The American and British constitutions: which is more democratic?

Democracy

In some quarters, democracy has been regarded one of mankind's greatest institutional achievements. With that in mind, democracy as a concept has been subject to extensive research over time and in a way, these studies have helped us understand the very nature of democracy and democratization. In this text, I will briefly explore the British and the American constitution with an aim of finding out which of the two is more democratic. Further, I will amongst other things come up with a clear and concise definition of democracy and in so doing highlight the idea of Beetham in regard to necessary democratic goods and rights (civil).

The American and the British Constitution: Which of the Two is more Democratic?

It should be noted that to determine which of these two constitutions is more democratic, there is a need to highlight some key differences between the two countries in terms of their constitution systems. To begin with, it can be noted that while the United States of America can be regarded as a constitutional republic, Great Britain is considered to be a constitutional monarchy. Further, the two countries operate under different systems with the U.S. operating under a presidential system and Britain operating under a parliamentary system. With that said, in terms of democracy, the United States of America is regarded as a consensus democracy while on the other hand; Britain is taken to be a majoritarian democracy (Way, n.d.). To be able to determine which of the two constitutions is more democratic, it is imperative that the two countries' constitutional systems be compared.

In general terms, a constitutional monarchy has a single individual by whose name and title the governments is carried on. In this case, both the office and the title of such an individual is inherited but with the political authority of the individual largely regulated by the law. This is the modern view of a constitutional monarchy. It is important to note that in this modern view, the government in such a constitutional system has both a democratic and representative character though it is carried on by chief of state who inherits the office. The constitution largely limits the monarch's authority. Hence in this case, it is the representatives elected by the people who wield real government powers with the Monarch generally acting as a symbolic ruler. Political authority is shared between the Monarch and the elected representatives. On the other hand, a constitutional republic to begin with has a democratically elected chief of state. Hence effectively, unlike in a constitutional monarchy, inherited government offices do not exist (Way, n.d.).

In the British context, the Crown's title graces almost every aspect of the government (Barnett and Jago, 2011). For instance, as Barnett and Jago (2011, p. 115) note, "…the entire administration of justice is conducted in the name of the crown." Though she appoints a number of government officials, the Queen must abide by the constitutional provisions governing such appointments. It should be noted that though under the British constitution the Prime Minister is largely empowered to make decisions relating to the government i.e. In regard to defense and foreign policy, the same constitution also preserves some rights for the Crown which include but are not limited to the right to warn, encourage and be consulted on a wide range of policy related issues (Tompson, 2003). Thus in a way, one can argue that in the case of Britain, there is no absolute citizen participation through their elected officials. This effectively makes the British constitution less democratic than the United States Constitution.

It can be noted that in the United States of America, the constitution dictates that voters elect the country's president via an Electoral College (Sidlow and Henschen, 2008). Further, the constitution provides for the direct election of Congress members. On being elected, the president in consultation with the senate appoints the other relevant government officials including but not limited to ambassadors and federal judges. Under the U.S. constitution, no officers of the national government may be granted nobility titles by either the state or the national government. This promotes equality as one of the many tenets of democracy.

In my opinion, the American Constitution which prescribes a constitutional republic is more democratic than the British Constitution which prescribes a constitutional monarchy. In the American case, the constitution largely limits governmental power. Here, only democratically elected representatives exercise governmental power. Further in the American constitutional republic, any individual who is of the majority age possesses a legal right to participate in a democratic election. Thus the U.S. constitution prescribes a system of government which is largely seen as a representative democracy given that political authority is largely exercised by elected representatives as opposed to being shared between unelected and elected officials as is the case in a constitutional monarchy. Further, the move by the U.S. constitution to limit the powers of the government makes the country's regime (political) constitutional.

Democracy: A Concise Definition

In broad terms, the term 'democracy' does not have a universally accepted meaning or definition. However, based on the perceived characteristics of the same i.e. freedom and equality, some scholars, authors and commentators have over time coined different definitions of democracy. According to Lane and Ersson (2003, p. 25), "democracy comes from the Greek words 'demos' and 'cratein', meaning 'rule by the people'." In a way, this definition can be taken to be the literal view of democracy. In a more focused sense, Dautrich and Yalof (2011, p. 6) define the term democracy as a "form of government in which the people, either directly or through elected representatives, hold power or authority. Hence in this sense, individuals in a democracy have a say (in equal terms) in most state decisions.

Elite vs. Popular Control

According to Miroff, Seidelman and Swanstrom (2011), in an elite democracy, the citizenry have the power and right to vote which they actively exercise at the time of elections. However, after elections, authority relating to decision-making is ceded to the elite. In this case, it is assumed that the elite have the capacity to make decisions deemed reasonable in a world considered rather complex. On the other hand, when it comes to popular control, Miroff, Seidelman and Swanstrom (2011) are of the opinion that this is a more demanding democracy definition adopted by those who oppose elite democrats. According to the authors, proponents of a popular democracy argue that a decision cannot be taken to be democratic just because it arose from a democratic process. Hence in a way, these two kinds of controls differ. Thus while an elite democracy allows individuals to vote for representatives who make decisions in their place, a popular democracy makes it possible for people to actively exercise a number of initiatives relating to law and policy making. Hence in a way, elite control is more of representative than popular control.

Dispersed vs. Concentrated Democracy

In a way, any system of governance that promotes some sort of balance between institutions is taken to be democratic. It can be noted that one of the key tenets of democracy is that social power be balanced or distributed equally. When it comes to a concentrated democracy, power is not equally or well distributed and in such a case, the same tends to vested on a select few hence effectively bringing about both a perceived and real imbalance of power. However, when it comes to a dispersed democracy, power (elective, governmental and political) tends to be spread over with "leadership diffused across institutional spheres, but constrained to work collectively for the common good…" (Hart and Uhr, 2008, pp. 189-190).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be noted that the relevance of democracy in the world today cannot be overstated. While democracy cannot be looked at as a direct facilitator of economic growth, it does have some real impact on both the flow of information and equality and by extension, governance. Further, democracy gives a sense of actual participation in governance by the citizenry. Hence when democratic space is created, the participation of the citizenry in issues relating to governance is considered a right as well as a duty rather than a privilege.