The British can be proud of having fought for many democratic achievements in throughout their history, many of which we take for granted today. One that I have repeatedly pointed out in my previous posts is the sharing of legislative power between different institutions to encourage interaction between different groups in society. The division is also a mechanism to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority" (another is, for example, a constitution with specially protected laws): even majorities are not allowed to rule without limits and ignore the rights and needs of minorities. Typical examples of a division of the legislature are those between the Bundestag and Bundesrat in Germany or the House of Representatives, Senate and President in the United States.
Gated entrance to Downing Street, the official residence of the Britsh Prime Minster
The representatives in all these institutions are democratically elected. And all the divisions are based on those that prevailed in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, when legislative power was divided between the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Here, of course, not all representatives were elected. Over the centuries Britain democratized its political system by removing power from unelected institutions. Today, effectively only the House of Commons has legislative power. In addition, the executive power i.e the government, depends on a majority in the House of Commons.
All of this contradicts modern democratic principles. But what makes the set-up really worrying is the majority voting system and the current variety of political parties that come with it. As a result, most governments over the last few decades have not only be able to rule without the need to address the concerns of other interest groups, but the governments have not even been backed by a majority of the voters. And if not in power, even major parties have to fight to avoid disappearing into insignificance for years or even decades, with disastrous consequences.
What exactly do I mean? Let's start with the electoral system. All MPs in the House of Commons are elected by direct election in constituencies. In a pure first-past-the-post system, the votes of losing candidates are not taken into account in parliament. Consequently, a political camp harms itself if it is represented by several parties. Their candidates take votes away from each other and enable the election of a candidate with opposing views. Focusing on two parties makes sense, as in the USA with Democrats and Republicans. Fewer votes are not regarded and the distribution of seats in parliament is more in line with the voting behaviour of citizens. Of course, the political spectrum among the people extends far beyond two opinions. The balancing of interests between groups is shifting from parliament into the parties (at least it should).
In the UK the political landscape after World War II was dominated by two parties, the Conservatives and Labour. In the 1950s, both parties together accounted for more than 95 per cent of votes. From the 1960s onwards, however, their shares began to erode.
In 2005, they received just under 67 percent of the vote. The loss is partly due to the strengthening of regional parties such as the Scottish National Party (SNP) or the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, but mainly to gains made by the third national force, the Liberal Democrats (LibDems). In 2005, they received just under 22 per cent of the vote. In the House of Commons, however, the LibDems accounted for 9.6 per cent of MPs, the SNP for 2.2 per cent of the votes and 0.9 per cent of MPs. Overall, smaller parties were heavily under-represented. As a result, Labour received 35.2 per cent of the vote, but secured 55 per cent of MPs, making a single government comfortably possible.
The imbalance between the distribution of seats and votes in 2005 was an extreme case, but single-party governments without a majority are the rule due to the fragmentation of the party system. Of 21 governments between 1945 and 2023, 20 were elected by less than 50 per cent of the voters, 13 by less than 45 per cent and 6 by less than 40 per cent. In the UK, one "dictatorship of the minority" follows the next. For comparison, 21 governments were also formed in Germany during the same period, only 6 received less than 50 per cent of the vote and none less than 45 per cent. And legislative power is shared.
Some of our British friends agree with me that the political system is seriously flawed. However, most of them do not understand my indignation. The majority voting system has been around forever, the British institutions are world-famous and often copied. If the decisions of one government are not ok, the next one will change them again. What's the problem?
But one only has to look at developments of the last 40 years to see how wrong their perception is. We go back to the dismantling of the welfare state under Margaret Thatcher and take a closer look at the political situation at that time.
Under Thatcher's leadership, the Tories were in government from 1979 onwards. The nationalised economy was inefficient, and many Conservatives wanted to privatize national businesses. At least in theory. But they were aware that people liked their welfare state. Labour and the trade unions would mobilise against their plans. At the next election, they were likely to be soundly defeated. A socialist government would reverse all their actions. The Tories did not implement their plans.
But the situation changed in the early 1980s. Various groups in the Labour Party were irreconcilably opposed to each other. They were fighting about anti-Semitism, militant tendencies and Europe. The European Economic Community with its liberal ideas was bothering many of the socialists. Some of the leading members left and founded a new party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The Socialists remained in Old Labour.
The effect on the majority in the House of Commons was catastrophic. In the 1983 election, Labour lost almost a third of its votes and ended up with less than 28 per cent. SDP and Liberals stood together, gaining the support of those voters who had turned their backs on Labour and winning over 25 per cent. The Conservatives won 42.9 per cent of the vote, half a per cent less than before. However, due to the split on the left, they increased their majority in the House of Commons from 53.4 to 61.1 per cent.
Despite the disaster, Labour and the SDP were not coming together again. At the next election or elections, the majority in the House of Commons would almost certainly go to the Tories again (which is what happened). Additionally, the trade unions got divided. Under these circumstances, the Tories were able to begin the transformation of the UK into a neoliberal state. The economy was radically de-industrialised and the service sector, especially the financial industry, became the dominant factor.
At the end of the 1980s, the SDP and the Liberals merged to form a new party, the LibDems. The new Liberals established themselves as a strong third force without ever gaining an adequate number of MPs. Labour languished for several years. It was not until the 1992 election defeat that voices became louder calling for a new direction for the party. Two years later, Tony Blair took over the leadership and initiated reforms. Labour turned away from the idea of a nationalized economy and towards a market economy. New Labour was now also a social democratic party, if not drifting even further to the right. In 1997, the party won a magnificent victory over a tired Conservative Party. New Labour won over 43 percent of the vote and more than 63 percent(!) of the seats in the House of Commons. The old welfare state did not return though. It had been gone far too long already and Labour had changed far too much.
One can certainly spend hours discussing the extent to which change was necessary in the United Kingdom of the 1980s. But a reorganisation of the whole country carried out by just one party without ever being backed by a majority of votes is questionable, isn't it?
It seems though that most Brits think like the majority of our friends: one-party governments are great. Accordingly, the "crisis" after the 2010 general election was huge, when the Tories won the election but only got 47 per cent of seats (with 36 per cent of the vote). In order to form a government, they had to enter into a coalition with the LibDems. Fun fact: It was the only post-war government to win a majority of the vote.
The need to form a coalition was an expression of the erosion of the major parties. Was the era of single-party governments coming to an end? The Conservatives in particular were worried. Labour had governed for 13 years, had become weaker at every election and had now slipped below the 30 per cent mark. Yet the Tories were not strong enough to govern alone?!
In the years that followed, concerns about their own ability to govern increased. However, this had nothing to do with the coalition. The LibDems had no experience of government and were outmatched by the Conservatives. The small coalition partner plummeted in the polls.
But at the beginning of the 2010s, the European debt crisis was raging. Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal had to make use of the Euro bailout programme and the International Monetary Fund helped with loans.
The EU itself became a problem in the eyes of many Britons. Many mistakenly believed that their tax money was being used to pay off Greek debts. At the same time, they saw their jobs threatened by European immigrants. Finally, the British themselves felt the effects of the financial crisis. The new government drastically cut its budget, but still couldn’t solve the state’s debt problem.
David Cameron, Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, was faced with a huge problem. While the party was once home to EU supporters, the number of Conservative EU sceptics had been growing since Margaret Thatcher's time.
In 2011, the House of Commons had to vote on a Brexit referendum following a petition. The major parties instructed their MPs to vote against the referendum. The MPs rejected such a referendum by 483 votes to 111. However, among those in favour were 81 dissenters from the Tories. The MPs rebelled and British EU membership divided the party.
And on the right, a long insignificant grouping gained support with its Brexit demand, the UK Independence Party, or UKIP for short. In the 2014 European elections, Nigel Farage's party became the strongest force with 27 per cent of the vote. The election was primarily a protest vote. At national level, UKIP was a long way off 27 per cent in the polls, but due to the electoral system even a few per cent of the vote could be enough and the Conservatives would lose a larger number of seats in the House of Commons. Not to UKIP but to the next strongest party, Labour.
If things went badly for the Conservatives, UKIP would establish itself as the fourth national force. The Tories would be in a tricky situation. If they moved their agenda to the right, Labour and other parties could occupy the political centre. However, if they aligned themselves with the centre, UKIP would be ready to take on disgruntled Conservative voters. The political right would be split. Either way, the Tories' ability to govern would be called into question.
If things went disastrously for the Conservatives, the party itself would split, as Labour did in the 1980s. UKIP could absorb the defectors and seek the leading position on the right. Not only would control over the country’sdevelopment be permanently jeopardised, perhaps even the very existence of the party would be called into question.
Cameron had to do something. The next general election was barely a year away. So he promised to call a referendum on leaving the EU if the Tories won the election.
From a certain point of view, the promise was brilliant. The Conservative Party was united for the time being. Anyone on the right who wanted to leave the EU was better off voting Tory than UKIP. With the referendum in mind, it was possible to wring further special rights for the UK from the EU. And with a referendum in favour of the EU, the whole Brexit debate would be quickly over and UKIP would disappear into obscurity.
In fact, the Conservatives won the election and provided the majority of MPs in the House of Commons, albeit only just, with 50.8 per cent of seats. The European Union granted further special rights, including the possibility of sealing off the domestic labour market from EU immigrants for a limited period. And after the referendum, UKIP disappeared into insignificance. The only problem: although polls had long suggested a victory for the Remainer camp, a small majority voted in favour of Brexit.
Cameron had jeopardised the future of the country to save his party and lost twice over. The Brexiteers' victory divided the Conservatives more than ever before. And the future of the UK looked a lot bleaker. During the whole negotiation phase with the EU, the UK remained hostage to inner party frictions.
Of course, the ensuing chaos, such as Theresa May's Brexit deal failing to secure a majority in Parliament, cannot be explained by these disputes alone, but they played a significant role. Added to this were the weaknesses of the system, as well as the incompetence and unscrupulousness of the people involved. More on these in the next post.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.