BRITISH POLITICS

•What do I mean by Britain? Not just England•Why study Britain? •What can the PM’s question hour tell us about some of the differences between American and British democracy? •Cameron vs. Blair 06

• Go to next slide

WHY STUDY HISTORY IN A POLITICAL SCIENCE CLASS?

•What is path dependency and how does it shape democratic institutions?– What this means is that when political systems are formed and changed over time,

they follow predictable choices that are dictated by previous decisions and experiences rather than rationally deliberating about all of the options. Thus, if a group of Americans were to write a new Constitution for the US today, the new document would no doubt have a heavy mixture of what we’ve already got as well as reflect the things our current society worries most about.

•What is punctuated equilibrium and what does this tell us about political change, the status quo, and democratic moments?

– Political change mostly happens in spurts rather than being evolutionary. Even Britain’s “gradualism” mostly boils down to a few crises that led to critical democratic moments. This is important because it means that the opportunities for rethinking democratic choices and tradeoffs are far and few between in most systems.

•How do historical moments impact trade-offs and institutional preferences?– America’s democratic choices at our founding emphasized creating a democracy

that places a premium on protecting us from tyranny, maximizing property rights and free speech, allowing political minorities to prevent changes that the majority wants, maximizing deliberation from all corners of society, and adherence to the limitations of a written constitution. All of these choices make our democracy different and unique from others and they represent the pressures of key moments when our democracy was open to change. Unfortunately, when you give away the capacity of the federal government to operate quickly and to respond to needs with little interference, you also make it impotent in the face of global economic challenges like the one we face today.

•What are demonstration effects?– What works is copied by other countries when they have democratic moments.

They key to building a democracy that will allow for both economic and political development over the long-run (something all the advanced democracies have achieved) is copying the right institutions for a given society’s unique needs. As a case and point, the Weimar Republic in Germany and the American-style presidential systems adopted by most Latin American countries at the beginning of the 19th C are both cases where societies adopted institutions that were a poor fit with their societies’ needs. The democratic governments built in Japan and Germany after WW2 are both examples of best-practice democracy being adapted in ways that ideally fit their socieites.

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE & SOCIETY

•Why is English history so important for the rest of democracy and “liberalism”?– Key ideas of western political thought develop as a consequence of Britain’s geography and unique political

moments. – It model of parliamentary governance together with America’s presidential systems established the two

base models of democracy (although they both have single-member districts rather than proportional representation, and the later type of election is the most common in democracies).

•The Norman invasion (1066)– Being an island, invasion isn’t the norm in Britain, so the power of the state can be divided and the central

authority limited without the threat that the state will be vulnerable from outside attack. This is the last time that Britain will be vanquished by a force entirely made up of outsiders (the Glorious Revolution) leads

•The Magna Carta (1215)– Sep of power, but only on key issues and power still heavily favors the monarchy.– Not remotely democratic: Balancing the King with a House of Lords.

•1265: Members of the “Commons” are summoned by the King to participate in Parliament. – Kings decide that they want to hear from the property owners and local elites from various areas of the

country. It becomes common for them to be selected by propertied elites in their area; however, they and the Lords serve at the pleasure of the monarchy. Parliamentary approval matters and is understood as something that should normally occur, the balance of power is still clearly in the favor of monarchs.

•The Reformation (1530s)– Eventually leads to liberalism because it leads to the development of a tradition western political thought

that places an emphasis on a “social contracts” rather than divine choice as the justification behind state power.

•The English Civil Wars (1640s) and their consequences: The permanent shift of power to parliament (that’s still controlled by hereditary Lords

– History in a nutshell, Parliament challenges the autonomy of the King (Charles 1), and it leads to a civil war. The side favoring parliament defeated the royalists, with Oliver Cromwell leading the way. Charles is supposed to accept his defeat and allow a constitutional monarchy, but instead escapes and starts the war up again. Charles loses again and is executed.

– Cromwell is the first non-royal to lead England: His “republic” is authoritarian and violently anti-Catholic – After Cromwell’s death, there is a “restoration” of the monarchy but more conflict that eventually results in

the “Glorious Revolution” after which the Monarchy will be subject to the rule of parliament permanently.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT&

ECONOMY•The Industrial Revolution (1760s-1860s)•“Great” Reform Act of 1832

– Expands (although not by much) voting rights, but more importantly standardizes elector qualifications throughout the country, making it clear in all cases that propertied men can vote. It sets the procedure and precedent for the vote to be expanded again and again, until 1919 when all men are given the right to vote. Most women could vote by the same act, but there were some prop. Qualification for women in place into the late 1920s. Multiple voting (having college education allowed two votes) occurred in Britain until 1948),

•Domination by the Commons (1911): Labour and the Conservatives/Tories become the main political forces in the country. •End of colonial rule (20th Century), but vast accelerated after WW2. •The collectivist consensus (1945-1970s) •The Era of Decline (1970s-1990s)•Britain’s resurgence under Thatcher’s pro-market, privatization policies•Catch-all parties and Labour’s Third Way? (1997-2010)•Austerity from the center right (Tories + Lib Dems): Lots of talk so far, but pretty much the same political consensus we’ve seen since Margaret

HOW DOES THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION SET UP POWER?

•No written document (yet)? What do they use?:•Common law. In the US, we do this a lot more than we think. We consider ourselves to be a nation that follows the constitution and laws, but in fact a lot of our presidents and Congress do is guided by precedent and norms rather than formal laws. Look at the powers granted to the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court on paper and then see what they actually do in practice. •Parliamentary laws are supreme. Our view: you have to control government by a Constitution. Their view: Why in the world would you write something down on paper 200 years ago in another context and then hold yourself to these rules drawn up for another time and context? What’s wrong with doing what your democratically elected officials want to do now?

•What about the House of Lords and the Monarchy? Why not just toss them? –The deliberation provided by Lords has all kinds of upsides without creating a situation where it’s super hard to get things done as is the case in the US. The Monarchy looks weird and outdated, but you needs someone to be the powerbroker of last resort in any parliamentary system where you need to make sure that the parties form a majority in the legislature. In this case, you have someone who has traditional authority and no democratic claim to govern themselves.

•No judicial review in most cases, but finally a Supreme Court of sorts. –They now have a Supreme Court that does what ours was supposed to do originally. It acts as the initial court of dispute in a handful of instances, but otherwise is the last court of appeal. What they can’t do is to strike down a law as being unconstitutional… They can however tell the government to follow laws that it has previously passed unless it changes that law).

•No Bill of Rights (but… the European Convention on Human Rights applies).– The Labour governments that ruled between 1997 and 2010 passed laws in parliament committing the government to adhering to the EU’s basic protections of liberties and rights, which are much more expansive than the US Bill of Rights.

•No federalism (except… Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, London, and more cities over time). –The national government deals with almost all policy, taxation, and deliberation in the country. Among other things, this means that when your party loses power, it loses all power. This makes for more extreme politics when you have a party that’s been shut out of decision making for a long time, and it also means that there aren’t venues for young politicians to learn the ropes of compromise before jumping onto the national stage. This is one of the reasons that British politics are so partisan.

HOW DOES BRITAIN’S GOVERNMENT WORK?

•The Prime minister selected by the Commons rather than directly by the voters•Legislative and executive powers are fused into one

– This means that you don’t have either the separation of powers (i.e., different roles where branches can’t interfered with each other)

– You also don’t have checks and balances, where separate branches have to work together to get things done.•The Cabinet selected from the legislature. •Separate head of state (Queen) & head of government (the PM)… but the PM covers all the big stuff. •Unfixed terms for legislature and government (early elections vs. votes of no confidence)

– The PM must have an election every five years, but may call for early elections at the moment of her choice. – If the PM loses her majority in the Parliament, the parliament could issue a vote of no confidence, which triggers

new elections for parliament, which would then select a new PM– Votes of no confidence never happen in Britain; instead, the governing party or coalition just switch out the PM by

asking her to resign and selecting a new one. This is very common before elections where an unpopular PM would be the head of the party. Wouldn’t it be weird if, say, Democrats in the Congress could replace an unpopular incumbent Democratic president with a more popular political official?

•Is this governmental system is better? – It’s better at some things and worse at others. Making a democracy is about choosing institutions that trade off

different aspects of democracy.– It is more efficient and accountable for sure: People vote in governments that can do exactly what they want them

to do with little opposition. – In Britain’s case, it has been called an elected dictatorship because the opposition can do little more than to

publically complain and hope to win the next elections, which may come two months from now or five years from now, depending on what the current PM decides to do.

WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE BRITISH COMMONS AND HOW IT’S ELECTED?

•A multi-country legislature. – Unlike most Parliaments, the Commons represents the various nations of the UK.

•Why is the PM so strong?: The two-party system, the organization of power in the parliament, and its unique electoral laws

– If the PM were elected in a truly multi-party system (i.e., one that used proportional representation), she would have to worry a lot more about losing the support of the Commons.

– The PM is so strong in Britain because she is the head of her party and in most cases her party controls all of the ministries. If someone gets out of line, she can take away that person’s portfolio.

– The PM controls to a large degree where different members of the parliament have their home districts and what resources they get to run for office. If you make the PM mad, they can make you lose or perhaps get you replaced by another candidate.

•Does question hour really weaken the PM?– It definitely shapes who gets selected to be PM; however, this period is allowed largely because

the parties out of power have no other way outside of public appeals to protest what the government is doing. There are questions about whether QH is a good thing… The practice limits sevrrely what kind of leaders come to power, and the skills needed to successfully navigate QH may be only modestly relevant to being a good national leader.

•The size of the commons, its weak committees, its cabinet structure, and its cabinet rules– One of the reasons that power is so centralized and so strong is that the Commons is so large.

With so many members, it has to be highly centralized or nothing would get done (think about the differences between the tightly regulated US House and the much more freewheeling Senate).

– Power is also so centralized because Parliamentary committees are so weak. In the US, Congressional committees write most laws. They regularly kills laws—95% of all laws, in fact—that are supported by the Congressional leadership or the president. In our Congress, the laws that aren’t killed, are usually amended so much that they don’t look like the original bill. In the Commons, none of this happens. Staffs are very small and committees don’t have the powers to kill and amend that our Congress does.

– Finally, there’s the cabinet. In the US, members of the Administration try to protect their departments and agencies as well as the President because that’s where their allegiances lie. In Britain, any cabinet member who doesn’t agree with the PM is expected to give up their portfolio.

– In short, not only is their no president to counter-balance the Commons; there’s no division within the Commons to stop the PM outside of the fact that she can’t afford to make a majority of her party mad for very long of they may rebel and replace her.

WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE BRITISH COMMONS AND HOW IT’S ELECTED?

•How do elections work? Mostly Pluralist SMD but some PR? Why did Britain’s reject ranked voting?– Britain uses first past the post, also known as single member plurality districts to elect all members of the

Commons. These elections work like most US elections: whoever gets the most votes in a district, gets that district’s seat.

– Proportional elections involve voting for parties rather than individuals. If a party gets, say, 10% of the vote, they get approximately 10% of the legislative seats in an election. Britain is experimenting with these elections in the local issue parliaments that Labour created in the 1990s in Wales and Scotland.

– Generally, single-member districts have the advantage of encouraging moderate politics where two sides try to appeal mostly to the center of the electorate in order to win elections. They have two problems, however. First, the presence of a third party can cause the least supported candidate to win more votes than any other candidate (this happens when two popular politicians split their support). Second, even if as much as 49.9% of the district supports the losing side, they get no representation whatsoever.

– Proportional rep. fixes the main problems with SMD elections, but can encourage more radical parties that not only make it harder to create a majority government that everyone likes but also can allow small parties with little support to have a lot power than they should because their support is needed to form a parliamentary majority.

– In 2010, British voters were asked (by a national referendum) if the would like to use ranked voting (also called “alternative vote” or “instant primary voting”). This system allows voters to rank the candidates they are voting for instead of just picking one. So, you could list your most preferred candidate as well an alternative candidate in case your top choices can’t win. If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the ballots are reexamined. In cases where a voter’s first choice candidate was not one the top two finishers, their second choice is treated as their top choice. In effect, you can vote for the candidate that most appeals to your heart without worrying that you will accidentally elect your least preferred candidate by splitting the vote for an alterative candidate that you can live with even if he’s not your favorite. British voters rejected this option in a national referendum because it’s hard to get voters to change the existing system in most democracies in the absence of a crisis.

WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE BRITISH COMMONS AND HOW IT’S ELECTED?

• Why only 2-3 big parties ? Duverger’s law. – This “law” simply states the logical outcome of using a single member district electoral system. Third parties will not

last very long in a district where two other parties have broad support. I may like my third party a lot, but I’m not going to waste my vote for a party that can’t realistically win. In Britain, only two parties are strong in most distrcits. Interesting, unlike the US, it isn’t always the same parties. In really conservative districts, the Conservative (Tory) party competes with the Liberal Democratic (a libertarian party) rather than Labour. America has just two parties because of all the rules that make it hard to form, fund, and govern with parties other than the Democrats and Republicans.

• How do the national parties control their candidates? – Per the comments above, British parties are very disciplined and most votes in the Commons are straight party votes

with no defections on any side. The party—rather than voters--controls whether and where a candidate will run and there’s not much of a chance for British politicians to develop the personal links to voters that allow American Congressmen to challenge their own parties with frequency.

• How ideological are their parties (cadre vs. catch-all parties)? – Britain used to have “cadre parties,” which are parties that mostly represent fixed interests and specific groups rather

than appealing to everyone. British parties are still quite ideological, especially when compared to US parties, but they are now “catch-all parties” that try to get as many voters as they can by making general appeals to the electorate rather than just to their base groups. Labour was highly successful with this strategy when it stopped being a party that mostly served union interests so that it could win back power in the 1990s. The Conservatives under David Cameron followed a similar strategy, winning as the Tories downplayed their roots.

• Is there any democratic check? How do shadow cabinets work? – The British Parliament and especially the PM have very few checks; however, “shadow cabinets” are in place

where the opposition matches most government proposals and personnel choices with what their equivalent would be. In a parliamentary system, the opposition has to be ready to govern at any time. In the absence of much significant power, shadow cabinets do give the opposition a way to show the public and the government good ideas (which are frequently adopted, incidentally) that might otherwise not get any airing in this highly centralized political system.

HOW DID THATCHER DEAL WITH “THE ENGLISH DISEASE”?

•How does the military and nationalism figure into tough choices? –She was able to cast many of her economic decisions into larger arguments about declining British power. Because she was seen as a strong leader in foreign policy, she had more room to implement her domestic policies. While this was also true of Ronald Reagan in the US, her political system allowed her to make much deeper reforms.

•Why shouldn’t you subsidize industries?–Job are great, but when you spend a lot of capital protecting old industries, you don’t stay competitive and you burn a lot of capital.

•Why were unions a problem?–They were so deeply tied to politics that tough choices that needed to be made to allow British industry to remain competitive were not made.

•What’s wrong with a protective bureaucracy and state ownership?•How did Thatcher’s plan work:

•Inflation: 20% (1982) to 5% (1986)•Growth: Worst in Europe to the best•Unemployment: 5% to 10% to 5%•Foreign policy: Has been to major player

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRITAIN’S ECONOMIC ISSUES AND ITS

POLITICAL DISATISFACTION?•Review your non-text readings: They all address all of these questions with their central arguments•Labour’s Third Way: Can you have Thatcherism (heavy privatization) with “equity”? What’s different about Cameron’s approach?•Can the left politically afford a limited social agenda when it controls government?•What relationship does the UK have with the EU?•What key political reforms have been pursued over the last two decades? If you add them up, they’ve had a revolution•What was Labour’s overall record? Thatherism with equity worked… so why’d they lose? (War, Brown, and the younger, smarter fellow)• How is David Cameron doing? Riots, riots everywhere. This, despite the fact that he is not Thacther.