How Well Does Parliament Fulfil Its Functions

? Essay, Research Paper British Parliament has four primary functions. These are representation, legitimisation, scrutinising and informing and legislative. Each of these are performed, by our parliament with a varying degree of success, and this essay is targeted at examining how well each of these functions are carried out. Firstly, there is the issue of representation. How well does Parliament represent the people of Great Britain? To begin with, Britain is a pluralist society. We have complete freedom of speech and MPs are open to lobbying and are accessible to pressure groups, which therefore enables the views of different people to be heard and ensures that matters of public concern can reach the political agenda. However, the UK is subject to party politics, and it is impossible for a party to represent every person on every issue, and in order to win the support of the majority of the population it is important that they focus on wider issues. Because of this, minority opinions are not properly represented. Furthermore, Britain has a First Past the Post electoral system. In such a system up to seventy per cent of the votes are ignored, as they are used on losing candidates, and the winning party very rarely gains a majority of the votes. In fact, at the last election, Labour won a landslide victory having only received 13.5 million votes, and although not the entire population have the right to vote, this figure is equal to just a quarter of the population. Although such a system does lead to a stronger government, the government is not as representative of the people as it could be. A further drawback with the First Past the Post system is that an MP can and often is elected with a minority of the votes in his constituency. Therefore a significant proportion of the people in the constituency are not represented. Although they are free to make their opinions known to the MP at surgery, the MP can only act on their behalf if it is in keeping with their party principle, as they are forced, by the whips, to tow the party line. Furthermore, the primary role of an MP is to serve the constituency that elected him, and MPs who are made cabinet ministers do not really have time to serve their constituencies as well as they should. For example, Tony Blair has very little time in which to serve the people of Sedgefield. For true and full representation, all viewpoints, majority or minority should be represented in some way in Parliament. Indeed, Parliament should be a microcosm of the country, yet to take a brief glance at the House of Commons it is made up, in the main, of middle-aged, middle-class men. There are relatively few women MPs, and very few MPs from ethnic minorities. In practise, this makes the issues that are specifically concerned with these two groups face lower representation in parliament. Moreover, the House of Lords is made up mainly of people who are there by the queen?s appointment, and others who are present simply via hereditary right. This entire chamber, although it has limited powers, represents a tiny minority of the population, massively disproportionate to the parliamentary significance it has. In conclusion, whilst our electoral infrastructure leads, in theory, to a high level of political representation, the First Past the Post system does, in almost every example, lead to an under-representation of a majority of the population. Furthermore, minority opinions can only be presented if they are in keeping with an MP?s party?s view, due to the prominence of party politics. Perhaps most importantly of all though, an MP, although there is an accountability and the presence of party whips, has the power to ignore the people whom he represents, and many of them, the so-called party rebels, do so on a regular basis. It is fair to say that the British government is more or less completely legitimate. Legitimisation is the term used to describe the confirmation of authority. At a general election by electing a government people transfer their sovereign power to the government. However, it can be said that the government is not legitimate because there is no alternative than to elect one. In spite of this though, anybody can be stand for election, anyone can form a party and, if the people choose, anyone can hold office. There is also a sense of legitimacy in the sense that if the government lose a vote of confidence they are expected to hold an election. However, most governments do not hold a majority of the votes and a large number of people do not vote. Also, the government is only legitimate if they hold a majority in the commons. When looking at legitimacy the basic question that needs to be asked is do we recognise the authority of the government to govern? In Britain at the moment the answer to this is yes. On the whole the population respects the law and pays taxes and there is not a ?tyranny of the minority.? There is no large-scale rebellion and no significant instigators of revolution. There have been places in the US where people refused to pay taxes and openly broke the law as they did not respect the right of the government to govern. There has been one example of this in Britain ? the poll tax riots. The British people did not believe Mrs. Thatcher had a right to introduce such a measure as almost nobody ? even in her own cabinet, supported such a measure. As a result of the wide-scale riots the tax was abolished. To summarise, the British government is indeed legitimate. Whilst the population may object to some of its measures, there is no objection to the fact that they are allowed to be in office, in spite of the fact that they do not have a majority of the votes. As I have already said Britain is a pluralist society, parliament houses more than one party, and so therefore all the government?s measures are subject to scrutiny from other parties and also from backbench MPs in their own party. Scrutinising and informing is a further function of parliament. It an MPs job to ensure that laws made by parliament are laws that are beneficial to the country, and this is via the intense scrutiny of every bill that is introduced. Scrutiny occurs at question time, where MPs have the right to stand up and ask questions to the relevant MP (usually a cabinet minister or the Prime Minister) about a proposed bill, and to criticise it, both positively and negatively. Whilst this is a function parliament performs well, particularly because of the presence of other parties, there are often planted questions. This is where MPs from the government are given fixed questions to ask by the person being questioned in an effort to promote the measure, particularly as question time is live on television. However this is opposed by the fact that other parties often use this opportunity to not just criticise the proposed bill, but to put down the government as a whole. It is extremely unlikely for the opposition to fully support a government measure and usually they simply pick out the downfalls of the bill and use this for their own political gain. Scrutiny also occurs at parliamentary select committees. These are committees set up in attempt to improve the accountability between the government and parliament as a whole. These improve scrutiny because they are smaller and so therefore more successful, in terms of efficiently and effectively scrutinising a bill, be it positively or negatively, and help the opposition to have a clearer understanding of the government?s plans. Also, they force ministers to form clearer policies. However, it can be said that the idea of having MPs and constituencies is that in theory as many as possible have a say in the issue, and these committees reduce the role of the House of Commons. Furthermore, these committees do not have the power to force a Minister into changing policy. To bring the above points together, scrutiny in parliament is structured well. The government does not have the power to bring in an act without it being criticised by the opposition. However, this platform the opposition has is easy to abuse, merely by using it to publicly put down the government at question time. This can be, and usually is countered by using planted questions, which therefore has a detrimental effect on the effectiveness of scrutiny. As an answer to this, parliamentary select committees are advantageous in that they increase the knowledge other parties have on government policy, allowing for more constructive debate. They are also more effective than the House of Commons, though sadly this comes at the expense of fundamental democratic principle. The main function of parliament is to make the laws that run the country. The government does this by introducing legislation using political bills. There are four ways to introduce a bill. These are private members? bills, private bills, bills introduced in the House of Lords and bills introduced by the cabinet or the Prime Minister. It is important to realise that introducing a bill changes the law that runs the country. It is therefore essential that all bills passed are discussed thoroughly, and necessary amendments are made in the light of this discussion. Because of this all bills introduced must go through a very rigid and thorough infrastructure. The bill must go through a discussion and a debate in the House of Commons, then to a committee stage where it can be amended. The bill is then read out again and there is a further debate. If by this stage it has not been rejected it is passed on to the Lords. The Lords repeat this entire process and send it back to the commons to be accepted in its new form or re-debated. This then continues for as long as necessary, although the Lords only have the power to delay a bill for a year and a day at the very most. The basic advantage of this system is that it is very thorough. By the time a bill is passed there should, in theory, be no stone left unturned, and the introduced law should be unimprovable. However, this is not always so as there have been several ?knee-jerk reaction bills? passed. An example of this is the Criminal Justice Bill, which was rushed through the legislative process in a very poorly drafted state while parliament was not supposed to be in session, as an instant reaction to the Omagh bombing. This complicated and intricate system, does however contain a number of significant flaws. Firstly, the Lords? power to delay a bill for up to a year means that it has the power to reject a bill stemming from a government in its final year in office. Also, it is obvious that laws are brought in with a view to improving the nation, and so therefore it would be beneficial for them to be brought in as quickly as possible. The slow process and particularly the power of the Lords to delay affects this greatly. To add to this, there is the case of Private Members. Bills. These are bills introduced by MPs whose names are drawn at random, often on behalf of members of the public, twelve times a year. Because of the lack of time Parliament has, these bills are subject to a time limit and so any one MP has the power to reject such a bill simply by standing up and talking out the time limit. This means that only non-controversial bills tend to get through, and is also highly undemocratic. Perhaps most important of all though is the fact that all prospective laws are subject to a great deal of party politics. After all the debating is finished, it simply comes down to voting for or against, and usually the party whips ensure that MPs vote in accordance with their party. Whilst this is justifiable by the fact that the vast majority of the electorate vote with parties in mind not individual candidates, it does however lessen the significance of scrutiny. Basically, parliament on the whole is very thorough and very meticulous with the introduction of new legislation and it is a function it fulfils well, portrayed by the lengthy complicated process necessary for this to occur. However there are numerous cracks in the system, such as the power of the Lords and the lack of time to discuss private members? bills, which are very hard to overcome. In conclusion, Parliament is a well-structured and well-planned establishment which fulfils its functions to a more than adequate level. Whilst its First Past the Post system does not lead to the best possible representation, it does give rise to strong and efficient government, and because Britain enjoys complete freedom of speech, leading to a pluralist society, the government can never truly hide from any major issue. The government can also be said to be completely legitimate. The people respect the right of the government to lead them. Scrutiny, in the main leads to the improvement of laws, although sadly it is often used as a device to gain public support as it is the parliamentary session which is available to the widest television audience. The legislative process is thorough and should, in theory prevent the introduction of rash measures. However, the above paragraph is only true in theory. The fundamental problem with today?s parliament is the absolute prominence of party politics. Britain is a democratic society, but parliament, at the end of the day can be said to be a game of numbers. If one party has a majority and either the full support or respect of its members they are a force very difficult to stop. In 1774 Edward Burke said to his constituents, ?Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgements; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices to your opinion.? In spite of parliament?s well structured democracy and ability to fulfil its functions, its major problem lies in the fact that many MPs are beginning to stop being free-thinking individuals keen to fight for the interests of their constituents and the country and becoming sheep pushed in whichever direction the ministers deem appropriate. Whilst this is extremely prominent in the government itself, it is perhaps more worrying in what appears to be the opposition?s policy to reject out of sight any idea a government may have. What point does a meticulous and complex parliamentary system serve if it watches blinkered following of party principle and scripted debates at question time? 364