Is There a British Policy Style? Tradition vs. Change

Introduction

As one begins to consider British policy — both foreign and domestic — one conjures images of the Queen Mother and her regal adherence to British tradition. In this way, the Queen Mother stands as an icon of everything that is British. One pictures solicitors in their powdered wigs and smart suits engaging in scholarly argument that will shape British policy for the future. These icons are the epitome of British policy: steadfast, solid, and true, with a foundation rooted in the arguments of many who came before them.

Government policy is the result of conflict. The people of a particular country develop policies in response to the needs of that country, which may vary due to many factors, including the availability of natural resources in the region. Traditions arise from necessity. As time passes, people often forget exactly why a policy stands; this is where the concept of "tradition" becomes useful. Traditions are not arbitrary — they have a solid logical root in the past. However, after the reason for a policy has passed and those who adopted it are gone, when someone asks, "Why do you do that?" the answer will invariably be, "We do it because it is tradition."

This is the case with British policy. The Queen Mother and solicitors in powdered wigs are the icons of British tradition. The Queen Mother reflects the past, when the country was monarchical in nature. The solicitors in their powdered wigs represent a transition from monarchy to a more democratic approach, ruled by the people. These symbols reflect a reluctance to change what is already established. This is how the British government reacts to new situations as well — by looking to the past for answers. The British have a reputation for being unwilling to compromise, especially when compromise would mean going against established British tradition.

British culture and policy now reflect a conflict between older traditionalists and a younger generation that sees a need to revise long-standing traditions to meet current needs. This younger generation recognizes that traditions are important, yet feels that strict adherence to them may be detrimental in the future. This conflict between tradition and the need for change has been particularly evident since the formation of the European Union. The following research supports the hypothesis, through examination of extant sources and examples, that British policy has undergone a paradigm shift from one of rigid tradition to a more malleable policy style.

In order to support the existence of a change in policy style, we must first define both the old and the new policy styles. This is best accomplished by comparing British policy on certain issues to the policies of other countries on the same issues. It is also important to examine British reactions to particular events and situations, such as those involving the British steel industry. The best way to define British policy is to examine what it is — and also what it is not.

Defining Traditional British Policy Style

British policy has been unwavering in its positions on gun control, abortion, and issues such as drunk-driving laws. This is most noticeable when compared to policies in the United States on the same issues. In the case of British policies regarding drunk driving, the punishments for a first offense are severe and there is no bargaining for greater leniency. In British policy, Action A leads to Punishment B — every time. In the United States, however, individual judges determine the appropriate punishment for each offense. Sometimes a first offense earns little more than a stern warning from the judge; other times the first-time offender is jailed, heavily fined, and has their driving license revoked. In the United States, Action A could lead to Punishment A, B, or C — a lottery draw for the offender. This single comparison reflects a broader truth about British policy: whether foreign or domestic, it is based on a rigid set of rules in which A equals B.

Another example of the rigidity of British policy and resistance to change lies in the very icons of British government. Powdered wigs were once popular throughout most of Europe. When the United States was a fledgling nation, its lawyers and early policy makers wore powdered wigs, just as everyone else in the world did. Today, powdered wigs are no longer in vogue — yet British policy makers still wear them on formal occasions. An American lawyer walking into a courtroom in a powdered wig would look absurd. This is not itself a policy, but it helps define British policy by illustrating the rigidity of the British mindset relative to other countries and cultures — and that same rigidity is reflected in British policy.

Like the formation of the EU, British policy style has arisen from the need to resolve conflict within the country. Topics such as abortion, questions surrounding EU membership, and — more recently — whether to assist the United States in the war with Iraq have forced the British government to reach accommodations and compromises in order to adopt policies that define how the government will respond when similar situations arise in the future.

Jordan and Richardson (1982) agree that British policy is a result of conflict resolution. The parties involved negotiate until a consensus is reached, and then everyone accepts the decision in the name of negotiation. In this way, British policymaking can be considered "reactive" in nature (Jordan and Richardson 1982, p. 81). The stereotype of British policy makers is one of cool, calm, critical debate. However, as Jordan and Richardson point out, this stereotype is quite unwarranted. They state:

"That is not to say that the participants are always able to proceed on this basis. The Crossman Diaries record a series of unsuccessful attempts to provide 'central capability' through the institution of some form of Inner Cabinet." (Jordan and Richardson 1982, p. 83)

Jordan and Richardson explain this by noting that the heads of the various ministries involved in debates were too concerned with the issues facing their own departments. They were so focused on their own needs that they were unable to assess the opinions of others in an objective manner. The idea of the government being unable to resolve an argument effectively does not fit the stereotype of orderly, tradition-based debate that typifies British government. It does, however, support the idea that British policy has arisen from conflict resolution — and that this process has not always occurred in a particularly orderly fashion. Jordan and Richardson provide many examples of this system breaking down and failing to meet its primary objectives.

British policy has arisen from two key elements: "cultural bias containing normative values which emphasizes the need to legitimate decisions through consultation" (Jordan and Richardson 1982, p. 5) and "functional necessity" (Jordan and Richardson 1982, p. 85). From this, one can surmise that Jordan and Richardson agree with the functional definition of British policymaking as a mechanism rooted in the current needs of the country but steeped in tradition.

A rigid set of rules established the procedures for policymaking: consult policies of the past to establish whether there are any precedents, then ensure that those precedents are met in assessing the current need under discussion. However, as discussed by Jordan and Richardson (1982), these rules for policymaking do not always work as planned. There have been times when British policy makers abandoned tried-and-tested methods.

Conclusion

Through the examination of extant sources and examples, we have defined British policy as being steeped in tradition and rigid in nature. Negotiation has not always been its greatest asset, and many conflicts have gone unresolved as a result. Nonetheless, British policy remains grounded in historical precedent and upholds its iconic public image of order and equality. This policy style has served Britain well for many years, and there has been little perceived need to change. However, recent advances in communication have created an ever-changing marketplace in which exchanges and trade occur on a scale never before experienced.