Oh the Brits

Tony Wright’s British Politics provided an excellent introduction into a very much different democracy than the one we enjoy here in the United States. Two clear distinctions, each of which is related to the other, struck me as especially interesting. Wright writes (ha!) that while the political Left and Right differ on numerous political issues, “both agreed that Britain’s top-down, government-centered way of doing politics should be defended and protected” (38). This really struck a chord with me as a very politically interested American. In the United States we suggest almost by default that the conservative Republicans are the party of small government, and the liberal Democrats are the party of big government. Traditionally, Republicans favor tax breaks and loosening of governmental regulation while the Democrats favor higher taxes to support numerous programs as well as a high degree of regulation. Granted it isn’t quite fair to say that all British politicians favor big government in the way that Democrats, but that’s really the point. In Britain, Wright explains, when parliament replaced the Monarch as the political (legislative and executive) power, they didn’t forfeit any of the control. They essentially maintained the monarchic level of governmental reach and power and simply transferred it to Houses of Parliament. Wright says this change “preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State” (49). This seemingly has two consequences. First, it simply necessitates a large government, relatively larger than the US. Second, as a result of the authority of the State, the government’s legitimacy seems to come less from “the people”, as in does in the US, and more from the traditional legitimacy of the “ King in Parliament”. That’s not to say the British don’t have a huge say in their politics. They do by voting. If they feel the country is going in the wrong direction they can vote to change the majority party. However, it appears to me that in a system where the majority party essentially operates as one executive and legislative entity with virtually no checks and balances, this traditional form of legitimacy must serve some kind of reassuring role to the citizens whose laws are almost entirely controlled by one essentially monopolistic political party.