum conception of power and International Relations
The concept of bipolarity exists in distinction to the concept of multipolarity where there are a minimum of three and perhaps many more spheres of influence
In military term the two blocs possessed enormous capability which in formed the idea of MAD. It is sometimes argued that this mutually assured destructionprevented the cold war from escalating into a ‘hot’ one
However, there were military exchanges between east and west, most notably those which took place in Korea, Vietnam, Africa and Latin America over most of the period of the cold war. Here the superpowers either sought to maintain or extend their spheres of influence.
It is also the case that the concept overestimates the degree of internal cohesion within the blocs. It should be remembered that French – U.S. relations have often been strained and that France left NATO in 1966. Also The Soviet Union used tanks to crush popular rebellions in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
The concept itself is somewhat flawed as it lacks a perspective on other international developments such as de-colonisation and underdevelopment.
Past Questions:
To what extent was the Bipolar International order more stable than the multipolar order?
When, and in what ways, was international politics best seen as bipolar?
What are the implications of Bi-polarity and multipolarity for global order?
Multipolarity
A type of international system with a minimum of three actors with substantial power potential to act upon and shape the international order
These actors could be states but equally blocs or coalitions
Waltz (1979) argued that international systems characterised by multipolarity, rather than bipolarity are inherently unstable
The criteria for substantial power potential are as follows:
WEALTH AND ECONOMIC POWER
POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC INFLUENCE
CULTURAL INFLUENCE
Where a state or non state actor can act upon and shape the international system in all of these areas it may be regarded possessing superpower or polar potential. Where a minimum of three actors has this range of influence then the international order is characterised as multipolar.
The above criteria are also indices of superpower status but again all four are required
Whereas as bipolarity concentrates on east –west issues as the basis for the international order a multi-polar approach examines a wider range of issues such as Northern Hemisphere dominance over the global economy as being equally important in shaping the international order.
Arguments have surfaced that the international order is less multipolar than it is unipolar with the United States the one remaining superpower. In military terms U.S. hegemony is unquestioned as is its desire and intent to use it. Pressure groups with close ties to the Bush White House have founded The ‘New American Century”
“…Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Centuryis a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership…”
The end of the cold war has prompted a debate over whether we are now entering an inherently unstable multipolar international order. The matter is extremely complex. In economic terms the EU, Japan and the U.S. are seen as the key poles with other actors such as the ‘tiger economies’ possessing near pole status.
Regional powers such as Pakistan can exert tremendous influence on the international order especially where they are seen to be vital to the strategic interests of the U.S.A.
The transition from a bipolar to a multipolar era predates the end of the cold war. There is the question of whether this in more or less stable than the era of bipolarity
Past Questions:
Is International politics now multipolar?
What are the implications of Bi-polarity and multipolarity for global order?
Unipolarity
Evans (1998) defines unipolarity as
“ …a type of system or structure with one pole or polar actor being identified as predominant in shaping and influencing the international order…”
An actor being defined as any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relations. Although the term lacks precision it possesses sufficient flexibility and scope to overcome the limitations of the term state.
The unipolar actor need not be a state. Historically they have tended to be multinational empires.
Unipolar systems are likely to be stable where there is widespread consensus throughout the system as argued by hegemonial stability theory.The ending of the cold war has prompted some speculation that the U.S. is now the only superpower and in its willingness to exert this power and influence to shape the international order it is the centre of a unipolar order.
At the end of the cold war Francis Fukuyama wrote that we are at the ‘…end of history…’ where economic liberalism and liberal democracy would triumph and spread across the globe.Equally however the ‘…end of history thesis…’ could just as easily provide the underpinnings of a multipolar order in international relations.
The real question is the extent of American military, economic, diplomatic, political and cultural influence across the globe and the intent of the U.S. in the exercise of such power whether unilaterally or in concert with other actors (multilateralism).
EURO FEDERALISM
SUBSIDIARITY
Euro federalism
The term ‘…United States of Europe…’ was first used and advocated by Winston Churchill in March 1946.
The architects of the EEC saw integration between the states of Europe as a means of building Europe’s prosperity and avoiding future conflicts.
The Treaty of Rome (1957) foresaw ‘…ever closer economic and political union…’
Subsequent treaties such as the Single European Act (1986) and the Maastricht Treaty (1992) have attempted to give expression to these aims by removing barriers to trade in goods services and people and paving the way for a single European Currency with interest rates set by the European Central Bank for the whole of the Euro Zone.
Even proponents of ‘…ever closer economic and political union…’ are wary of the term Euro-federalism, given the negative implications firstly of a loss of sovereignty and secondly because of the implications of remoteness, bureaucracy and lack of accountability.
In particular British conservatives often use the term to denote some aspect of EU development or integration with which they disagree. Thus the recently proposed EU constitution is negatively attacked as being federalist or yet another step on the road to the creation of a federalist Europe. The direct implication is a loss of national sovereignty.
Subsidiarity.
A relatively straightforward concept used with regard to supranational institutions such as the EU and the member nation states.
It implies that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level, i.e at the level at which it is most practical to take the decision and at the level at which the ramifications of the decision are most likely to be felt. This necessitates a degree of autonomy from the centre which may be manifested in increased national control vis a vis Europe or increased devolution from Westminster.
Decisions affecting trade or the environment might me most appropriately taken at the supranational level.
Decisions affecting a state’s security or vital and strategic interests might be most appropriately taken at the national level.
Decisions affecting a local or regional economy might be most appropriately taken at a sub national level by regional assemblies, local authorities or parliaments or assemblies such as those established in Scotland and Wales in 1999.
The essence of subsidiarity is that it reinforces claims for the supremacy of national sovereignty over those of the supranational institution.
Indeed the Tindemanns Report (1975) established the viability of the principle of subsidiarity in relation to the functioning of the EU Commission, nonetheless accepting that this would place limits on the extent of areas of competence of the EU, in relation to the member states.
Great Power(s)
A somewhat outmoded term for referring to the status and influence of nation states
The term is often associated with the realist tradition of International relations and Politics
The categorisation and classification of states as Great Powers has now largely been superceded by the terms superpower (Fox, 1944), Hyperpower, or regional powers.
The term great power refers to the ranking of states according to their economic, military and diplomatic influence and is very much a product or early international relations between nation states.
At the Congress of Vienna (1815) Austria, France, Russia, Prussia and Britain conferred upon themselves ‘Great Power’ status. Primarily this meant that they would act, in concert, to adopt a managerial role in relation to maintaining order and stability in Europe and even beyond.
Outside of Europe two other states, the USA and Japan, gained great power status, following, respectively, victories over Spain (1898) and Russia (1904-1905).
Great Power status was then institutionalised in the form of the League of Nations after WWI and the United Nations after WWII
According to Hobsbawm, (The Age of Empire) the sphere of influence of the ‘Great Powers’ gradually spread to other continents
The classification remains useful. Clearly not all great powers are superpowers. The defining criteria implies that military capacity is paramount. A great power is able to maintain its security independently of others and may possess some nuclear capability.
Economic power is seen as a necessary condition of great power status but is not of itself a sufficient one. Hence Japan may be better seen as a regional power whilst China may be seen as a great power, approaching superpower status.
Whilst the UK and France have large economies, diplomatic influence (a permanent seat on the UN Security Council)and nuclear capability, it is doubtful whether they are any longer great powers in the original sense of the term
Confederalism/Intergovernmentalism
As a process it is often termed intergovernmentalism whereby individual nation states come together for a specific purpose which may be part of an ongoing strategy to achieve some end goal.
IGCs or intergovernmental conferences take place with increasing frequency on matters such as trade, the environment, debt relief and other matters.
As an end state confederalism is assumed to be a semi or fully permanent intergovernmental organisation such as the G7 or G8 or may even take the form of a permanent structure such as the EU.
It is at this point that intergovernmentalism becomes less process and more end state.
Where institutions such as the EU develop supranational features, then the status and integrity of the independent sovereign nation state may no longer be preserved.
Supranationalism
This refers to laws or institutions which are above the state and to which the state must comply.
The term refers to decision making bodies which may supercede or override the authority of the individual nation states who are constituent members of the organisation.
The basic principle is that individual nation states cede or forego sovereignty in specific areas such as trade, defence, the economy or the environment for mutual benefit or gain.
The clearest and most obvious example of a supranational organisation is the EU, whereas it is more difficult to assess whether the UN possesses supranational features.
In many ways the status of the UN as a supranational organisation rests on the ability it has to obtain compliance from its members states. Where resolutions have been passed it remains necessary for other members states to possess the political will and, if necessary, the military means to enforce such decisions.
Article 25 of the UN charter empowers the Security Council to exercise executive powers over its constituent members in matters of peace and security. Article 25 has only been invoked twice, once in Rhodesia in 1966 and again in Iraq/Kuwait in 1991. The UN also issued SC 1973 authorising NATO air Power deployment ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians.
Globalisation
This is a rather difficult, vague and imprecise concept.
At its core it holds that the defining factors of nationhood, national identity and sovereignty such as territory, language, culture, political formations and institutions, economic activities are subject to global forces of change such that these defining characteristics wane and the world becomes more uniform.
According to Evans and Newham (1998), the term is difficult to pin down but nevertheless they attempt a definition of globalisation as :
‘…the process whereby state centric agencies and terms of reference are dissolved in favour of a structure whereby different actors operate in a context which is truly global rather than merely international…’
The impetus towards globalisation can be detected in the following forms:
TECHNOLOGICAL: New Media and other Technologies are shrinking time and space. The Internet and the expansion of satellite communications have brought the world closer together.
ECONOMIC: The growth of supranational economic activity, through the removal of barriers to trade in goods and services but not yet people.
POLITICAL: The ‘triumph’ of liberal democracy and the end of history – Francis Fukuyama, 1992.
ENVIRONMENTAL: A truly global issue requiring co-operation and intervention on a global scale. The selfishness of individual nation states is thrown into sharp relief by attempts at curbing greenhouse gases and resolution attempts at other important environmental issues.
CULTURAL: This is partly driven by the New Media Technologies and very strongly connected with certain forms of economic activity. The Hollywood film industry and US TV dominates the global film and television industries. In addition the truly global scale of corporations such as Gap, Nike, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s has delivered an era of cultural and economic imperialism or what has sometimes been termed coca-colonisation (Mazrui, 1977)
Two arguments flow from these evident trends:
The first is that the pace and direction of globalisation is difficult to determine. There remain vast differences between nation states and geo-political regions.
Secondly there are those who argue that the processes outlined are inevitable and that this is either a desirable or negative process.
FOR: (Fukuyama, Huntington, Bell, Touraine, and Smith)
AGAINST: (Ballard, Schiller, Chomsky, Foucalt)
The arguments in favour of globalisation is that it opens up and spreads markets and wealth, that it spreads democracy and that all nations are involved in a fair and free exchange of ideas and culture
The arguments against globalisation is that it is likely to exacerbate existing divisions between the rich North and the poor South and that it is a tool of US/ Western dominance and exploitation. This is achieved through IGOs (Intergovernmental Organisations) such as The World Bank, The G7/G8, The IMF and The World Trade Organisation)
NORTH SOUTH DIVIDE
A critical weakness of the concept of bi-polarity was that it focused on east west issues to the detriment of the southern hemisphere and the overwhelming importance of processes such as decolonisation, neo-imperialism and underdevelopment.
The concept of a Northern-Southern hemisphere divide began to gain credence in the 1950s following the decline of European 19th C. style colonialism, following the Second World War.
In using the term a number of political, social, economic and cultural assumptions are made.
Crudely, the north is viewed as industrialised, politically mature and stable, technologically advanced and economically powerful whilst the south is none of these.
Theorists such as Frank (1977) have argued that the poor economic state and the attendant political and social instability of much of the so called third world is directly attributable to a new form of imperialism. This thesis holds that the 3rdworld is deliberately underdeveloped by the richer nations of the North western hemisphere so that they may exploit natural resources and cheaper labour costs.
Bipolarity also assumed that the south was relatively free from the influence of east west relations yet the cold war was often fought out militarily in Africa, South East Asia and Latin America.
Bipolar theory, as well as homogenising the north also homogenised the south. Complex variables render the term North South divide vague, imprecise and arguably unusable in any meaningful sense.
COLONIALISM
A form of imperialism which involves establishing and maintaining rule over a subordinate state or territory.
The main characteristics of colonialism are political and legal domination by an alien minority, economic exploitation and racial and cultural inequality.
Between the 15th and 19th centuries the main colonising powers were Portugal, Spain, Holland, Britain and France, whilst in the late 19th and early 20th centuries Germany, Belgium, Italy, the USA, Japan and Russia became colonising powers.
Colonialism was seen as both an expression and a consequence of Great Power status
The legitimacy of empire building was gradually challenged by the growth of liberal ideas and by emergent nationalism.
Concepts such as self-determination, sovereignty, independence and equality were incorporated into the founding principles of the UN creating the context for a transition from colonialism to decolonisation.
In traditional terms colonialisation as military occupation and remote rule is seen as an outmoded form of the expression of one state’s dominance over another.
However the term has been somewhat revived in the form of neo-colonialism or neo –imperialism an assumed consequence of the negative aspects of globalisation. The forms of exploitation and inequality are sufficiently similar to those of the past for the term to be usefully deployed.
In essence colonialism involved remote rule, economic exploitation, inequality of treatment, processes of separation and racism.
In the post-colonial world many of the new independent states still experience some of these. Whilst southern hemisphere states are often resource rich they are often economically poor.
In addition aid is seen as a tool of domination whereby political interference and economic pressures are exercised.
AID
Aid is the transfer of goods and services between international actors on a concessionary basis, covering grants, loans and donations granted by governments charities, international organisations or even private individuals.
Aid may be transferred on a one off basis or as part of a set of regular contributions to a recipient state.
It may take many forms including famine relief, military aid, humanitarian aid and the provision of personnel such as engineers, scientists or health care workers
Aid often comes with conditions, or be granted for particular reasons. It may be granted in order to secure markets or may be used to prevent a state coming under the sphere of influence of a rival state. The conditions under which it is granted may be entirely humanitarian, to avert a catastrophe such as famine drought or environmental disaster.
By far the largest programme of aid ever granted was the Marshall plan. Although it was opposed by the Soviet Union, it was nonetheless effected under the supervision of the USA through the CEEC (Committee for European Economic Co-operation) and the OEEC (Organisation for European Economic Co-operation) when some $17bn was utilised by 1952.
Though described by Winston Churchill as ‘ the most unsordid act in history’ and described by Marshall himself in June 1947 thus:
“Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos”,
The real purpose of the Marshall Plan was to prevent Western Europe falling under Soviet influence and implement a post war restoration of Western Europe in order to provide markets for American goods and services.
Aid can prove particularly expensive for both donor and recipient states. Recipient states often have difficulty in meeting debt repayments and often social programmes such as housing, schools and hospitals find their budgets slashed.
Given the consequences of crippling 3rd world debt a pressure group Jubilee 2000 was formed. Its aims were as follows:
- advocating 100% cancellation of the unpayable and uncollectable debts of developing countries;
- promoting a framework of justice and discipline for relations between sovereign debtors and international creditors.
- democratising the international financial activities of sovereign governments and multilateral institutions, making them more transparent and accountable to citizens;
- highlighting environmentally sustainable policies for financing development
- advocating the repayment of the north’s ecological debts to countries of the south
- critiquing IMF-imposed structural adjustment policies which, by imposing deflationary economic policies, help to transfer assets from sovereign debtors to international creditors. IMF policies elevate the rights of foreign creditors over those of citiz
Case For Leading The Opposition
Mohan Parasaran and Muhammad Khan
|
The post is not a product of the Speaker's subjective discretion but of time-honoured laws
Last week was witness to a series of debates about whether the 16th Lok Sabha will have a leader of opposition.
It was implied that the ruling party might follow G V Mavlankar's formula to deny Congress its rightful claim. This formula requires a quorum of 10% in the Lok Sabha before a party is considered as the opposition.
These arguments, in defiance of parliamentary convention, are specious and at best naive.Relying on Mavlankar's formula is problematic for two reasons. First, it was articulated as a specific arrangement to accommodate the then prevailing political climate (Mavlankar was the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha where no opposition per se existed). Second, it was applied at a time when no legislation had been enacted on the subject. The formula, if ever it could be recognised as such (since it was based more on necessity than principle), has been eclipsed by a statute.
A deeper review of the subject's legislative history shows, conclusively , that the post of leader of opposition is not a product of subjective discretion.
There exists clear legislation which recognises the creation of such a post. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, grants statutory recognition to the post of leader of opposition.
Section 2 of the law states that a ‘‘leader of opposition is defined as a Lok Sabha member who is the leader of the party in opposition to the government, having the greatest numerical strength’’. No other conditions are specified.
To understand the intention with which Parliament passed the law one only needs to see its statement of object and reasons according to which: “In a parliamentary democracy, the leader of opposition has an important role to play. In the UK, Australia and Canada, the leader of opposition
has been accorded statutory recognition...Having regard to the important role of the leader of opposition in a parliamentary democracy, it is considered that the leaders of opposition in the House of the People and the Council of States should be accorded statutory recognition.“ The intent as laid out explicitly and the extensive degree of ceremony which the statute prescribes, clarifies, beyond doubt, the key role intended to be played by the individual holding the post in the functioning of Parliament.Those arguing against the creation of this post have cited Rule 121 of the directions by the Speaker under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha which specifies a 10% quorum to be recognised as a political party.
It is a founding principle of law-making that rules cannot add conditions not intended by the parent legislation. The Speaker’s directions are subordinate to the 1977 law passed by Parliament. If there is conflict between a statute passed by Parliament and rules or directions framed by the Speaker then there is no doubt the latter will prevail.
It would also be pertinent to draw attention to the Supreme Court’s observations in Sanjeev Coke vs Bharat Coal Ltd (1983):
“No one may speak for Parliament and Parliament is never before the court. After Parliament has said what it intends to say, only the court may say what Parliament meant to say . None else.“ The laboured interpretations being offered by commentators presuming to interpret what Parliament should do would be wise to take note of this.Even British parliamentary practice, to which our courts look for guidance in such matters, demonstrates otherwise.
The 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act, the inspiration for our own law, confirms that the office of leader of opposition means “that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's government having the greatest numerical strength in that House“. Again, no requirement for satisfaction of a quorum is laid down.
The leader of opposition is a recognised and essential member (under other statutes passed by Parliament) on selection committees of various bodies: chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, Lokpal and Chief Information Commissioner etc. Did the legislature intend for this role to be perfunctory or dispensable? If yes, then the language suggests otherwise.
Two of these laws go even further and specify that in the absence of recognition of a leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, the leader of the single largest group in opposition in the Lower House shall be considered as leader of opposition.
Thus, if there is no leader of opposition, invaluable checks and balances intended to be instituted by Parliament would be rendered null and void: an idea preposterous to the objects intended by the legislature.
The Speaker has simply not been vested with the power (or the option) of not recognising a leader of opposition. His discretion is invoked only if there is a tie i.e. two parties in opposition have the same number of members.
BJP has been given a historic mandate by the world’s largest democracy. Diluting the structures that have helped it achieve this victory will not be a worthwhile addition to their legacy.
Illustration: Jayachandran/Mint
It was implied that the ruling party might follow G V Mavlankar's formula to deny Congress its rightful claim. This formula requires a quorum of 10% in the Lok Sabha before a party is considered as the opposition.
These arguments, in defiance of parliamentary convention, are specious and at best naive.Relying on Mavlankar's formula is problematic for two reasons. First, it was articulated as a specific arrangement to accommodate the then prevailing political climate (Mavlankar was the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha where no opposition per se existed). Second, it was applied at a time when no legislation had been enacted on the subject. The formula, if ever it could be recognised as such (since it was based more on necessity than principle), has been eclipsed by a statute.
A deeper review of the subject's legislative history shows, conclusively , that the post of leader of opposition is not a product of subjective discretion.
There exists clear legislation which recognises the creation of such a post. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, grants statutory recognition to the post of leader of opposition.
Section 2 of the law states that a ‘‘leader of opposition is defined as a Lok Sabha member who is the leader of the party in opposition to the government, having the greatest numerical strength’’. No other conditions are specified.
To understand the intention with which Parliament passed the law one only needs to see its statement of object and reasons according to which: “In a parliamentary democracy, the leader of opposition has an important role to play. In the UK, Australia and Canada, the leader of opposition
has been accorded statutory recognition...Having regard to the important role of the leader of opposition in a parliamentary democracy, it is considered that the leaders of opposition in the House of the People and the Council of States should be accorded statutory recognition.“ The intent as laid out explicitly and the extensive degree of ceremony which the statute prescribes, clarifies, beyond doubt, the key role intended to be played by the individual holding the post in the functioning of Parliament.Those arguing against the creation of this post have cited Rule 121 of the directions by the Speaker under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha which specifies a 10% quorum to be recognised as a political party.
It is a founding principle of law-making that rules cannot add conditions not intended by the parent legislation. The Speaker’s directions are subordinate to the 1977 law passed by Parliament. If there is conflict between a statute passed by Parliament and rules or directions framed by the Speaker then there is no doubt the latter will prevail.
It would also be pertinent to draw attention to the Supreme Court’s observations in Sanjeev Coke vs Bharat Coal Ltd (1983):
“No one may speak for Parliament and Parliament is never before the court. After Parliament has said what it intends to say, only the court may say what Parliament meant to say . None else.“ The laboured interpretations being offered by commentators presuming to interpret what Parliament should do would be wise to take note of this.Even British parliamentary practice, to which our courts look for guidance in such matters, demonstrates otherwise.
The 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act, the inspiration for our own law, confirms that the office of leader of opposition means “that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's government having the greatest numerical strength in that House“. Again, no requirement for satisfaction of a quorum is laid down.
The leader of opposition is a recognised and essential member (under other statutes passed by Parliament) on selection committees of various bodies: chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, Lokpal and Chief Information Commissioner etc. Did the legislature intend for this role to be perfunctory or dispensable? If yes, then the language suggests otherwise.
Two of these laws go even further and specify that in the absence of recognition of a leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, the leader of the single largest group in opposition in the Lower House shall be considered as leader of opposition.
Thus, if there is no leader of opposition, invaluable checks and balances intended to be instituted by Parliament would be rendered null and void: an idea preposterous to the objects intended by the legislature.
The Speaker has simply not been vested with the power (or the option) of not recognising a leader of opposition. His discretion is invoked only if there is a tie i.e. two parties in opposition have the same number of members.
BJP has been given a historic mandate by the world’s largest democracy. Diluting the structures that have helped it achieve this victory will not be a worthwhile addition to their legacy.
India does not need so many ministries
A small step towards maximum governance with minimum government
Illustration: Jayachandran/Mint
There were a total of 17 ministers in the first cabinet of independent India headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The others in his team included such men of calibre as Vallabhbhai Patel, Abul Kalam Azad, B.R. Ambedkar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Baldev Singh and Shanmukham Chetty. Manmohan Singhled a government more than four times bigger in size, with 29 cabinet ministers, 12 ministers of state with independent charge of their portfolios and another 29 regular ministers of state. That is 70 in all. There is no evidence that more ministers has led to better governance.
Narendra Modi has often said that he believes in minimum government combined with maximum governance. He should thus consider going in for a smaller cabinet than what we have become used to in recent decades. It is time to revert to the earlier practice of ruling with a relatively small but efficient cabinet.
There are three big reasons why cabinets have expanded in size. One, the replacement of the colonial state with the development state quite naturally led to an increase in the tasks that the government took upon itself. Two, successive governments in New Delhi have invaded the turf that has been reserved for states in our constitutional division of powers; agriculture and health are prime examples. Three, ministries became vehicles of political patronage in the era of coalition politics with even the Indira Gandhi cabinets being far more lean than its successors; the worst manifestation of patronage politics has been the malign practice of handing out to allies ministries that provide opportunities to make money.
Modi has indicated a preference for small government; has a clear mandate from voters; and has often said he does not want to treat state chief ministers as underlings. This is a perfect time for him to move towards a leaner but more efficient cabinet.
Here are a few specific suggestions. India needs to take a hard look its ability to fuel its economic growth in the coming decades without facing an energy crunch. There are currently three ministries in the energy sector—power, petroleum and natural gas, and renewable energy. It makes sense to fuse them into a single ministry.
It similarly makes sense to integrate the railways, roads and shipping ministries so that the country gets an integrated transport strategy rather than the current mess. The recent problem of power plants being built without proper coal supplies could have been avoided if policy had been handled by one minister. It is worth noting that China has an integrated ministry of land and resources as well as a single ministry of transport.
Then there is the issue of ministries that are irrelevant in our times. There is no need for a ministry of information and broadcasting, as the former minister in charge of the portfolio, Manish Tewari, reportedly admitted last week. Is there a need for a separate ministry of urban poverty alleviation? A ministry of culture? A ministry of heavy industries? And a ministry for at micro, small and medium enterprises? What about a ministry of pensions?
Several ministries can safely be shut down while some of their tasks are handed over to independent regulators. Modi should also consider setting up technocratic missions that have very specific goals on the lines of what Rajiv Gandhi had tried when he came to power. Some of the projects he has been talking about are best dealt with through such commissions—cleaning the Ganga, building new cities, setting up high-speed rail links, for example.
The next prime minister is evidently a man who understands that the quality of governance is not linked to the size of government. That is welcome. It is high time that the number of ministries in New Delhi is cut by half.
No comments:
Post a Comment