| British democracy in terminal decline, warns report Jul 7th 2012, 12:08 Quote:
Exclusive: Corporate power, unrepresentative politicians and apathetic voters leave UK 'increasingly unstable', says study
A study into the state of democracy in Britain over the last decade warns it is in "long-term terminal decline" as the power of corporations keeps growing, politicians become less representative of their constituencies and disillusioned citizens stop voting or even discussing current affairs.
The report by Democratic Audit shared exclusively with the Guardian notes there have been many positive advances over the last 10 years: stronger select committees of MPs holding ministers and civil servants to account; devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and publication of much more information about politicians' expenses and party donors. But it found evidence of many other areas where Britain appeared to have moved further away from its two benchmarks of representative democracy: control over political decision-making, and how fairly the system reflects the population it represents – a principle most powerfully embedded in the concept of one person, one vote.
Among its concerns, identified from databases of official statistics and public surveys, were that Britain's constitutional arrangements are "increasingly unstable" owing to changes such as devolution; public faith in democratic institutions "decaying"; a widening gap in the participation rates of different social classes of voters; and an "unprecedented" growth in corporate power, which the study's authors warn "threatens to undermine some of the most basic principles of democratic decision-making".
In an interview with the Guardian, Stuart Wilks-Heeg, the report's lead author, warned that Britons could soon have to ask themselves "whether it's really representative democracy any more?"
Cont...
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...decline-report From the report website: Quote:
The idea of the democratic audit, or democracy assessment as it is also known, is a very simple one. A democratic audit is a comprehensive and systematic assessment of a country's political life in order to answer the question: how democratic is it and how well are human rights protected?
The point is to enable citizens in any country to assess the quality of their democracy and to identify what reforms are needed to democratise their country further. A democratic audit can be a valuable starting point for empowering oppressed peoples or marginalised communities.
Our assessment methodology is based on the two basic principles of representative democracy - popular control and political equality: that is, how far do the people exercise control over political decision-makers and the processes of decision-making? And how far is there political equality in the exercise of that control?
From these two principles we derive the democratic framework of audit, or "search" questions, which enable people thoroughly and systematically to examine the quality of their democracy, human rights and public services.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/the-uk-audit-1 Some of the areas discussed and examined by Democratic Audit: Quote:
Corporate power and democracy
The issue of unaccountable corporate and financial power in Britain's democracy has been of increasing concern over the past decade or more. It has always been a feature of so-called 'market democracies' that business interests get privileged by governments. This is because economic activity is rarely under the directcontrol of government, but depends upon private business decisions for investment, production and the delivery of employment and services. This means that a government's goals for the economy can only be met indirectly, through securing conditions favourable to business, and giving attention to its interests.
However, key systemic changes in the international economy since the 1980s have significantly reduced the capacity of governments in relation to business, and greatly increased their level of dependency when negotiating with it. At the same time the range of instruments and powers available to the corporate sector to influence or determine government policy and public opinion has considerably expanded, while potential countervailing powers of a more democratic kind have been significantly reduced. The outcome is that the welfare of citizens is repeatedly compromised as government becomes in effect the promotional agent of corporate and financial interests. At no time has this been more evident than in the years leading up to and after the financial crash of 2007-8.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/corpo...-and-democracy Quote:
Electoral Reform
Democratic Audit believes that only a proportional system or a preferential system with broadly proportional results can satisfy the basic rule that elections should first of all satisfy the basic requirement that elections should be genuinely representative of people's votes; and that people should be given real choices when they come to vote. For this reason, we tend to be strongly critical of the outcomes of recent UK elections held under the 'first-past-the-post' system. However, we do not favour any one proportional or preferential system.
Read our assessment of the UK's current system here: Is 'first-past-the-post' working? An audit of the UK's electoral system.
Although debates about electoral reform since 2009 have centred on proposals to replace 'first-past-the-post' with the alternative vote (AV), there are numerous other options for electoral reform in the UK. Many of these other electoral systems are already in use in the UK, as the table below illustrates.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/electoral-reform Quote:
Parliament
Parliament is no longer as central to UK democracy as it could once claim to be. A significant proportion of UK law is now derived from EU legislation, while devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also had a profound effect on the development of democracy in the UK. At the same time, there is long-run evidence to suggest that Parliament has struggled to hold the executive branch of government (the Prime Minister and cabinet) to account.
Despite these trends, the Westminster Parliament remains the focal point for party politics, representation and accountability in UK political life. As such, Democratic Audit has consistently argued that measures to strengthen the influence of Parliament vis-à-vis the executive must be at the heart of any democratic reform agenda. Two of our recent initiatives illustrate the work we have undertaken on this theme.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/parliament Quote:
Boundary changes
Details of our latest projections of the party political consequences of boundary changes under the new rules have been published on the Guardian's website on Monday 6 June 2011. Additional detail is available on The UK's new political map? section of this site.
Boundary changes: our concerns about 'reduce and equalise'.
Although it received relatively limited public or media attention as it progressed through Parliament, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act has proved to be one of the most controversial piece of legislation to be put before Parliament since the coalition took office in May 2010.
Aside from making provisions for the referendum on the Alternative Vote in May 2011, the Act made provisions to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Furthermore, the Act established a requirement on the UK's four Boundary Commissions to equalise constituency electorates so that all fall within five per cent of a UK average of around 76,000 voters – although a very small number of exceptions were granted.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/boundary-changes Quote:
The UK's new political map?
The documents below provide the full details of Democratic Audit's model of how constituency boundaries could change using the new rules contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. Please note that this model was published in June 2011, three months in advance of the publication of the Boundary Commissions' offical proposals for the redrawing of constituency boundaries.
The model, devised by Lewis Baston, Senior Research Fellow, with assistance from Kevin Larkin used the December 2010 electorate figures, as the Boundary Commissions are required to do. It also adhered to a number of principles which the Boundary Commissions had indicated they would seek to apply, such as avoiding constituency configurations which cross English regional boundaries.
It should be emphasised that this is only a model. It was not produced as a precise prediction, but as a projection of what the outcomes could look like. There are many possible patterns for drawing up constituencies that will be consistent with the new rules, and this is but one solution. The political parties have no doubt done similar work. But the final word will go to the Boundary Commission working in each of the component nations of the United Kingdom – and their results will be different in significant ways from any other model set of boundaries.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/the-u...-political-map Quote:
Party funding
Political parties in the UK are funded from a variety of sources including membership and affiliation fees, fund-raising and commercial activities, government grants and voluntary donations. For all three main parties, donations are the single largest source of income, with a significant proportion of income coming from large donations comprising five, six and – and in some cases – seven figure sums.
The problems associated with funding political parties via 'big donors' – whether those donors are individuals, corporations, trade unions or other organisations – are increasingly clear. Accusations of impropriety are widespread - although they are rarely, if ever, proven. Such accusations centre on claims that at least some donations come with strings attached – principally as a means of either 'buying' honours for an individual or securing a change in policy for organised interests.
Political concern about these issue is highly apparent. The coalition has promised to reach 'detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics'. In July 2010, the Committee on Standard on Public Life, announced that it is to carry out an inquiry into party funding, with the intention of reporting in late Spring 2011.
During 2010, we were commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to review the current state of party funding arrangements in the UK and outline options for reform. The resulting, Funding Political Parties in Great Britain: A Pathway to Reform, by Stuart Wilks-Heeg and Stephen Crone was published on 14 October 2010.
| http://www.democraticaudit.com/party-funding | |
