Social Democracy in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Social Democracy in the United Kingdom Social democracy is essential for an egalitarian society. It is also indispensable for regional and international cooperation. The political projects of social democracy are instrumental in the development and promotion of democracy. Furthermore, they accord total legitimacy to a democracy (Meyer & Hinchman 2007: 230). In the absence of a social basis, democracy would be divested of civic equality. Furthermore, democracy should ensure economic efficiency, social integration, and democratic stability (Meyer & Hinchman 2007: 229). The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, and its democracy is an unwritten constitution of liberty. It suffers from a democratic deficit, and this has been established by the Westminster scandal. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has a well established political culture that is based on values, moderation and public service. The class system of this nation served to establish a political class that has the ability to resist the exploitation of power and privilege (Soutphommasane, 2009: 11). Moreover, the British Empire generated a sense of common identity, in a society that was based on an inflexible classification on the basis of class. However, with the passage of time, these traits have been eroded. Furthermore, due to the professionalization of politics, parliamentary culture based on duty has been weakened (Soutphommasane, 2009: 11). The decline of the imperial power, in conjunction with multiculturalism and a disregard for national pride has rendered the UK a socially fragmented nation. The void thus created is being occupied by the nationalists of the far right. This is the real crisis being faced by the parliamentary system of UK. With European elections, in the offing, the political parties of the UK are making every possible effort to propose reforms to the constitution and the electoral process, in order to restore public trust in politics (Soutphommasane, 2009: 11). Thatcherism emerged in the aftermath of the acute social tension of the 1970s, wherein corporatist strategies of resolving competing demands on the economy and society had proved to be dismal failures. The mine workers’ strikes had defeated two governments; and inflation levels, were at the maximum level. It was believed that the UK had become ungovernable; and cultural and social warfare was being conducted against promiscuity, abortion, immigration, universities, and schooling. At that critical juncture, Margaret Thatcher was elected as the Prime Minister of the UK, on the basis of her assurance to restore total order. In addition, she had promised to tilt the balance of social power against the working class (Rustin, 2004). The Conservative government led by Thatcher was successful in resolving a majority of these challenges. She ensured the defeat of collectivism, mixed economy, and public service. They established principles and programs for economic and social good. However, their views were considered to be retrogressive and elusive; and full Marketization, had resulted in an environment of greed and hedonism. (Rustin, 2004). It failed to restore order and family valued into society. Accordingly, the Conservatives lost in the elections; and challenges like the poll tax revolt and Black Wednesday placed the Conservatives in a complicated situation, in which they could no longer control the situation (Rustin, 2004). The poll tax revolt demonstrated the inherent resistance of the people towards injustice, from those in power. The role of the UK in Afghanistan has also been widely criticized. The presence of the UK in Afghanistan has been accepted in all quarters. This nation is deeply embroiled in internecine battles and subterfuges, and there is no security in this war torn nation (Kaldor, 2009). The unprovoked invasion of Iraq by Blair in 2003 resulted in loss of support from the electorate. This regime intervened militarily in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq; and brought about the death of tens of thousands of people, in comparison to the Thatcher regime (Lavelle, 2008: 85). The reason for this invasion, which was trotted out by Blair and his cronies, was that in the interests of the nation, Iraq had to be deprived of weapons of mass destruction. The presence of such weapons could not be established, and constitute a blatant attempt at misleading the people of the UK. The US invaded Iraq, in order to demonstrate its supreme status to the rest of the world (Lavelle, 2008: 85). The Blair administration found it to their advantage to support this act of aggression against Iraq. The Iraqi invasion by the allied forces claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In addition, four million people were displaced, due to that war. The UK government has to accept responsibility for this grave travesty of justice. The Labour Party led by Tony Blair, has to accept blame for this serious crime (Kaldor, 2009). It is not Blair alone who stands indicted for this unjustified invasion of Iraq; the Labour MPs are also to blame for failing to vote against the invasion of Iraq. This raises crucial questions regarding the relationship between parliament and the prime minister. If these MPs were to contend that they had been deliberately misled by Tony Blair, regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; then they would be required to explain as to why they did not demand an explanation from Blair for having deliberately misled parliament and the nation. In the aftermath of the Iraqi war, the citizens of the UK, lost faith in politicians (Kaldor, 2009). Black Wednesday exposed the weaknesses and incompetency of the Conservatives in resolving the differences between modernizing business interests, who advocated increased participation in the EU; and local and nationalist elements who were in favor of confining business activities to the UK (Rustin, 2004). The fall of the prime leader Tony Blair, exposed the dilution of the ideology of the party. The various programs of New Labour have continued to be favorable to business interests. However, it has displayed a marked reluctance to attack growing inequalities by means of the systems of taxation. The New Labour has chosen to oppose the regulation of the markets at the EU level. Moreover, it attempts to create better opportunities for the operation of private companies in the areas of health, education, social care, transport, and telecommunication. These sectors are essential sectors in industrial economies (Rustin, 2004). The challenge of modernizing public sector services, such as education and health was done in order to eradicate the boundaries between public and private provision. Hospitals and schools were given the necessary freedom to function as independent corporations. (Rustin, 2004). This system was expected to simplify the task of privatizing these areas, whenever public opinion could be rendered favorable. New Labour addresses the moral agendas promoted by Thatcherism. However, their focus entails a clearer utilitarian motive. Conservatives continued to attack social guarantees and benefits, whilst New Labour attempted to promote these concepts. New Labour supports the ideologies of self – sufficiency and family values, in their modernized welfare program. It has adopted a stringent attitude towards crime, grant of asylum, and immigration (Rustin, 2004). They insist that citizenship entails increasing conformity. Britain’s justification for its participation in the Iraqi war was not convincing; and it was based on fabricated information. The BBC accused the government of tampering with the evidence. The former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was appointed to conduct an inquiry into this allegation .In order, to divert the public’s attention from his unwarranted and expensive foray into Iraq, the US President Bush had directed a committee to inquire into the intelligence failures, responsible for the false report that had alleged the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Rihani, 2004). Tony Blair decided to follow in the footsteps of the US, and established an inquiry committee, headed by a trusted civil servant. The committee heard the evidence in secret, and reported that the BBC, which had accused Blair of tampering with the evidence, was at fault. Moreover, this committee reported that Blair and his associates had not lied to the UK (Rihani, 2004). The Labour government had initiated several draconian measures, on the pretext of curbing terrorism. These measures had been enforced, much before the recent London bombing incidents. This recent act of terrorism served to intensify these anti terrorism initiatives. The situation in the UK is disheartening, and mere suspicion is sufficient to detain any one without a trial for periods up to three months (Fotopoulos, 2006). The UK does not have a written constitution, which is to be interpreted by a Supreme Court. The US enacted the USA Patriot Act immediately after the terrorist attacks. The British administration always follows the administration of the US in all legislative matters (Rihani, 2004). The Constitutional Reform Act seeks to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor, and to institute a Supreme Court. This new act would change the way that people suspected of terrorism, would be dealt with. Under this legislation, a person need not have committed an act of terrorism and to be tried for the same. Anyone can be detained and tried on mere suspicion (Constitutional Reform Act 2005, 2005). It is understood that democratic rights, which were obtained by working class, will be defended. The stark reality, as admitted to by commentators is that parliament is only a discussion board and the MPs are merely voters for the policies decided upon by a small group of people. The latter are assisted by the concerned ministers, junior ministers, and parliamentary private secretaries. The real work is conducted by government, and increasingly by a small group around the Prime Minister (Taaffe, 2009). The actual governance is by means of the state involving the civil service officials, who carry out their decisions. The solution for this undemocratic system is to set up a system that entails greater democratic functioning. This latter system should involve the majority of the peoples in making decisions. These people should have a direct control over their representatives (Taaffe, 2009). However, history reveals that at times of major social change, members of the working class attempt to remove the gap that separates the legislature and the executive, in other words the gap between the government and the state machine. In the context of the UK, this implies the removal of the House of Lords and the monarchy. These entities have been retained, so as to employ them against a radical parliament and government that proves a danger to big business (Taaffe, 2009). In the context of capitalism, a bicameral parliament does not constitute a democratic means of keeping a check on the law making body of the government. Such a parliamentary system can be utilized to thwart the will of the masses, by employing an upper house against legislative initiatives that endanger the interests of the possessing classes. Consequently, the UK should adopt a unicameral parliament that combines legislative and executive powers. Such a parliament should be formed by voting, specifically by involving the youth and reducing the voting age to 16 years (Taaffe, 2009). Choosing MPs for five years on inflated salaries has undesirable outcomes. A true democratic form of equivalent representation must be commenced, so as to eliminate the monopoly, exercised by the three pro-capitalist parties and provide for the emergence of the true voice of the working class. To this end, a new workers’ party is to be established, and this party should be truly representative of the workers (Taaffe, 2009). Any social democratic initiative of the future will necessarily have to address that age old problem, which has been cropping up in different guises. This challenge deals with making certain that the situation of the least privileged sections of society is brought on par with the middle class; ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and income; and the provision of an impartial access to public services and institutions (Liddle). It will be the onerous task of the social democrats to engender these transformations, in a society that admits of greater diversity and individualism; a society, wherein the relationship between communities and their constituent individuals are no longer binding in nature; and a society that harbors deep mistrust and skepticism towards the government of the day (Liddle). There is intense electronic surveillance, which monitors everything that moves. In addition, the enforcement authorities have been empowered to shoot to kill, any person suspected of being a bomber. The Labour Government has made a mockery of the respect for freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; and the situation is far worse than what it was during the heyday of the IRA terrorist attacks (Fotopoulos, 2006). The final outcome of these measures has been the conversion of the UK into a semi fascist state, along the lines of the repressive regimes (Fotopoulos, 2006). The British had prided themselves for their fair play and since the past eight centuries, they had been the undisputed champions of justice for one and all. All this has been cast aside by the insidious acts of the Labour Government. Global capitalism emanates from and is maintained by the US, and the UK joined forces with the former, as they had the same attitude to free market liberalism. It was believed by the Blair administration that such alignment would provide it with a significant leverage in world affairs. In addition, the invasion of Iraq and proclivity to use force to achieve its objectives parallels the neo liberalism that is extant at the domestic level, in the UK. Thus, Blair declared that the use of force against a foreign country was essential for safeguarding crucial security and financial interests at home (Lavelle, 2008: 86). Furthermore, the Iraqi economy was modified to conform to neo liberal ideology. Thus, the Iraqi economy was transformed to a system consisting of the complete privatization of the public sector enterprises, provision of full ownership rights to foreign companies, and the removal of almost all trade barriers (Lavelle, 2008: 86). Further, support was extended to the capitalists by severely restricting the right to form unions and to go on strike. Thus, the UK has been endorsing free trade, flexible labor markets, entrepreneurial capitalism, enhanced individual self help, and welfare based on private initiative. Specifically, there has been no change in the Labour Government’s policy towards the approach adopted in Thatcher’s rule, Vis – a – Vis privatization, trade unions, welfare and local government (Lavelle, 2008: 86). In this manner, the government no longer attaches any significance to social democracy. There are certain principles that are valid all over the world, and these can be justified on general notions. These include the validity of fundamental rights; economic regulation; minimal security provided by a social welfare state, in the context of healthcare; education; and equal opportunity. It also includes the level of social security provided by a welfare state, the conditions for distributing opportunities for social participation. (Meyer & Hinchman 2007: 230). In addition, the citizens should be able to perceive that all possible measures are adopted, so as to achieve the predetermined objectives. Moreover, self reliance is part and parcel of basic rights. There is a vast difference between democracy and mob rule. Civil liberties and human rights are indispensable for defining and limiting the role of the state. Human rights and civil liberties ensure dignity and the various freedoms. In their absence, the people are rendered subjects and not citizens. In order to defend human rights effectively, they should be incorporated into a written constitution (Rights, Freedoms and a Written Constitution). Moreover, the government should not be permitted to revoke human rights as and when it pleases. A number of social and economic transformations are taking place in the world, and social democratic thinking has to adjust to these changes. Although the importance of the state has been reaffirmed, there can be no return to statism and Keynesian social democracy. The situation obtaining can be best described as an ideological crossroads. Despite the fact that greater economic intervention is necessary, the fact remains that such intervention is not sufficient (Diamond, 2009). It is not possible to return to the position that had prevailed before the advent of the global crisis. Consequently a new social democracy has to be invented, which would effectively address these conflicts and reintegrate them. New Labour has discarded social democracy, and this is evident from the fact that there is considerable continuity between the regimes of Thatcher and that of the New Labour. The political ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher proved to be extremely harmful for social democracy. Thatcher rose to power on the wings of a promise to promote neo liberalism. Her successors, the New Labour, continued her policies. The New Labour has been privatizing public services, like education and health services; and the National Health Service under the process of modernization. Furthermore, the unprovoked intervention into the internal affairs of sovereign nations, discloses the imperialistic designs and undemocratic leanings of the UK. Thus, it can be concluded that the concept of social democracy is not viable in the present governance of Britain, as the government no longer attaches any significance to social democracy. List of References Constitutional Reform Act 2005. (2005, March 24). London, United Kingdom: © Crown copyright 2002 - 2008. Diamond, P. (2009, June 12). Beyond New Labour: the future of social democracy in Britain. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.policy-network.net/publications/publications.aspx?id=3250 Fotopoulos, T. (2006, November). From Social-Democracy to Social-Fascism. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from inclusivedemocracy: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/vol2_no4_socialfascism.htm Kaldor, M. (2009, November 13). Social Democracy and Human Security. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.social-europe.eu/2009/11/social-democracy-and-human-security/ Lavelle, A. (2008). The death of social democracy: political consequences in the 21st century. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Liddle, R. (n.d.). Beyond New Labour: the future of social democracy in Britain. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from policy network: http://www.policy-network.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publications/Roger%20Liddle%20-%20Beyond%20New%20Labour%20-%20the%20future%20of%20social%20democracy%20in%20Britain.pdf Meyer, T., & Hinchman, L. P. (2007). The theory of social democracy. Polity. Rights, Freedoms and a Written Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=1515 Rihani, S. (2004, February). Vanishing Democracy in the West. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Vanishingdemocracy.htm Rustin, M. (2004). Is there a future for social democracy? Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/oct04.html Soutphommasane, T. (2009, June 1). Westminster democracy on trial. Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) , p. 11. Taaffe, P. (2009, May 23). A Very British Revolution? Retrieved November 26, 2009, from socialistworld: http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/05/2302.html Read More