The expenses scandal and British electoral system reform

British Electoral System Reform

Over the last year, the Labor Party of Great Britain has been facing increasing amounts of pressure. This is because an expenses scandal has exploded onto the political scene almost overnight. Where a large number of the Members of Parliament (MPs), were caught abusing the duties of their office, by having the government pay for various personal expenses. An example as to how brazen these corrupt politicians have become can be seen by looking no further than a report released by the Daily Telegraph, which found that 646 MPs are involved in various expense scandals. As a result, this has helped to set off a fire storm of rage within the general public that has been building for some time. Where, the deep seated feelings of anger as well as disconnect are being fueled by the size and scope of the scandal. (Burns) What this shows is that some type of reform is necessary to restore the confidence of the general public. With the Parliamentary election not far away, such reforms will more than likely occur. To understand the overall scope of possible reforms that could be enacted requires: examining the British political system, the American political system and comparing the strengths / weaknesses of both. This will provide the greatest insights as to how the British political system can be effectively reformed.

The British Political System

The British political system is one that evolved out of a struggle between the powers given to the monarchy and the people. This has been an issue of contention throughout the history of Britain, where the people wanted to have more of a voice various in the affairs of the government. As a result, the Magana Carta was the first document that forced the King (King John) to share power with the Barons. This is significant because it underscored a shift, where a discontent with the political system; would drive a series of reforms that would shape modern politics. Evidence of this can be seen with the creation of the House of Lords and Commons (also known as Parliament). (Darlington) Then, over the next several decades a series of upheavals and revolutions would lead to development of the modern day political system. Where, the overall powers of the monarchy would be greatly reduced and transferred to Parliament.

The American Political System

The American political system was born out of the frustrations from the British Parliamentary system, when America was a colony of Great Britain. During the American Revolution the British would engage in a number of different practices that would outrage citizens to include: the quartering of troops within private homes, illegal searches / seizures and unlawfully detaining anyone who supported the idea of an independent country. After America was given its independence, the various abuses that were committed would be reflected in the Constitution. This would specifically define the various powers of the government over its citizens. The Constitution is based on several key principals the most notable would include: separation of powers as well as checks and balances. Separation of powers is when there are clearly defined powers that are given to the various branches of: the government, the federal government and the states. Checks and balances is when one branch of the government will have the power to the check the authority of another branch. (Wood) for example, the Constitution would specifically spell out various powers of the executive branch. During the course of exercising these different powers, a citizen brings a lawsuit against the government in the judicial branch. Where, they claim that the actions that the executive branch is taking are unconstitutional. In this particular case, the executive branch would work off of the powers given to them in the Constitution. When they begin to overstep these boundaries, another branch of the government will place these powers in check. In the above example, the power of the executive branch is placed in check by the judicial branch. This is significant because it highlights how the American political system was born out of the various frustrations with the British system. Where, the creators wanted to have a way to separate the overall powers of the different branches, so that they do not infringe upon the rights of ordinary citizens. (Wood)

The Structure of the American Political System

The American political system is divided into three different areas to include: executive, legislative and judicial branches. The leader of the executive branch is the President. He is in charge of: running the government, is head of the armed forces and is the head of state. The overall powers of the President can be limited in scope at times. This is because the founders were afraid that the President could become too dominant within the government and would eventually become nothing more than an elected king. There are a number of different powers that President is given these would include: the power to sign / veto legislation, the powers to nominate government officials, the power to make treaties, the power to defend the nation against foreign invaders and the power to issue regulatory guidelines / give pardons. (Darlington) the power to sign / veto legislation is when the President is acting as the final voice in determining if a particular bill will become a law. Where, if the legislation is signed it will automatically become the law of land. On the other hand, if the legislation is vetoed it will go back to legislative branch for further consideration. If they have enough votes to override the veto (a 2/3 majority), then the bill will become a law. (Darlington)

The power to nominate government officials is when the President has the power to appoint the different heads of the various departments within the government, judges for the judicial branch and the different advisors to the President (the Cabinet). Once these different appointments have been approved by the legislative branch, is when the various individuals can begin working within the government. (Darlington) a good example of this would be when the President is appointing the Secretary of Defense. This is a high level position that would be considered a part of the President's cabinet. During this process the President would select who they would like to serve in the position, then the Senate (the upper house of the legislature) will approve the nomination.

The power to make treaties is when the President has the authority to sign various treaties / agreements with foreign countries and organizations. However, the different provisions will not go into affect until the treaty / agreement has been approved by the legislative branch. (Darlington) for example, the President signs a treaty with 25 different countries committing the United States to various responsibilities. The treaty will not go into affect until the Senate has had a chance to debate and vote on it. If the vote is successful, then the various provisions will go into effect. However, if the treaty does not make it through the Senate, then the various provisions would not apply to the United States (despite the fact that the President signed the treaty)

The power to defend the country against foreign invaders is when the President has the authority to order the military, to engage in actions that will protect the nation from invasion. (Darlington) a good example would be when the President places the Reserves and National Guard on alert. These are a part of the armed forces that supplement the active duty personnel. During a time of war or perceived dangers to the country, this action is preparing the military for the possibility that hostilities are imminent.

The power to give regulatory guidelines / issue pardons is when the President has the power to issue what is known as executive orders. These are specific regulatory requirements that could be used to provide more regulations under the law. (Darlington) an example of this is when the President issues an executive order requiring automobile emissions to be cut dramatically by the year 2016. This order is in line with the powers given to the President under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ("Fuel Efficiency Standards Hiked for 2011") Where, they have the power to regulate automobile emissions.

The power to grant pardons is when the President has the authority to grant pardons for those people who were convicted or are accused of criminal activity. Under this power, once the President grants the pardon, the person is considered to be free of all charges or potential charges relating to a particular matter. A good example of the use of this power would be when President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in 2000. He was accused of violating American law by trading with the Iranians immediately after the 1979 Revolution. When he was standing trail for these charges he fled to Switzerland and was wanted as a fugitive on the run. Once Rich was pardoned, meant that he could freely travel into the United States without of fear of arrest or prosecution on the matter. (Dell)

The election of the President takes place through what is known as the Electoral College, every four years. What happens is the Electoral College is designed as way to ensure that someone who is a radical (such as an Adolph Hitler) are unable to take power, despite the fact that they may have won the popular vote. The way that it works, is that the Presidential race will involve having the citizens vote for who they would like to see running the country. When the President wins the popular vote in the state, they will win the electoral votes of that state. In January, when the Electoral College will meet, the different electors will vote for the President based upon (how the citizens of the state voted or they can vote for who they think should be President). Who ever wins in the Electoral College, will be sworn in as President later on in the month. (Darlington)

The legislative branch is divided into two different chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate (commonly called Congress). The members of the House are elected every two years. Their districts are based upon the overall size of the population within a given area. Where, those areas that have large amounts of the population will have more seats available, to represent the larger interests within a Congressional district. (Darlington) the Senate is elected every six years, with the maximum number of Senators for each state set at two. The way that various pieces of legislation are considered is through the committee system. This is where both Houses will have committees and sub-committees, to consider various pieces of legislation. When the House and the Senate are working together to make the language along with the provisions of a bill the same, they would work through what is known as a joint committee. This is when both houses have passed two different pieces of legislation and must know reconcile the two bills as one, to go to the President. (Darlington)

In the Constitution, Congress is given a number of different powers the most notable would include: the power to spend, the power of advice / consent, regulation of commerce and the power to impeach. (Darlington) the power to spend is when Congress will decide various issues such as: taxation policy and how much money the government will be spending in the various departments of the executive branch. This is significant because this separation of power is designed to place a check on the overall authority of the President. Where, if an action is very unpopular within Congress, they have the authority to reduce or cut off spending to a number of different programs. (Darlington)

The Senate has the power of advice and consent. This simply means that any kind of: treaties that are signed, government officials or judges that are being appointed; they must approve. Where, they have the authorization to approve or disapprove the proposed nomination. (Darlington)

Congress has the power to regulate commerce. This is where they can set various regulations and can pass laws pertaining to the transportation of goods / services between the different states. (Darlington) a good example of this would be when Congress passed a law in the 1970s' lowering the speed limit to 55 miles per hour. While the arguments to reduce the speed limit were based mainly on economic reasons (a sharp rise in oil prices). The power to regulate the speed limit; was given to them under their authority to regulate commerce between the states. ("Reduce Speed Limit to Save Gas")

The power to impeach is when Congress can be able to remove the President from office for clear violations of the law or abuses power. Under this authority, the House has the power to vote to impeach the President based upon a simple majority. At which point, the impeachment proceedings will take place in the Senate. Where, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will reside over the proceedings, while the select members of the House will serve as the prosecutors. The President will be represented by his own legal council and the full Senate will serve as the jury. A 2/3 majority is required to convict the President of the charges presented during an impeachment. (Longley)

The judicial system is broken up into a series of different courts. Where, the system will consist of: district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court (which is the highest court). In general, most judges are appointed for life and are nominated for the position by the President. The Senate will confirm or deny the different judicial appointments made. The way the judicial system works, is it is designed to interpret the Constitution in relations to various laws that are passed. If the judicial system finds that a law is beyond the scope of the Constitution, they have the authority to strike the law down (by declaring it unconstitutional). (Darlington)

The American political system is also divided between different powers granted to the federal government and state governments. The system of separation of powers along with checks and balances also applies to this relationship. Where, the federal government has specifically defined powers that allow it effectively govern, what is taking place between all of the different states and within the country as whole. While the states, have the authority to pass various laws / regulations that can go beyond the scope of federal laws, but must only apply within the borders of the state. Where, the various state laws can not conflict or supersede any kind of federal laws. (Darlington)

A Comparison of British and American Political Systems

The British and American political systems have a number of similarities and differences. A few of the most notable similarities would include: both have a bicameral legislature, the way that tasks are accomplished in the legislative branch is through various committees, the lower houses of the legislature are selected in a similar fashion and there is autonomy given to local regions. The differences between the two systems would include: autonomy between the various branches of government, a Constitution, the way the legislature is selected / elected, the way the executive branch is chosen, differences between the political parties in each system and the number of major parties in each country. (Darlington) When looking at the first similarity, both systems have a bicameral legislature; it is obvious that both Britain and the U.S. share this similarity. Where, Great Britain has the Houses of Commons and Lords. The United States has the House of Representatives and the Senate. The second similarity, the way that tasks are accomplished in the legislative branch is through various committees, highlights how both will use the committee system to most effectively conduct the daily business of the legislature. Under the British system there is an emphasis on select, general and joint committees. In the U.S., Congress works off the committee and subcommittee system. The third similarity, the lower houses of the legislature are selected in a similar fashion, underscores that both will select MPs or Representatives based on the popular results from an election conducted in various political districts. Where, the winner who is able to win the majority of the votes will be elected to the position. The fourth similarity, there is autonomy given to local regions, simply means that in Great Britain various parts of the country allowed to elect their own Assembly or Parliament. Where, they will create various laws and regulations for the region that they represent. This is similar to the system that is used in the United States, where the federal government has powers over what takes place on a national level. While, the states have the authority to pass various laws that would apply to its citizens. (Darlington)

When looking at the first difference between the two systems, autonomy between the various branches of government, it is clear that in the American political system there are noticeable separations between the different branches of government. This is because of the belief that if too much power was given to one particular branch, it could begin to dominate all of the others. Under the British system, the various branches of government are interconnected, where the leader of the majority party in Parliament will become the Prime Minister. He will then select his different advisors / ministers from other MPs, who are allowed to run the departments of the government and serve in Parliament simultaneously. Under the American system such an arrangement not be allowed because of the separation of powers, where people who will be working in the government must be approved by the Senate. If someone is serving in Congress and is appointed to a particular position within the government, they must resign their Congressional seat or forego the nomination. (Darlington) a good example of this would Rahm Emmanuel, when he was selected to be the White House Chief of Staff (a top advisor to the President). In order to hold the position, he had to resign his Congressional seat. (Allen) This is because serving in both positions would violate the principal of separation of power in the Constitution.

The second difference between the two political systems is a Constitution. The American political system has a Constitution that clearly defines the various powers and responsibilities of the government, with respect to its citizens. While, the British political system does not have a Constitution, instead this system is based off of various reforms that have taken place over the centuries. Where, this system was originally a monarchy, then, a series of different reforms would lead to the current system that is used today. Where, the various powers of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the judicial system are not clearly defined in an actual document. On the contrary, it is based on previous precedents and reforms. (Darlington)

The third difference between the American and British political system is the way the legislature is selected / elected. Earlier, it was stated that the House of Commons and House of Representatives are elected in similar fashion. However, when it comes to upper chambers of the legislature the process is vastly different. In the American system, the Senate is elected every six years and a maximum of two Senators is allowed from each state. In the House of Lords, someone is appointed to the position for life by the Queen. This is vastly different from the American system, in that Britain is embracing the traditions of the past in the House of Lords. Where, the various elite and intellectuals within society would serve. While, the Senate is based upon the ability of: the individual to continue to satisfy the needs of the people, by being reelected for office every six years. What this shows is that the British political system is based more upon tradition and the various reforms of the past. (Darlington)

The fourth difference between the two systems is the way that the President / Prime Minister are chosen. In the United States, the President will go through a popular election. Where, each state that is won based upon the popular vote will pledge electoral delegates to a candidate. In January, the Electoral College will meet and will decide who should be elected President. While, under the British system, the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party and is a Member of Parliament. In this aspect, the legislative and the executive branches of the British system are more interconnected with each other, in comparison to the American political system. (Darlington)

A fifth difference between the two political systems is: differences between the political parties in each system. In the American system, the various terms that are used to describe someone's political philosophy are more extreme. For example, someone who is considered to be conservative would be more right leaning as far as their politics are concerned, where they would view issues such abortion and prayer in school, from a more traditionalist point-of-view. Someone who is liberal would be considered to be more leftist leaning, supporting the ideas of socialism and equality. In Britain, these different distinctions are less extreme, where someone who is considered to be conservative would be a centrist that is right leaning. While a liberal, would be someone who is a centrist that is more leftist leaning. (Darlington) This distinction is significant because it underscores how the less extreme views allow Parliament and the executive branch to have an interconnected relationship, without trampling on individual rights. In the American system, because there is a separation between the different branches of the government, means that politicians are given more radical distinctions for their views. An example of this perception is with Medicare when it was first being proposed during the 1960's. At the time, the American Medical Association (AMA) fought hard against the proposed changes. With them comparing the program to socialized medicine. Once Medicare became an actual government program, the AMA has reversed their position and is now opposed to any kind of cuts in Medicare. What this shows is how the American political system invites various views to be more extreme. This because the separation of powers along with the different checks and balances; allows all of the different views to be examined. During the political process, this means that special interest organizations such as the AMA would have more of a say in political matters. Once this takes place, it is only a matter of time until the different political views become more extreme. This is one reason, why such distinctions in the American system are more extreme in comparison with the British system.

The sixth difference between the American and British political systems is the in the number of political parties that participate in the process. Under both systems of government all of various types of political parties are allowed to place candidates on the ballet. However, in America, if you plan on winning you must be affiliated with one of the two major political parties (Republican and Democrat). This is because throughout American history, two major parties have always played a role in the system. There have been times, when it appears as if some kind of a major third party could be emerging. but, this never comes to reality, as either the third party will fill the void of a weakened second party or it will fade a way. A good example of this can be seen with the Republican Party, where it would emerge as a party that was for the abolition of slavery and freedom. During the American Civil War, it would replace the Whig party, as the conservative leaning second party in America. (Murrin) in Britain, there have traditionally been two parties that dominate (the Conservatives and the Liberals). However, the recent expense scandals of the last year have made the political situation explosive. Where, the voters are not only angry about the economic conditions and bailouts, but they are also upset about the disconnect that MPs have with the general public. This is significant because it is opening the door for lesser known third parties to quickly fill the void that neither party can seem to address. A good example of this can be seen with the rise of the Liberal Democrats; originally this party controlled a small number of the seats in Parliament, with a total of 14. However, the MPs scandal has given this party new life. Where, their charismatic leader, Nick Clegg, has been allowed to participate in televised debates with the two major parties. What this shows is that a shift has occurred in the electorate, with the voters demanding more choices beyond the two main parties. Thus far, Clegg appears to be on roll as he has performed well in the debates and is looking to pick a substantial amount of seats in Parliament. Should this kind of scenario happen it will underscore that changes are taking place in the British political system. With the Eurasia Group recently saying, "Politicians and businesses are going to have to be ready for a cultural change when it comes to politics. You would be looking at a much more European system of coalitions with much less instability and more gradual policy shifts." ("Markets in New Territory in Three Party Britain") This is important because it underscores a trend that has occurred throughout the history of politics in Britain, which is: when the voters become restless changes are on the way.

Reforming the British Political System

The recent expense scandals in Parliament, has brought to light the need of reforming the British political system. Where, the overall sense of arrogance and entitlement that many politicians have been showing over the last several years, has only made the situation worse. There are several different parts of the system that must be reformed the most notable would include: reforming the House of Commons, reforming the House of Lords, reforming the justice system and increasing accountability. When looking the first issue of reform, the House of Commons, it is clear that this system is working, but needs to be reformed to function more effectively. In the past various reforms of the House of Commons have been limited at best. To effectively reform this part of Parliament requires addressing several key issues to include: removing out of date practices / rules and improving transparency. Within the House of Commons there are many different rules and procedures that are out of date. A good example of this can be seen with the practice known as the Royal Assent. This is where the King or the Queen must give their final authority for a bill to become a law. What happens is the monarch has a symbolic role in the politics of Britain. However, tradition has allowed this practice to be able to continue. This is hypocritical because the monarch is suppose to be above politics, having them go to the House of Commons (no matter how symbolic) is sign that the political system is continuing to embrace the ways of the past. Especially, when you consider the fact that the King or Queen will not refuse to support any kind of legislation coming out of the House of Commons, as the last person to engage in such practices was Queen Anne in 1709. ("UK House of Commons") This is significant because it underscores how various traditions and rules of the past are interfering with the daily activities of Parliament. Where, they have the power to create and pass various forms of legislation regardless of what the King or Queen may think. This makes the presence of such individuals at proceedings such as Royal Assents, pointless. The way transparency can be improved is providing greater access to MPs with the voters and having more information available about proposed legislation. This can be accomplished by posting more detailed information about various pieces of legislation that are being considered and a way to contact MPs. Where, you could use the internet to provide more detailed information as well as an effective way to communicate with voters.

The second major issue that needs to be addressed in the British political system is the House of Lords. The changes that have taken place as far as political reforms are concerned have been slow. This is because the system will only change when the voters are upset with Parliament. As a result, you have those institutions within the government that do not reflect the will of the people; the most notable would be the House of Lords. This is because the members are appointed for life to the position by the Queen. They have the power to review and send back to the democratically elected chamber (the House of Commons) any kind of legislation that they may not agree with. (Dingle) This is problematic because it supports the idea that there is an aristocracy in Britain. When in reality, the real power sits with the British electorate. To reform the House of Lords would require forcing all members to run for their seats and then face the possibility of reelection. The system of appointments by the Queen should be eliminated, as she is supposed to be a figure head with no political power. However, she has the power to appoint who she would like to the upper house of Parliament. This is giving the Royal family defecto control of the House of Lords, by allowing them to place those people who are political allies and support their agenda, in positions of power for life. To effectively restore confidence of the electorate in the political process, requires eliminating this system of favoritism that has existed for far too long.

The third major issue, reforming the justice system, highlights how there is no independence between the different branches of government. There have been attempts to reform the judicial system with the creation of Supreme Court in 2005. However, the different changes that have been imposed do not go far enough. This is because all judges are appointed through the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Cabinet, Parliament and runs a government ministry. Where, the various judges are allowed to serve on the bench for life. This is troublesome, because with no way of having the ability to recall judges much less hold them accountable, because it allows the government to control the justice system. With the executive and legislative branches able to exert influence on the various judges, to rule a particular way. Recently this power has been stripped from the Lord Chancellor and given to a Judicial Appointments Committee. However, there has been no indication as to if members of Parliament or those selected by the Queen / House of Lords will sit on the committee. (Dingle) This creates the illusion that changes are taking place, when in reality this is just transferring the power to another entity that will have the same influence on the judicial process. In order to have any kind of true reform; requires establishing a process where the judicial nominations are selected independently. At which point, they would have to receive approval from Parliament. In many ways this is following a similar model that is used in the United States. Where, you would have an independent committee that selects the different nominees (instead of the executive branch). Then, you would have the selection of this individual, face scrutiny from Parliament. Over the course of time, this will help to ensure that the judiciary is independent from the other branches of government. (Dingle)

The fourth major issue, increased accountability, means that there needs to be more checks and balances in place to monitor the activities of Parliament. One way to do this is to require all MPs to disclose to the public how they are spending government funds. This can be accomplished through the use of an independent watch dog group that will monitor all activities of Parliament. The way that this could be established is by passing legislation that will require increased amounts of disclosure. (Dingle) at which point, you give the organization monitoring Parliament the power to subpoena and investigate alleged activities of wrong doing. The appointments would be determined by having a variety of ordinary citizens, statesman and others to balance out this committee. Over the course of time, this would prevent the runaway abuses that occurred with various expense scandals over the years. This is because you are giving an independent committee the authorization to investigate such allegations. Once this take place, it means that such instances can no longer be ignored. This helps to prevent the problem from spiraling out of control, by going after those politicians who are engaging in such activities early. (Dingle)

Clearly, the British political system is in desperate need of being reformed. This is because the British Parliamentary system is based on a system of gradual changes that occurred over the course of hundreds of years. As power was slowly taken away from the monarchy and given to Parliament. The problem is that the monarchy is supposed to play a limited role in the government, but tradition allows them to have more of a voice than they should. Then, when you combine this with the fact that the legislative and executive branches are combines as one, means that this relationship becomes even more confusing. As a result, a sense of entitlement has engulfed MPs, as they feel that they can do what ever they like. To effectively reform the system a comparison was conducted with the American political system. The analysis of comparing the two systems underscores the fact that reforms are needed in: the House of Commons, House of Lords and within the judiciary. This is because the influences of the Crown and the legislature in the political process have caused it become very corrupt. To reform the system it is advisable that the House of Commons eliminates those rules / procedures that are out of date and increase transparency. The House of Lords needs to have members elected in a similar fashion as the U.S. Senate. This will eliminate the influence of the Royal family in the upper house of Parliament. While, reforming the justice system will requiring setting up a committee that would select judges. At which point, Parliament can review the decision. Together these different elements will address the frustrations that the voters are currently facing with the British political system. This is how you effectively reform the political process, so that it reflects the will of the people.