10 reasons why the UK is not a democracy.
1. The Monarchy.
If the head of state is unelected and is appointed by right of birth
then this is not democracy. And if anyone out there is thinking “but the
Monarchy have no real power” think again. Read this and remember all members of our armed forces and all MP’s swear allegiance to
the Monarch. It is an act of treachery for them to be republicans.
2. The House of Lords.
The second chamber of
parliament, which can block and amend laws, is unelected. Its members are
mostly appointed and partly hereditary. All three major UK political parties wanted
reform and stated in their 2010 manifestos that this should change to an
elected second chamber. However despite majority support for a bill in
parliament for this it has been dropped from government business (see 6 below)
3. The selection of candidates.
The Prime Minister
of the UK has, for the last 91 years been either Conservative or Labour. The
membership of these two parties in 2012 is less than 1% of the population and
it is these members (and often a small sub-set of them) that select
parliamentary candidates, therefore our MP’s and governments are not
representative of the vast majority of the people. See this
4. The disconnect between manifesto promises and implemented policy.
4. The disconnect between manifesto promises and implemented policy.
Every political party at a general election sets out its
policies in a manifesto. These are meant to be pledges that if elected will be
enacted as law. Anyone who has lived through a 5 year parliament will know that
they are littered with broken promises. “ we will not increase tuition fees”
said the Liberal Party in 2010. But in coalition government they voted for an
increase in the first session of parliament.
“we will give you the voters the power to sack your MP” was a key pledge
of the Conservatives in 2010. This has been dropped now they are in government.
“we will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate
the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament” was also a Conservative
pledge. Britain’s credit rating has been downgraded and the plan to eliminate
the deficit in one parliament has been shelved indeed there is now no date for
when this will happen but certainly at least 5 years from now. There are also always glaring omissions from
manifestos. The privatisation of the NHS was not in either the Liberal or
Conservative manifesto in 2010 but it is being implemented in Government.
Therefore the idea that somehow the people decide on the policies of any
government is flawed because the manifestos are not implemented and new
policies are implemented without a mandate from the people.
5. Party funding, lobbying and corruption.
It costs
a great deal of money to contest all 650 seats at a general election. The
maximum spend allowed of £30,000 per seat so for the main parties a spend of
over £18m is required to reach the maximum. As we have seen the number of party
members is small so subscriptions alone cannot hope to reach these numbers. Let
alone run the party machines between elections. Therefore all political parties
seek donations from individuals and organisations. Once parties are funded in
this way then the possibility of corruption is always present. Over the last 25
years we have had a number of high profile scandals including Cash for
Question, Cash for Honours and Cash for Influence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Influence
Whilst the political parties and individual MPs tout for donations it will
always be the case that they are open to claims that they implement policies
for their backers and not for the people they are supposed to represent. The
dropping of proposals for the banning of tobacco adverts in F1 after a big
donation by the head of F1 does nothing to suggest that laws are passed by the
will of the people and not by the wallets of backers. And this is just one of
any number of examples. That brings us
to lobbying. The UK lobbying industry is
worth £1.9bn and employs 14,000 people. Does it make any sense to conclude that
lobbying (or seeking to influence decision makers) does not work in the face of
these statistics? The fact that a tobacco giant is able to give a £6m contract
to a lobbying firm and then see plans for plain packaging on cigarettes
abandoned by the government suggests that it was money well spent. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/20/cameron-lynton-crosby-contract-philip-morris
6. Individuals in power represent themselves not
the people.
Politicians are almost always ruthlessly ambitious people. Once in
power they will do everything they can to hold on to power at the expense of
the people they are supposed to be representing. A good example of this is
referred to in point 2 above. The bill in 2012 to reform the House of Lords as
an elected chamber was put before the House of Commons and at second reading
received a considerable majority in favour. However 90 Conservative members
voted against. The prime minister decided to drop the bill. Why? It is a good
bet that had he tried to proceed with it then he would have faced a leadership
challenge and could well have lost. He therefore put himself above the will of
the people (remember this had majority cross party MP support and was in all
three parties manifestos) – how can this be democracy when the leader of a
party puts his own interests above the peoples will? See http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN0640
7. First past the post.
Our electoral system itself
is undemocratic. The party that wins the majority of seats rarely wins the
majority of the popular vote. In 2010 the Conservatives won the most seats with
36.1% of the vote. In 2005 Labour won the most seats (and a parliamentary
majority with 35.2% of the vote. And do not forget that not everyone votes – in
2010 the turnout was 65% and in 2005 just 61% voted. This means that David
Cameron became Prime Minister with the support of just 21% of the
electorate. In Australia voting is
compulsory. At their last general election the PM was returned with 51% of the
votes and so could be said to have a mandate from the people. A candidate that
receives support from just 21% of the electorate cannot claim to have a
democratic mandate.
8. The “payroll vote” and the Whips.
The house of
commons is organised in a way that takes away from the constituency MP the
right to represent his constituents. Over 150 members of parliament are on the
government payroll (they get extra salary for being ministers or junior
ministers than ordinary MPs). In any vote in the commons the “payroll vote” means
that those 150 members cannot vote with their conscience or in the interest of
their constituents because they would then be sacked from the government. Their votes are effectively bought. Also when
the government want to pass a law they “whip” their MPs into voting on party
lines and not according to the interests of their constituents. Effectively MPs
run the risk of expulsion from the party (and de-selection) if they defy the
whip. Therefore the basic tenet of a parliament of representatives is
undermined. The representatives do not represent anyone at the legislature they
are “told” what to vote for.
9. Lack of veto.
There is no power of recall over
an MP who is found to be not representing his/her constituents. For instance an
MP who rarely (if ever) attends parliament cannot be re-called and a
by-election triggered. Even if the MP is guilty of serious wrongdoing (i.e.
breaking parliamentary standards) he cannot be re-called. The only recourse is
to wait until a general election and even then if that MP is reselected by the
party (see 3 above) then he/she may well be re-elected
10. Statutory Instruments.
It has become the
practice of governments over recent years to make use of things called
Statutory Instruments. This confers on ministers power to enact legislation
without further recourse to parliament (other than passing the original act
giving them those powers). In this way ministers are given vast power without
the checks and balances of scrutiny by the people’s representatives.
Governments have argued that this simplifies the working of government and is
less bureaucratic, but it cannot be democratic to give unfettered power to one
person to make laws. See http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments/
and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/14/statutory-instruments-parliament
