Another prize idea?

In an earlier blog entry I wrote about a prize essay competition undertaken by my A2 students after their January modules. Here are details of a similar competition for the AS year group, with a copy of the winning essay by Leo Green.

All students were given the same title: “‘The constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 have made the UK more democratic.’ Discuss.”. The essays were marked out of 100, with the details of the mark allocation below. There was a word limit set at 2,000 words, with a 10% penalty for every 100+.

Why did I get my students to do this? Firstly, I thought it was a good time for the students to consider an overview of the whole course and to put what they had learned into perspective. Secondly, the AS syllabus doesn’t invite to students to write long essays and I think this is unfortunate since it doesn’t help students prepare for the longer essays at A2. It is also a stepping stone also to the type of work that students are expected to undertake at university. I was greatly impressed with the overall standard, and the winning essay is included below after further details of the competition. Leo’s answer showed a firm grasp of the material and the evidence of personal research was extremely strong.

Structure and Content

In your answer you should consider discussion of the following (remember, the list is not prescriptive):

• Impact/lack of constitutional reforms
• The relationship between the citizen and the state
• Possible decline of importance of parties
• Pressure group behaviour
• Blair’s presidential style of government
• Politicisation of the civil service
• Role of Parliament
• Debate about civil liberties
• Power of the media
• The judiciary
• Labour’s other attempts at promoting responsiveness/accountability: citizenship, citizens’ juries, etc.
• The impact of the EU

Thought must be given to the structure of your essay.

Introduction
Provide an outline or the background to the topic, possibly stating why the topic is ripe for discussion at this time. Starting with a recent event or quote is often a good way to get things going.

Debates, arguments, and illustrative material
This is the main subject matter. You could outline six or seven questions worthy of analysis and seek to answer these with reference to evidence covered in your reading/research. Don’t forget that this is a discursive essay and you need to present both sides of the argument.

Conclusion and possible developments
Avoiding a simple repetition of the material covered above, provide an answer to the question – reference to the key arguments or major developments is advised. Also make mention of the probability of reforms and their consequences.

Credit worth a total of 20 marks will also be awarded for the quality of your research, i.e. independently sourced material beyond what we have covered in class and included here. It is advisable to include footnotes in your essay. These should not be lengthy explanations of a particular point but should be used to attribute data, quotes, etc. As a guide, I would say that a very good essay would include ten footnotes per thousand words.

As a final piece of advice on content, it is important to remember that the question requires discussion of the extent of change. If your answer provides a static analysis of a given point in time, or makes no reference to change, it is unlikely to contain the necessary focus.

Reading

Attached articles: I included roughly 60 pages of journal articles from various sources.

Journals
Kelly, R., ‘Making Party Policy’, Politics Review, November 2005.
Denver, D., ‘Four-party Competition in Scotland’, Politics Review, November 2005.
Garnett, M., ‘Groups and Democracy’, Politics Review, November 2005.
Batchelor, M., ‘Democratic Triumph or Flawed Reform?’, Politics Review, September 2005.
Curtice, J., ‘Historic Triumph or Rebuff?’, Politics Review, September 2005.
Pyper, R., ‘Politics and the Civil Service’, Politics Review, September 2005.
Jeffrey, C., ‘Devolution: a Fractured Project’, Politics Review, April 2005
Garnett, M., ‘Still First Among Equals?’, Politics Review, April 2005.
Cowley, P., ‘Whips and Rebels’, Politics Review, February 2005.
Outhwaite, D., ‘How Should Parties be Funded?’, Politics Review, November 2004.
Norton, P., ‘The Power of Parliament’, Politics Review, November 2004.
Jackson, N., ‘Pressure Group Politics’, Politics Review, September 2004.
Jordan, G., ‘Groups and Democracy’, Politics Review, February 2004.
Forman, N., ‘The State and the People: Britain’s Changing Constitution’, Politics Review, February 2004.

Books
Textbooks on British politics will provide an easy introduction to topics you have yet to cover. Within the library there is a section on democracy, so this should give you the opportunity to include material on this in the introduction and conclusion of your essay. Also, a look at anything with ‘Labour’ in the title will throw up all sorts of ideas that will help you produce a rich and textured answer.

Internet
www.theguardian.co.uk
www.politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/0,9054,442872,00.html
www.news.bbc.co.uk
www.economist.com
www.scottishparliament.co.uk
www.wales.gov.uk
www.london.gov.uk
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/
http://www.parliament.uk/ Search the research papers
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
The Politics Blog on www.tutor2u.com
www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

Leo’s answer:

‘The British constitution is a Jamie Oliver affair. Lots of ingredients thrown together with a great deal of enthusiasm and then grated, squashed and drizzled over the years’ . Tony Blair boasted that he managed to enforce two constitutional changes that, according to Keir Hardie, would define a Labour Government: devolution and abolition of hereditary peers. Whilst Labour’s constitutional reforms were arguably the biggest change to the ‘English constitution’ in 400 years , they are hardly benchmarks in Labour’s legislative history. Labour’s constitutional reforms can be divided into 4 main areas: decentralisation of power, greater democratisation of the political system, the modernisation of political institutions and improving individual rights. The reforms that Labour delivered have largely made the UK more democratic, but Labour promised much more than was delivered in terms of constitutional reform and democracy

The decentralisation of power is Labour’s great constitutional achievement, and arguably the most tangible. However, its success in relation to democracy can suggest a failure. Labour has fulfilled its pledge of devolution, but its democratic effect on the UK is questionable. The achievements of the Northern Irish Assembly, such as political representation for all sectarian groups, have aided democracy; as reflected in the involvement of devolution in the peace process of 1998. Whilst this appeared to signify the end of political volatility in Northern Ireland, the Assembly was suspended in October 2002 due to political unrest. This was a massive blow to Blair’s greatest achievement and was extremely detrimental to the democracy that had developed in this part of the UK.

Scottish devolution failed in 1979, when referendum turnout was too low (60.4% ) to sway parliament despite a vote in favour. However since 1998 it appears that the Scottish Assembly has thrived, often showcasing its primary legislative powers by making decisions contrary to the rest of the UK. For example, the Liberal Democrat coalition scrapped the concept of tuition fees for university students and gave free nursing to the elderly . Here democracy has increased, allowing the devolved bodies to make independent decisions in line with the people’s wishes away from the watchful eye of the sovereign parliament. However, the implementation of these laws in Scotland whilst the English still pay, is arguably a cause for resentment and could threaten the union.

Despite the apparent success of devolution, participation in the devolved bodies has disappointed. In 1998 figures at Holyrood rose by only 3% and in Cardiff Bay in 2003 only 43% voted. Even though the devolution process has boosted democracy, the low participation of recent years defeats its purpose; if the people aren’t voting, the assemblies cannot reflect public favour. This issue is, however, mirrored in the declining participation outside the devolved bodies, suggesting that it is not a shortfall specific to the Assemblies. In 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote, this was only 21.6% of the entire electorate’s vote . The Power Commission concluded in 2006 that it was neither content nor indifference that sparked mass disengagement, consensus politics and the ‘wasted votes’ of FPTP were responsible . Surely such issues call for both consideration of devolution’s democracy and electoral reform. Indeed many commentators have predicted that Gordon Brown’s constitutional reform plans are both sensible and overdue, but are sceptical about the level of impact that they will have on the already weak relationship between citizen and state . Whilst these constitutional reforms may be democratically sounds, this does not mean that they will increase democracy in the UK; however successful that the Acts and devolved bodies are, they will be redundant unless the people participate.

The Regional Development Agencies Act appears to be a beacon of democracy, encouraging individual achievement by improving business, boosting economy and decreasing unemployment. The process of appointing the members of the ‘agency’ (picked by the Secretary of State ) is not however inline with the otherwise democratically promising Act. Furthermore, parties cannot be legally recognised unless registered, this is surely a breech of freedom of speech; however it is this that prevents the registration of obscene parties that would do nothing for UK democracy. It is the intention of this Act and that which the Act prevents that makes it democratic, thus making UK politics more democratic.

The Registration of Political Parties Act upholds the democratic process as it aids the success of the proportionally representative system of party lists in the devolved bodies of Scotland and Wales .

The Local Government Act of 2000 gave more power to local authorities helping improvement of economic, environmental and social well-being. Whilst this reform is not particularly radical, it stands inline with the pillars of UK democracy by decentralising political power.

Similarly, the Greater London Authority Act of 1999 owes its democratic success to its status as an Act of decentralisation, providing a strategic government, specifically for London.

Labour’s democratisation of political systems reaches its pinnacle with electoral reform, due to the current system’s breech of direct democracy as an unrepresentative system. In 1997, Labour pledged to democratise notoriously undemocratic systems. Labour’s 1997 manifesto promised a referendum on electoral systems and Blair’s first term boasted 6 pro-electoral reform cabinet members .However, by the 2005 election, there were only 3 pro-reform cabinet members and any sign of a referendum had faded. Arguably we may never see this referendum in Labour’s current administration as Brown would not enforce reform due to the effect it could have on Labour’s representation.

Whilst Labour’s referendum commitment has disappeared, the implementation of proportional representation systems in the devolved bodies and the European Parliament is a testament to Jenkins’ recommendations , making the UK more democratic. The European Parliamentary Elections Act (1999) introduced the party list system in elections to the European Parliament. The huge boost that this process gave to UKIP, who secured 12 seats in 2004, suggests that this electoral reform upholds democracy. Like other electoral reforms since 1997, it tends to give smaller parties a chance to thrive in elections , thus it has increased democracy because a more diverse representation of the electorate is ensured.

The implementation of the Additional Members System in Wales and Scotland has benefited the victims of the FPTP, the Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Liberal Democrats shared a two year coalition with Labour from 2001, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formed the same coalition spanning 8 years and were able to act as the driving force behind scrapping tuition fees. The embarrassingly low figures of female representation in Westminster (19.6% in the House of Commons and 50% MWAs ) are telling of the faults of the FPTP system, and flaunt the merits of Labour’s reforms in the devolved bodies.

This, combined with the greater representation that the nationalists have had in their assemblies, largely implies that the party system has become more democratic and a more pluralistic culture has been introduced, allowing smaller parties to gain seats above local level, thus making the UK’s political system more representative and therefore more democratic.

The government’s reluctance to introduce electoral reform into the sovereign parliament limits the effect of these reforms. Any democratic achievement in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is overshadowed by the bias two-party system that in 2005 gave Labour 55.1% of the seats from only 35.3% of the vote and the Liberal Democrats only 9.6% of the seats from 22.2% of the votes.

The modernisation of central political institutions began in 1999. The House of Lords Act removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. This Act promotes UK democracy in that it has mimicked what Cardwell did for the army in the1870s: abolished the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of appointment. However, Blair opposed plans for most of the Lords to be elected , defeating any prospect of developing democracy in the Lords. Many politicians shared this opposition, fearing that a more democratically legitimate House of Lords would make it harder for Government to pass legislation . This view is surely a massive breech of basic democracy in that it puts the interest of government before democracy in a political institution. Furthermore, some Labour MPs are hesitant to support the creation of life peers in that it could lead to an increase in Prime ministerial patronage , this is just as detrimental to democracy as opposing elected peers. The proposals for ‘Stage 2’ of the Lords reform met criticism from Labour MPs who thought that the direct election of only 20% of the Lords was inadequate, giving Blair 80% of the Lords upon which to assert patronage . Tony Wright was inspired by this absence of democracy, and published a report in 2002, recommending that at least 60% of the Lords should be elected.

The House of Commons Reforms did not raise any foundation-shaking questions of democracy. The introduction of parallel sittings appears democratic in that it provides backbenchers with a chance to better involve themselves in parliamentary debate. Blair’s decision to change the time slots of Prime ministers questions is also democratic as it allows more in-depth question answering. However, the sceptics argue that this was Blair’s way of only being asked questions once and spending less time in the Commons . There is a suggestion that Blair may have been trying to avoid accountability, however he did decide to undergo questioning by the chairs of the departmental select committees twice yearly; some argue that he is not shying away from accountability, but rather leading reform in that direction. In short, Commons reform has been moderate although arguably it has shifted power slightly in the direction of the government. Jenkins and Gray foresaw this in 1999 ‘…modernisation may mean an increasing separation of the executive from the legislature.’

Labours civil service reforms support democracy to an extent, corroborating Blair’s statement, ‘The world has changed and the civil service must change with it.’ However, the government’s modernisation of the civil service could potentially compromise the institutions neutrality. This is consequentially a compromise in democracy in that a neutral and unelected body should not have any particular political persuasion.

The need to safeguard and improve individual rights put pressure on the government to implement relevant constitutional reform. New Labour’s support of ‘active citizenship’ left the government with a commitment to safeguarding human rights; over 10 years later, issues like counter terrorism Laws and identity cards have sparked discussion of the ‘decline of freedom’ and ‘the growth of authoritarianism’

The Human Rights Act (1998) integrated the European Convention into British Law to protect the rights of the people. The Act has had a democratic effect, forcing parliament to part with some of its power, not threatening its sovereignty, whilst giving the judiciary the closest thing to a constitution that it has ever had in order to determine the justice of a ruling. This resource of justice has been used several times since 2000, most famously in 2004 when Law Lords ruled against indefinite detention of terrorism suspects in Belmarsh and Broadmoor, quite an embarrassment for the ‘pro-active citizenship’ government .

In 1996, Blair announced, ‘our commitment to a Freedom of Information Act is clear… information should be released.’ The Freedom of Information Act appeared to exemplify Blair’s wishes after receiving royal assent in 2000. In principle, the Act is democratic, extending the rights of information for all citizens and giving more rights to the people. However by February 2005 the Conservative party had made 130 requests under FOI, receiving only 3 positive replies. The tendency for the Act to become self refuting is extremely detrimental to its potentially democratic effect; however, the Act’s blatant attempt at democracy is admirable and has in turn had a democratic effect on the UK.

New Labour’s implementation of Acts for the protection and safeguarding of human rights have achieved the democracy that they were formulated to protect. However, the Acts themselves have highlighted some massive contradictions and have exposed some discrepancies in Labour’s journey toward a more democratic UK.

Labour’s constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 have made the UK more democratic. The reforms have helped to involve and empower the public, challenging the idea that, ‘democracy is just somewhere you live and that voting every four or five years is enough.’ A coherent and politically impressive list of reforms has been implemented under New Labour; however, whilst the democracy of these reforms has been effective and long lasting, the sheer lack of important reform has overshadowed their success. Accountability in the House of Lords is still elusive, the government remains relatively secretive under the Freedom of Information Act and an unrepresentative electoral system still functions.