How Governments Seek Legitimacy

1. How Governments Seek Legitimacy • Legitimacy = rightfulness, the ability to pass legislation and function as a government without being challenged. • Governments. can promote public participation through elections, Refrendums etc. Labour have used Refrendums to legitimise devolution. • In the USA legitimacy depends on adherence to a codified constitution. • New Labour have relied heavily on “spin” to gain and maintain support. • Governments should submit legislative proposals to consultation in the form of Green Papers; Labour have been criticised for failing to do this with top-up fees. Representative Democracy • A system of democracy in which politicians make decisions on behalf of the people, with elections to make sure that they are responsible to the people. • Public participation is indirect, mostly confined to voting in • In the UK, MPs are representatives, not delegates, i.e. they must make their own judgements and not just be mouthpieces for public opinion. • The idea is that Politicians should be broadly representative of society in terms of gender, race, religion, age, class etc. • We have regular, free, competitive elections based on the universal adult suffrage and equal rights for all. • Power and Authority • Power is the ability to make people do what you want them to do even if they don’t want to do it and may involve the use of force. • Authority means someone accepts your right to tell them what to do so i.e. you have legitimacy. According to Weber there are 3 types of authority: legal/rational, traditional & charismatic. Democracy • Direct Democracy • System of government where all citizens directly participate in government and are involved in making decisions without relying on representatives. • Problems with it: • Could work in a small society like ancient Athens, where most inhabitants were not citizens; impossible in a big modern state. • Most people are apathetic and ignorant about politics • Makes decision making slow and difficult. • Public opinion is fickle, e.g. Welsh devolution • Electoral Mandate • The right to govern, based on the idea that the government have the right to enforce their policies because they have won a majority in the House of Commons – i.e. they have the legitimacy and authority to govern. • Theoretically this only applies to policies mentioned in the manifesto of the party which won the election, because they were lasted on the strength of said manifesto. Democracy: ‘Government of the people by the people for the people.’ • Democracy is a system of government for a nation or organisation in which the people rule. • There are two main types of democracy, direct democracy and representative (or liberal) democracy. • The main principles of a democracy are political equality, public participation in politics and governing in the publics interests.

2. DemocraticHow democratic is the UK?Undemocratic • Universal suffrage • General elections at least every 5 years give people the chance to vote out unpopular governments – i.e. the Tories in 1997. • Civil liberties are respected e.g. habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial. Labour passed the Human Rights Act to improve civil liberties. • Voters have a choice of 3 main parties in general elections plus several smaller ones. • The media are free from government control. • The public have the right to demonstrate e.g. against the Iraq war, or to join pressure groups, e.g. to campaign against vivisection , to put pressure on the government to listen to them. • The government is accountable to the democratically elected House of Commons and can be brought down by a vote of no confidence, as in 1979. • Labour have introduced devolution to made government more responsive to regional commands in Scotland, Wales and Greater London. • Devolution was introduced after the public were consulted by a referendum (direct democracy). • Labour have introduced PR in elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Greater London Assembly and European Parliament. • Whips make sure the most MPs most of the time put their party before their constituents. • Americans can vote for individual presidents, but we can’t vote for individual prime ministers unless we live in their constituency. • Governments made decisions which ignore public opinion, e.g. Blair on the Iraq war. • We have an unelected Head of State (the Queen) and an unelected House of Parliament (the Lords). • Anti-terror legislations threatens civil liberties, e.g. terrorist suspects can be detained for 28 days without being charged. • Under representation in Parliament of women, ethnic minorities, the poor and the young. • Low public participation – 61% turnout in 2005, Royal Society for Protection of Birds having more members than all the 3 main parties combined. • The doctrine of the mandate doesn’t work. • Governments hold referendums infrequently and only when it suits them, e.g. Labour have not held referendums on the Euro and the EU constitution. • The unfair electoral system – first past the post. Giving labour 55% of the seats for only 35% of the votes. This makes it easy for governments to dominate parliament.

3. Arguments for Refrendums • . Consulting the people is more democratic; Refrendums are a form of direct democracy. • They promote public participation in politics, which is declining. • They foster public debate and education about important issues, e.g. devolution, the Euro. • They limit the power of the government’s “elective dictatorship”. • No govt. since 1935 has had a majority of the vote, so the govt's. mandate to legislate without Refrendums is questionable. • They demonstrate public support for policies like devolution; there is little point in it otherwise. Differences Between Referendums and Elections • Arguments Against Refrendums • Parliament is supposed to be sovereign and should not abdicate its responsibility like this. • The public is ill informed about complex issues like the Euro; better to leave it to the experts. • Public opinion changes, e.g. the Welsh voted against devolution in 1979 but for it in 1997. • Governments hold Refrendums for party political advantage, e.g. Wilson on the Common Market in 1975. • Governments only hold Refrendums if they think they can win them; that is why labour have not held one on the Euro. • Refrendums are not always a “level field”, e.g. the “yes” campaigns had far more media, party and financial support on both the Common Market and devolution • Questions in Refrendums are difficult to frame and bound to oversimplify complex • issues. Refrendums • Circumstances They Are Held In • Usually held on a major constitutional changes like devolution. • Changes less noticeable to the public, like the Freedom of Information Act, are not put to Refrendums. • Governments hold Refrendums when they think they can win; this is why labour have held Refrendums on devolution. but not the Euro. • To resolve divisions in the governing party, e.g. Labour over the “Common Market” (as the EU was then called) in1975. Wilson let Cabinet ministers campaign on opposite sides but made them agree to accept the result. Definition A referendum is a popular vote on a particular policy issue like devolution, asking for a “yes or no” answer. It is proposed by government, unlike initiatives or propositions in the USA which are proposed by individuals or pressure groups.

4. Recent Refrendums • Why Refrendums Have Been Held More Recently • Labour are committed to constitutional reforms like devolution which the Tories were not. • To demonstrate public support for devolution, especially outside Scotland where it couldn’t be taken for granted. • It has almost become a convention that major constitutional changes require Refrendums to legitimise them; Labour are pledged not to adopt the Euro or change the electoral system without one. • New Labour believe in keeping in close touch with public opinion. • In Northern Ireland it was essential to demonstrate public support for the Good Friday Agreement from both Unionists and Nationalists. • 18 years of Tory govt. which they didn’t vote for increased support for independence in Scotland and Wales meant that Labour thought devolution was essential as an alternative to prevent the break-up of the UK.

5. How Pressure Groups Influence the Government and Public Opinion • Using “insider” influence, e.g. the NFU over foot and mouth. • Lobbying the EU, e.g. trade unions over rights for part time workers. • Lobbying political parties, e.g. trade unions lobbying Labour for a national minimum wage. • Using marches, demonstrations to gain public support, e.g. the Stop the War Coalition 2003. • Publicity stunts, e.g. Greenpeace landing protestors on the Brent Spar oil rig. • Using the courts, e.g. the World Development Movement sued the govt. over the Pergau Dam affair 1995. • Using the media, e.g. Snowdrop getting the support of the tabloid press. • Factors that influence why some pressure groups are more successful than others • Membership base - the RSPB has more members than all 3 main parties combined. • “Insider” access and links with the governing party - Ecclestone gave £1 million to the Labour Party and then lobbied Blair to exempt Formula 1 from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. • Hiring professional lobbyists - the UCW hired Lowe Bell to defeat Post Office privatisation 1994. • Public support, e.g. the fuel protests 2000. • Timing -Snowdrop got handguns banned because a general election was imminent. • Influence with government - trade unions have more influence with a Labour than a Tory government. • Conclusion: business groups have most influence because of financial muscle, insider access and use of lobbyists. • Differences Between Pressure Groups and Political Parties • Pressure groups are concerned with a single issue, whereas parties have a range of policies. • Pressure groups aim to influence the government. whereas parties want to be it. • Pressure groups are bound together by a cause or interest, parties by a shared ideology. • Pressure groups do not normally field candidates in elections whereas parties do. Pressure Groups Definition A pressure group is an organised group which exists to influence government policy in relation to a particular cause or interest. pressure groups have a narrow issue focus and are bound together by shared interests or a common cause.

6. HelpDo pressure groups help or hinder democracy?Hinder • They widen participation and are especially attractive to young people and women. • They promotedebate and raise public awareness of issues likehuman rights and the environment. • They keep the government in line with public opinion between elections, e.g. the fuel protests 2000. • They defend disadvantaged groups whose interests might otherwise be ignored, e.g. Shelter for the homeless. • They maintain “political stamina”, e.g. Friends of the Earth on recycling. • Self interested groups like Formula 1 bypass public debate and use financial muscle to get what they want. • Unelected groups have no right to influence a democratically elected govt. • No justification in a democracy for pressure groups to use illegal methods, e.g. Reclaim the Streets, or violence, e.g. the ALF. • pressure group influence is not a “level playing field”, e.g. arms manufacturers have more influence on govt. policy towards arms sales than human rights groups like Amnesty International. • Well organised pressure groups can get their way even if public opinion is against them, e.g. the Countryside Alliance on hunting.

7. YesIs pressure group influence increasing?No • Most pressure group campaigns, e.g. against the Iraq War or in defence of hunting, fail. • It could be argued that what we are seeing is a crisis in party politics rather than a rise in pressure group influence. • Only parties can form government & official opposition & offer electoral choice. • Labour’s reduced majority since 2005 has made Parliament more relevant, e.g. gambling, Trident. • Pressure groups often have to work through parties, the League Against Cruel Sports lobbied Labour against hunting. • Pressure group membership is rising while party membership and voter turnout (59% 2001) are declining; the RSPB has more members than all 3 main parties combined. • Women and young people especially more attracted to pressure groups than parties. • It could be argued that in a global economy big business has more power than parties. • Controversy about the sale of peerages has deepened public cynicism about party politics. • Pressure groups campaign on issues like animal welfare & GM food which interest the public but parties tend to neglect. • The lack of differences between the parties makes pressure groups seem more relevant than them.

8. New and Old Labour • New Labour abandoned Clause 4 calling for public ownership & are privatising public services through PFI. • Old Labour sympathetic to trade unions & suspicious of business; New Labour other way round. • New Labour favours free enterprise, wealth creation and are relaxed about inequality of income. • New Labour believe in welfare reform & see employment rather than benefits as the route out of poverty. • New Labour have abandoned the redistribution of wealth and cut income tax rates. • New Labour is keener than Old on constitutional reform & the EU. • New Labour is tougher than Old on immigration & crime. • New Labour have increased workers’ rights: minimum wage, Social Chapter, trade union recognition. • New Labour have increased taxes to spend more on health and education. • Brown has used the tax system to redistribute income from the middle classes to working poor families. • Consensus and Adversarial politics. • Consensus - the parties agree about fundamental issues, like Blair & Cameron currently: • Adversarial - parties disagreeing & reversing each other’s policies, as Thatcher did after 1979: • How They Promote Democracy and Participation • They represent the people and act as a channel of communication between government and governed. • They inform the voters through policy debate and argument. • They translate public opinion into govt. policy through competitive elections. • They give people opportunities to stand for public office • They field candidates for election and give citizens a chance to vote and exercise choice. • They give people a chance to join a party and become an activist.. Political Parties • Functions of a Political Party • Representing the people. • Formulating policies and presenting them to voters in a manifesto. • Giving voters electoral choice. • Providing opportunities for participation: membership, activism, standing for public office. • Forming a govt. and managing political change in such a way as to ensure stability. • Definition • A political party is an organised body seeking to win government power by putting candidates up for election and gaining public support. • Parties are “broad churches” with a range of views based on a shared ideology, e.g. Conservatism. • They have a wide range of policies which they put together in a coherent form (a manifesto) at election time. • They have members and activists as well as fielding candidates for public office. = political ideas concerned with pressure groups. = main points on pressure groups in the UK.

9. IneffectivelyHow effectively do political parties promote democracy?Effectively • Turnout has declined to abysmal levels: 59% in the 2001 general election • Party membership is declining: the RSPB has more members than all 3 parties combined. • The public, especially the young, see parties as corrupt and “all the same”. • Blair’s abandonment of Socialism has weakened Labour’s activist base. • The average age of Conservative Party members is 65 – unrepresentative. • FPTP & the 2-party system it creates distort representation & limit choice. • Most MPs are influenced more by whips than by their constituents, e.g. on top-up fees. • Women, ethnic minorities etc are under-represented; only 18% of MPs are women & 3% black. • Parties are essential to provide electoral choice and give people a chance to stand for public office. • Parties provide opposition and hold governments. accountable; the main opposition party presents itself as an alternative govt. • Parties can bring an unpopular government down, as Labour did in 1997; pressure groups can’t do this.

10. Other Electoral Systems Used in the UK, cont. Regional Party Lists: you vote for a party in a multi-member region. The party list system is used for Euro elections (except in Northern Ireland) to ensure proportionality. SV: you cast first and second preference votes for candidates in a single-member constituency; not proportional. It is used to elect the Mayor of London to ensure the winning candidate has a majority. Other Electoral Systems Used In The UK AMS: you vote for a constituency MP as in FPTP but also additionally for a party in a multi-member region; these additional seats ensure proportionality. It was introduced for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Greater London Assemblies to ensure fairer representation and appease the Lib Dems; but in Wales only 33% of the seats are additional, enabling Labour to govern alone without the Lib Dem’s. STV: you list candidates in order of preference in a multi-member constituency; this is the only system which enables you to choose between candidates of the same party. It was introduced for the Northern Ireland Assembly because Northern Ireland already uses it for Euro elections and to ensure power sharing between Unionists and Nationalists. • First Past The Post • Under the FPTP the country is divided into single member constituencies; • Voters vote for a single candidate, • To win a candidate only needs a plurality (i.e. more votes than any other single candidate, not necessarily a majority). • Voters vote for a candidate as opposed to a party. • The effects of FPTP are: • Strong single party government - all but 2 general elections since WW2 have produced an overall majority. • The danger of “elective dictatorship” based on a minority of the vote; Labour got 55% of the seats with only 35% of the vote in 2005. • The Liberal Democrats got less than half as many seats as they should have had in 2005, the Greens none at all. • PC does well out of FPTP, unlike other minority parties -its strength is concentrated in Welsh speaking areas. Electoral Systems • Proportional Representation (PR) • This is a concept, not a system, meaning that the % of seats each party gets should be proportional to the % of votes which it gets. • The proportionality of the system is more important than the geographical link between the individual MP and his/her constituencies. • PR can be achieved through additional seats (AMS), party lists (Regional Party List system) or preferential voting in multi-member constituencies • (STV). • The Functions of Elections • General elections are for the House of Commons and therefore to decide which party governs. We also have local devolution and Euro elections. • To form or replace governments according to which party wins a parliamentary majority. • To give voters choice between different political programmes. • To make MPs accountable to voters. • Opportunities or political participation. • To legitimise government.

11. Effect of the new electoral systems Generally: there has been a loss of constituency representation: 43% of MSPs have no constituencies and MEPs now represent regions rather than individual constituencies.

12. Arguments For Reform • FPTP is unfair, giving governments large parliamentary majorities with a minority of the vote; no government has had a majority of the vote since 1935. • FPTP enables an MP to be elected without a majority of the vote in their constituency. • FPTP under-represents minority parties, narrowing political representation and debate. • Under PR, governments would have to be multi-party, making bad, unpopular policies like the poll tax less likely. • A fairer voting system would make governments more legitimate and might increase turnout because votes wouldn’t be “wasted”. • The examples of Germany and Scotland show that PR can produce stable govt. • FPTP limits voter choice; STV would enable them to choose between candidates of the • same party. • Arguments Against Electoral Reform • FPTP gives us a clear choice between 2 main parties; PR would blur this. • FPTP enables us to hold governments, accountable and throw them out; PR would make this harder. • PR produces strong, stable government; PR produces weak, unstable government, as in Italy and Wales. • FPTP is easy to understand and voters used to it; PR is more complicated and could reduce turnout – e.g. confusion in the Scottish elections of 2007. • FPTP creates a strong geographical link between MP and constituency; in Scotland, 43% of MSPs have no constituency. • It gives too much power to small parties; in Scotland the Lib Dems are in government despite being the least popular of the 4 main parties. • Reasons For The Low Turnout in 2005 • Public disenchantment with politics: politicians see as corrupt, self-serving, dishonest etc. • Most people thought a Labour victory was inevitable so no point in voting. • Little difference between the parties now that Blair has moved Labour to the right. • Labour voters’ disillusionment with Blair because of this and Iraq war. • Fall in party membership (all 3 parties combined have less than RSPB) and electoral registration. • Apathy and ignorance about politics, especially among young people. Elections and Electoral Reform Impact of the new electoral systems The Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens gained seats in the 2004 Euro election because of the Regional Party Lists system. Scotland and London have consistently had coalition government since devolution; Wales and Northern Ireland have also had it. AMS has given the Lib Dems fairer representation and a share of power in Scotland, Wales and London. STV in Northern Ireland allows voters to choose between candidates of the same party and led to power sharing in NI Executive before 2002 (resumed this year). Foreign examples like Germany and Italy show that PR leads to coalition govt. Because of AMS, 33-44% of MSPs and AMS in London and Wales have no constituencies; in Euro elections we have multi-member regions. AMS enabled the Greens and Scottish Socialist Party to win seats in the Scottish Parliament in 2003. • Labours Mandate • Only gained 35% of the vote in 2005. • With a 61% turnout, they only got the votes of 21% of the electorate. • Most voters don’t read the manifesto and Labour don’t stick to it, e.g. on tuition fees.

13. 2-Party System: Britain has traditionally had a 2-party system; since the 1920’s the vast majority of voters have voted either Lab. or Tory. Our FPTP (first past the post) system maintains this because it usually over-represents Labour and the Tories and under-represents other parties like the Lib Dems. Because the 2 main parties dominate parliamentary seats they also dominate how party business is conducted. This in turn affects how the media cover politics and therefore how the public see it. YesA 2-party system?No • 92 MP’s are neither Labour nor Tory; this % has been over 10% at the last 3 elections. • Election of 3 independent MP’s 2005 reflected voter disillusionment with main parties. • Since 1997 Labour have been the dominant party, as the Tories were 1979-97. • The last election saw the best Liberal performance since 1923. • In 2005 the 2 main parties gained 85% of the seats. • Every government since WW2 has been either Labour or Tory; no Liberal PM since 1922. • Every post-war election except February 1974 has given either Labour or the Tories a parliament majority.

14. Arguments For The Reforms • The need for more checks and balances to prevent “elective dictatorship”. • Hereditary peers were out of date and gave the House of Lords an unfair Tory majority. • The Human Rights Act gives civil liberties more protection without giving too much power to unelected judges. • Refrendums showed public support for devolution. which by giving self govt. within the UK reduces support for independence. • Devolution. on a power sharing basis is essential to advance the Northern Ireland peace process. • Electoral reform means fairer representation e.g. for the Lib Dems. UKIP, Greens and Scottish Socialists Party. • We need to modernise the legal system by abolishing the Lord Chancellor and creating a supreme court. Problems the Reforms have caused. Labour - Labour designed the reforms in opposition and now find them inconvenient because they to some extent reduce government. power, e.g. over Scotland, Wales and London. Blair intervened to impose his own candidates for Mayor of London (Dobson) and Welsh First Minister (Michael); but Dobson lost to Livingstone and Michael was so unpopular that he had to resign. Lab. have had to share power with the Lib Dems in Scot. and Wales because of PR. Tories - wanted to preserve the old const, which they praised for evolving gradually over time and delivering strong (usually Tory) govt. They opposed the reforms but feel unable to reserve them now they have happened, e.g. they have to work in the devolved assemblies and can’t abolish them because they were approved by Refrendums. They can’t justify restoring hereditary peers even through they have lost their previous majority in the House of Lords. The loss of foreign and secret donations has caused them financial problems. Constitutional Reform • Why They Were Introduced • In line with Labour’s manifesto promises in 1997. • In the previous 18 years the Tories had used the old system in their interests against Lab’s. • New Labour emphasise rights and responsibilities more than Old so they are more interested in reform. • The Scots and Welsh wanted self govt; Labour feared lack of devolution might lead to independence • The need for power sharing to advance the peace process in Northern Ireland. • The Human Rights Act made civil liberties more secure and brought us into line with other European countries. • Blair was committed to co-operation with the Lib Dems, thinking he might need their support. • He wanted to remove Tory dominance in the House of Lords. • The Reforms • Devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. • Refrendums on devolution in all those areas. • Electoral reform • The Human Rights Act • Parliamentary reforms, • The Freedom of Information Act 2000. • The Parties, Referendums and Elections Act. • The Secretary ships of State for Scotland and Wales are no longer held separately from other Cabinet posts.