1. How effective is Parliament in carrying out its representative role? (40)
Answer:
Western Democracy and political ideology is touted as the most ideal and representative government system in the world. Its fulcrum, accordingly, is the parliamentary system- a reflection of utilitarian thought (Mill, 1865)-which ensures the establishment of popular governments by recognizing the will of the majority. The UK ascribes to this system of governance through competitive and elective leadership, which determines parliamentary representatives via the ballot box. However, the nature in which the British parliament functions has raised debate in regard to the effectiveness of the parliamentary system, given the fact that the minority who votes against the winners end being represented by leaders they did not choose. The inevitably, the operation rule is ‘winner takes all,’ which clearly ignores the will of minority groups. Similarly, the existence of an un-elected cliché of ‘representatives,’ the House of Lords, compromises the whole system’s accountability to the people. While they are not elected by the people they allegedly represent, they nonetheless wield significant influence in parliament, thus begging the question on whose interest they act. With close reference to the functioning of the UK government, the paper argues that the parliamentary system, regardless its democratic nature, is not truly a representative form of governance.
Scarcely is there any doubt that the House of Commons, by taking into account geographic coverage and demographic statistics, provides a fair representation in government. Accordingly, representation units are divided into 646 constituencies with roughly the same geographic area and equal number of votes. This strategy ensures that everyone’s vote carries the same weight in electing a government on the part of citizens, and conducting parliamentary business by the elected members (Patrick, 2006). It is essence of democracy, since every represented group, regardless their socio-economic class and geographical location, are afforded a level playing ground in determining national issues. It contrasts to monarchy and dictatorships, where leadership is forced upon citizens on the guise of divine inheritance in the former, and the use of coercion in the latter. In parliamentary systems, however, every individual is a soldier and every vote a bullet.
A series of voting reform acts have been instituted to ensure that all citizens, with some exceptions such as archbishops and the mentally ill, have the right to vote, and that each person has the right to vote only once. This avoids the possibility of over-representation of some sections in society, who may have uncontrolled influence over government structures. The reality of social inequalities in terms of socio-economic and religious marginalization could assert itself in the political process and institute a self-serving government, if these inequalities are not checked by a system that ensures democratic leadership. On this score, the parliamentary system ensures that each individual has an opportunity to assert their preference in matters of governance. For instance, the UK General Elections are characterized with divergence of opinion, reflected in the ideologies of different parties.
Consequently, the working class has traditionally been represented by the Labour party, and the middle class by the Conservatives. The left-right wing pulling in national issues is a classical portrayal of democracy, where each party pushes for the political agenda of its members. Likewise, nationalist parties have always tended to represent in Parliament those who believe in independence for Scotland and Wales, while the Environmentalists have the Green movement, which advocates for environmental conservation. Regardless the discouraging reality that due to lack of numbers the views of minority groups are not implemented into law, the fact is that they are afforded a forum where they could be heard.
The system of election used for the House of Commons is broadly representative in the sense that it is usually the most popular party that goes on to form the government. Although it is not perfect, supporters of the electoral system would argue that it allows the party that almost always gains the majority of the vote to go on and pass legislation, and if they are unsuccessful then a small swing of the vote will be transmitted into the formation of a new government representing a different range of views, e.g. the Tories who were swept from power in 1997.
Members of Parliament are elected to serve the interests of all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. Much of an MP’s time is spent dealing with constituency business, and they build up a very good local knowledge as a result. Voters of all parties can identify with the Member for their area and this link can be lost with different systems which use much larger geographic areas for constituencies and/or are multi-member. This strong MP-constituency link is not apparent in assemblies in other parts of the world, and is sometimes taken for granted. Indeed, many new MPs can be overwhelmed by the demands on their time by constituents and did not appreciate the importance of their role as constituency representative until entering Parliament. As a result of Labour’s reforms to the House of Lords, coupled with recent changes in numbers, the House of Lords can now claim to be much more representative of party support amongst the electorate. Of those peers who take a party whip, 217 are Labour, 200 are Conservative, and 76 are Lib Dem.
Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the parliamentary representation has also been criticised (Magstadt, 2008). No government has been elected since 1970 with more than 45% of the vote. In 2005 Labour was awarded an overall majority of 66 seats (55.1% of the 646 available) with only 35.2% of the national vote. Since turnout was just 61.3% it means that only 21.6% of the entire electorate voted for the government. In this we are the sick man of Europe: none of the other EU members has a single party government with a lower share of the vote.
Elections distort the complexion of the House of Commons results, especially in terms of party representation. If seats were allocated on a purely proportional basis then Labour would have won 227 seats as opposed to 355. Clearly they are over-represented. The Liberal Democrats would have been awarded 142 seats for their 22% share of the vote rather than the 62 they actually won. For the Conservatives, a proportional distribution would have seen them get 208 seats, which is more than the 197 secured by fptp. It is likely that Labour voters will continue to be over-represented since the electoral system is now biased in the Labour party’s favour. What this means is that if the Conservatives and Labour each polled an equal share of the vote at 33.8%, Labour would still have 116 more seats than the Conservatives.
The majority of MPs cannot claim to fairly represent their constituents as in 2005 only just over one third of all MPs elected achieved a majority of the votes cast in their constituency. This was a new lowest ever, and some way down on 2001 when around 50% of MPs could claim they had received a majority of the votes. The lowest share of the vote was polled by Gordon Banks in Perthshire with just 31% of the vote. The MP with the lowest share of the whole electorate was George Galloway in Bethnal Green who managed to poll only 18% of the potential vote.
According to the resemblance model, Parliament should be a microcosm of society. It is not. Firstly, women are not fairly represented. Currently only 20% of MPs in the House of Commons are women and although this is a slight increase on 2001 (18%) the UK still lags behind many other Western European parliaments. Secondly, Parliament does not accurately reflect the black and ethnic minority population. In the 2005 elections there was an increase in the number of black and ethnic minority MPs, from 13 to 15, but the figure is still low when compared to the percentage of the black and ethnic population in the UK. If the Commons was to be truly representative there would be 51 black or ethnic minority MPs. Thirdly, Parliament is overwhelmingly middle class. Just fewer than 90% of MPs were, before entering Parliament, based in occupations that put them into the top two categories in terms of social class compared with just over a third of the general population.
Whilst there is some evidence to suggest that the House of Lords may perform better in some respect as society’s mirror than the Commons, the most significant criticism that can be levied at the Lords here in terms of representation is to do with who the peers can claim to represent if no-one elected them. Remarkably, 92 of the current peers are there as a right of birth. No other country in the world, with the exception of Lesotho, has a legislature that contains members who are there on a purely hereditary basis.
Confusion also arises when we consider who MPs represent. The ‘delegate’ model suggests MPs vote and act in accordance of the wishes of those who elected them. The ‘representative’ or ‘trustee’ model suggests, however, that MPs should be free to make up their own minds as to what is best. This view is exemplified by Edmund Burke who argued that ‘Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement.’ Lastly there‘s the mandate model with the idea here being that a politician should be loyal primarily to his party.
In conclusion, the parliamentary system presents the irony of democracy: while it offers a forum for the formation of a fairy representative government, it in the same token denies minority groups, those whose choice candidates are defeated, a chance to be represented. Thus, the utilitarian interpretation of ‘the greatest good to the greatest number of people’ inherent in democracy in general and parliamentary system in particular is the Achilles heel of elective governance. In the UK example, the situation is further compromised by the House of Lords, whose representation is rather arbitrary. All said, however, the parliamentary system presents the most practical form of democracy, for anything less will lean towards monarchy. As long as democracy and protection of rights of marginalized groups is the quest of society, Parliament will remain the best option available.
References
Magstadt, T. M. (2008). Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. New York: Cengage
Learning
Mill, J. S. (1865). On Liberty. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Patrick, J. J. (2006). Understanding Democracy: A Hip Pocket Guide. London: Oxford UP.
