British Political System.
Democratic Deficit in the UK.
Democratic deficiency is a result of a failure by democratic organizations to fulfill the promised principles of democracy in their operations. These organizations are particularly governments because their impact can be felt across the whole nation. Over the recent past, this subject matter has been discussed in many countries globally, and the UK is not an exception. Different sources have indicated that the UK has currently lost its democratic stand. The three key examples that can be used to demonstrate the democratic deficit are; the loss in the sense of social cohesion, state competence decline, and the paralysis of the legislative branches.
Loss of a Sense of Social Cohesion.
By definition, social cohesion refers to a willingness by different members of society to cooperate and work together for their prosperity. Various arguments can be set to claims that the UK is both undemocratic and democratic. This is evident in the way in the way of life of the people and the political course of the country. This brings into play the definition of democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Once one of these aspects misses, then democracy ceases to exist. Under the element of social cohesion, a democratic government ought to give people the power. This is in conjunction with the Greek words demos and Kratos, which imply people with power. It turns out to be unfortunate that the people in power are the very ones who deprive the people of their power. This, in turn, means that the people are not able to work together as a unity block.
A good example of the loss of sense of social cohesion is seen in the way the Universities in the UK are run. Sources report that as at the current state in the UK, Universities are the least democratic institutions. Since the end of the second world war, things changed quite a lot in the operation of the universities. The cost that was government based has since been shifted through crafty means and heaped ion the students. On the other hand, the responsibility of determining university governance has been moved to corporate bodies from the government. CEO- style administrators are now paid by the students to run the universities without any single consultation points. Over time, names such as senior management team and chief executive officers filtered into university management. They are these people who introduced such titles that deprived the students of the democratic rights they had in the name of making better the management process. This distinction made the students the customers who pay while the manager (administrative professors) run the so-called business and get paid.
The early 2000 introduction of tuition fees worsened matters. The governance then became more centralized with it, making the whole process a marketization process. The top-down governance meant restructuring and redistribution of funds whose main aim was to increase the spending on managers and the administration. The students were utterly put out of phase, and they featured nowhere in the whole process. Despite this seeming as an excellent strategy to help the students, it was a way of infringing their rights. The universities in the UK have become the most undemocratic social institutions (Pippa, 12). Like in many jobs, the managers pay their servants, no matter how brutal they are. This is not the case herein, in the UK universities is the student who pays their autocratic managers, plus taking care of their food, accommodation and laundry facilities. This is not the state, even in the world’s worst prisons.
Decline in State Competence.
In a fully democratic system, the ultimate political authority lies with the people. This directly translates to citizens being able to directly participate or through elected leaders take part in the decision making processes of the state. This what makes a state competent. A fail to give power to the people can be termed as a dictatorship (Richard & Kroger, 52). In such a rule, the state has typically failed and now bases on bulldozing things around to have their citizens toe the line against their wish. For instance, due to a failing economy, people are denied the right to expression and decision-making process, and their salaries cut while increasing taxes. The expected accountability of the government in serving the best interests of its people is thus lost. This turns out to be a clear indication of the democratic deficit.
Consequently, then the UK is not democratic in many ways. Its claim among other countries to be a democracy has not yielded any fruits. A democracy would imply that the citizens have adequate influence over the decisions of the government that affect their daily lives. This is not the case in the UK. However, there has been a great controversy with some arguing that power in the UK lies in the hands of just a few individuals, while others are purporting that the majority have their say. The lack of proper cooperation between the ruling government and its people is a considerable decline in its competencies. This is the cause of the great downfall of democracy in the UK.
Paralysis of the Legislative Branches.
It is claimed that the UK is a liberal democracy. By this, it is said to ensure its citizens are in a position to influence the decisions made by the government in power. Having the fact that the UK’s governmental system has no written constitution, contradicts the whole matter. The theoretical government is thus at liberty to pass any legislation in parliament provide they have the majority seats. There is, therefore, no safeguard for the laws that already exist or the new ones that are to be made. This turns out to be very undemocratic since the government possesses too many powers (Murray, Hooper & Yowell, 39). The royal prerogative powers possessed by the government that allows the which allows the prime minister to go to war without the parliaments’ consent, is another undemocratic condition. This is so because the only real democracy is that which is participatory, where both members of the public are active in government and have the power to vote in specific policies they feel comfortable with.
Work Cited.
Bellamy, Richard, and Sandra Kröger. “Domesticating the democratic deficit? The role of national parliaments and parties in the EU’s system of governance.” Parliamentary Affairs 67.2 (2014): 437-457.
Hunt, Murray, Hayley Hooper, and Paul Yowell, eds. Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.
Norris, Pippa. Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2011.