Look at the extract from a fictional diary below. It is taken from the book of Yes, Prime Minister, a popular radio and television comedy from the 1980s. Like all political satire, this programme could only have been popular because people believe that it is, at least partly, a true reflection of reality. It can therefore serve to illustrate the British attitude to politicians and politics.(The killer instinct)

The public attitude to politics
Politicians do not have a good reputation with the British people. To describe someone as ‘a politician’ is to criticize him or her, suggesting a lack of trustworthiness. It is not that people hate their politicians. They just regard them with suspicion. They do not expect them to use their position to amass personal wealth一and any stories of them ‘fiddling’ their expenses always makes the headlines.¹ But they do expect them to be frequently dishonest. People are not really shocked when the government is caught lying. On the other hand, they would be very shocked indeed if it was discovered that the government was doing anything definitely illegal.²

At an earlier point in the ‘diary’, Jim Hacker is wondering why the Prime Minister has resigned. He does not believe the rumour that there are one million pounds’ worth of diamonds in the Prime Minister’s house. This is partly because he does not think the Prime Minister could be so corrupt but also because ‘it’s never been officially denied…The first rule of politics is Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied’. This is the basis of the joke in the extract. Duncan and Eric are only sure that Jim wants to be Prime Minister when he implies that he doesn’t!

The lack of enthusiasm for politicians is reflected in the general ignorance of who they are. Ness than half of the adults in Britain know the name of their local Member of Parliament (MP), even though there is just one of these for each area. Many do not even know the names of the important government ministers or leaders of the major political parties. Another indication is the comparative lack of generosity with regard to politician’s expenses (Freeloaders!).

The British were not always so unenthusiastic. In centuries past, it was a maxim that nobody should mention politics or religion in polite conversation. If anybody did, there was a danger that the conversation would become too heated and that people would become violent. However, there has been no real possibility of a revolution or even of a radical change in the style of government for almost two centuries now. This stability is taken for granted. Most people rarely become passionate about politics and nobody regards it as a ‘dangerous’ topic of conversation. They are more likely to regard it as a boring topic of conversation. Over the years, this lack of enthusiasm has increased. But it has not turned to complete disenchantment. A general feeling of confidence in the stability and workability of the system remains.³

Yes, Prince Minister is just one of many programmes and publications devoted to political satire. All of them are consistently and bitingly critical. Moreover, their criticism is typically not about particular policies but about the attitudes of politicians, their alleged dishonesty and disloyalty, and the general style of political life.⁴ Given this, you might think that people would be angry, that there would be demands for a ‘clean-up’, even public demonstrations. Not at all! The last demonstrations about such matters took place 160 years ago.

You might also think that the politicians themselves would be worried about the negative picture that these satires paint of them. Apparently not! On the back cover of the 1989 edition of Yes, Prime Minister, for instance, there was a tribute from Margaret Thatcher, the real Prime Minister of Britain at the time. In it, she refers to the book’s ‘closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power’ (suggesting it is accurate) and how this portrayal ‘has given me hours of pure joy’.

In Britain, it is generally accepted that politics is a dirty business, a necessary evil. Therefore, politicians make sure that they do not appear too keen to do the job. They present themselves as being politicians out of a sense of public duty.⁵ That is why, in the extract, Jim Hacker does not suggest that he actually wants to be Prime Minister. To admit this openly would make him seem dangerously keen on power for its own sake.

Top

The style of democracy
Although they may not have much respect for the present of the law (see chapter 11), the British have a deep respect institutions for the principle of law. Of course, lots of crimes are committed, as in any other country, but there is little systematic lawbreaking by large sections of the population. For example, tax evasion is not the national pastime that it is said to be in some countries.

However, while ‘the law’ as a concept is respected, the British are comparatively unenthusiastic about making new laws. The traditional feeling is that, while you have to have laws sometimes, wherever possible it is best to do without them. In many aspects of life, the country has comparatively few rules and regulations. This lack of regulation works both ways. Just as there are comparatively few rules telling the individual what he or she must or must not do, so there are comparatively few rules telling the government what it can or cannot do. Two unique aspects of British life will make this clear.

First, Britain is one of the very few European countries whose citizens do not have identity cards. Before the 1970s, when tourism to foreign countries became popular (and so passports became more common), most people in the country went through life without ever owning a document whose main purpose was to identify them. British people are not obliged to carry identification with them. You do not even have to have your driving licence with you in your car. (If the police ask to see it, you have 24 hours to take it to them.)

Second, it was not until this century that a law was passed which entitles people to demand information held by public bodies. Moreover, this Freedom of Information Act is not quite as free as its name suggests. People usually have to pay to get the information they want. In addition, many requests for information are refused on the grounds that disclosure is ‘not in the public interest’ and the Act does not apply to the increasing number of private companies engaged in public work. Finally, and ironically, the ‘30-year rule’, which restricts access to government papers for 30 years, is still in place. Indeed, the traditional habit of ‘discretion’ in public life is still there. There is also a law (the Official Secrets Act) which obliges many government employees not to tell anyone about the details of their work. It seems that in Britain, both your own identity and also the information which the government has about your identity are regarded as private matters. (Official Secrets)

These two aspects are characteristic of the relationship in Britain between the individual and the state. To a large degree, the traditional assumption is that both should leave each other alone as much as possible. The duties of the individual towards the state are confined to not breaking the law and paying taxes. There is no national service (military or otherwise), people are not obliged to vote at elections if they can’t be bothered, and people do not have to register a change of address with a government authority.

Similarly, the government in Britain has a comparatively free hand. It should be correct to call the country ‘a democracy’ in the generally accepted sense of this word. But in Britain, this democracy does not involve much participation in governing and lawmaking. There is no concept of these things being done ‘by the people’. If the government wants to make an important change in the way that the country is run一to change, for example, the electoral system or the powers of the Prime Minister一it does not have to ask the people. It does not even have to have a special vote in Parliament in which an especially high proportion of MPs must agree.

In many countries, an important change of this nature一a constitutional change一cannot be made without a referendum, in which everybody in the country has the chance to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’.⁶ In other countries, such as the USA, people often have the chance to vote on particular proposals for changing laws that directly affect their everyday life, such as smoking in public places or the location of a new hospital. Nothing like this happens in Britain. There has only been one countrywide referendum in history (in 1975, on whether the country should stay in the European Community). In Britain, democracy has never meant that the people have a hand in the running of the country; rather it means that they choose who is to govern the country, and then let them get on with it.

Top

The constitution
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That is, it is a country governed by a king or queen who accepts the advice of a parliament. It is also a parliamentary democracy. That is, it is a country whose government is controlled by a parliament elected by the people. In other words, the basic system is not so different from anywhere else in Europe. The highest positions in the government are filled by members of the directly elected parliament. In Britain, as in many European countries, the official head of state, whether a monarch (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark) or a president (e.g. Germany, Greece, Italy) has little real power.

However, there are features of the British system of government which make it different from other countries and which are not ‘modern’ at all. Most notably, Britain is almost alone among modern states in that it does not have ‘a constitution’. Of course, there are rules, regulations, principles and procedures for the running of the country一all the things that political scientists and legal experts study and which are known collectively as ‘the constitution’. But there is no single written document which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land. Nobody can refer to ‘article 6’ or ‘the first amendment’ or anything like that, because nothing like that exists.

Instead, the principles and procedures by which the country is governed and from which people’s rights are derived come from a number of different sources. They have been built up, bit by bit, over the centuries. Some of them are written down in laws agreed by Parliament, some have been spoken and then written down (judgements made in a court) and some have never been written down at all. For example, there is no written law in Britain that says anything about who can be the Prime Minister or what the powers of the Prime Minister are一even though that person is probably the most powerful person in the country. Instead, these things have been established, and are constantly being modified, by custom and practice. Similarly, there is no single written document which asserts people’s rights. Some rights which are commonly accepted in modern democracies (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race) have been formally agreed by Parliament in certain laws; but others (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion or political views) have not. Nevertheless, it is understood that these latter rights are also part of the constitution. (Skeletons in the cupboard)

Top

The style of politics
Despite modern innovations such as the televising of Parliament, political life in Britain is still influenced by the traditional respect for privacy and love of secrecy. It is also comparatively informal. In both Parliament and government, there is a tendency for important decisions to be taken not at official public meetings, or even at prearranged private meetings, but at lunch, or over drinks, or in chance encounters in the corridors of power. It used to be said that the House of Commons was ‘the most exclusive club in London’. And indeed, there are many features of Parliament which cause its members (MPs) to feel a special sense of belonging, even when they have radically opposed political philosophies. First, constitutional theory says that Parliament has absolute control over its own affairs and is, in fact, the highest power in the land. Second, there are the ancient traditions of procedure. Many of these serve to remind MPs of a time when the main division in politics was not between this party and that party but rather between Parliament itself and the monarch. Even the architecture of the Palace of Westminster (the home of Parliament) contributes to this feeling. It is so confusing and apparently unplanned that only ‘insiders’ can find their way around in it. (The millions who break the law every weekend)

These features, together with long years of political stability, have led to a habit of genuine cooperation among politicians of different parties. When you hear politicians arguing in the House of Commons or in a television studio, you might think they hate each other. This is rarely the case. Often they are good friends. And even when it is the case, both normally see the practical advantage of cooperation. The advantage is that very little time is wasted fighting about how political business is to be conducted fairly. For example, the order of business in Parliament is arranged by representatives of the parties beforehand. Another example is television advertising. By agreement, political parties are not allowed to buy time on television. Instead, each party is given a strict amount of time. A very notable example is the system of ‘pairing’ of MPs (The pairing system).

Top

The party system

Britain is normally described as having a ‘two-party system’. This is because members of just two parties normally occupy more than 85% of all of the seats in the House of Commons and one of them, by itself, controls the government. One reason for the existence of this situation is the electoral system (see chapter 10). The other is the origin of British political parties. Unlike in most other countries, they were first formed inside Parliament and only later extended to the public. During the eighteenth century, MPs tended to divide into two camps, those who usually supported the government of the time and those who usually did not. During the nineteenth century, it became the habit that the party which did not control the government presented itself as an alternative government. This idea of an alternative government has received legal recognition. The leader of the second biggest party in Parliament receives the title ‘Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition’, and even gets an extra salary for this role. He or she chooses a ‘shadow cabinet’, thereby presenting the image of a team ready to fill the shoes of the government at a moment’s notice. (A guide to British political parties)

As a result of these origins, neither party existed solely to look after the interests of one particular group in society. Furthermore, although they differed broadly in their general outlooks, the two parties did not exist to promote single, coherent political philosophies.⁷ The main reason for their existence was to gain power by forming an effective coalition of groups and opinions. It is true that the Labour party一one of the present two big parties一was formed outside Parliament, and, as its name implies, did exist to promote the interests of a particular group (the working class).

However, as soon as it replaced the Liberal party as one of the big two (in the first decades of the twentieth century), it fitted into the established framework. It is very difficult for smaller parties to challenge the dominance of the bigger ones. If any of them seem to have some good ideas, these are adopted by one of the big parties, who try to appeal to as large a section of the population as possible.

The fact that the party system originated inside Parliament has other consequences. Parties do not, as they do in many other countries, extend into every area of public life in the country. Universities, for example, each have their political parry clubs, but when there is an election for officers of the student union, it is not normally fought along national party divisions. The same is true of elections within trade unions.

Another consequence is that it is usually a party’s MPs who have most control over party policy. This does not mean the parties are undemocratic. Their members who are not MPs can have an effect on policy in a number of ways. First, they elect the party leader. Second, they can make their views known at the annual party conference. Third, the local party has the power to decide who is going to be the party’s candidate for MP in its area at the next election. However, these powers are limited by one important consideration — the appearance of unity. Party policies are always presented as potential government policies, and a party’s leading MPs as potential ministers. If you want to look like a realistic potential government, you don’t want to show the public your disagreements. Party conferences are always televised. As a result they tend to be showcases whose main purpose is not genuine debate but rather to boost the spirits of party members and show the public a dynamic, unified party. Similarly, if a local party decides not to re-select the present MP as their candidate in an election, or rejects the recommendation of the national party, it betrays disagreement and argument.

Top

The modern situation
During the last half century, the traditional confidence in the British political system has weakened. At first sight, this phenomenon seems paradoxical. After all, the general direction of public policy has been the same since 1979, suggesting stability and a high level of public confidence. Two developments may help to explain it.

The first concerns the perceived style of politics. Top politicians have always had various personal advisers to help them with matters of policy and presentation (for instance by writing their speeches). But in recent years it is their public relations advisers, whose job is to make them look good in the media, who have become their closest (and therefore most powerful) advisers. To characterize this role and the importance attached to it, the word ‘spin doctor’ has entered the British vocabulary. This emphasis on presentation above all else, on style over substance, was most noticeable in Tony Blair’s Labour government (1997-2007). But it appears to have been adopted by all the main parties to some degree (World’s first face transplant).

The second is a more serious matter. It concerns the style of democracy and it has constitutional significance. There are signs that the traditional right of the individual to freedom from interference by the state is being eroded. The proliferation of CCTV cameras (see chapter 5) is one example. Another is the national DNA database. In 2007, about 5% of the population had their DNA stored on police databases. This proportion is growing rapidly because, at the time of writing, the police have the right to take一and keep一a DNA sample from anybody they arrest, even if that person is not subsequently charged with an offence. A further example is the increased powers the authorities have to search people and their homes and to detain them without charging them. Under the present anti-terrorist laws, a suspect can be kept in police custody for 42 days without charge (the government originally suggested 90 days) and more than a hundred thousand people have been searched.

These changes have not taken place without protest. But it seems that fear of crime, illegal immigration and terrorism have been enough to allow them through. There is one other change which British governments have been promoting since the early 1990s一identity cards.⁸ But at the time of writing, they have still not been introduced. There remains a general feeling that there would be something very un-British about them and some people are very strongly opposed to them. For the British, it seems, it is the absence of ID cards which symbolizes their traditional dedication to the rights of the individual more than anything else.⁹

In the early years of this century several incidents occurred in which the right to free speech and public protest also seemed to be under threat. In such cases, the authorities again appealed to the threat of terrorism as a justification for their actions. Such incidents draw attention to Britain’s lack of a written constitution which means that principles such as free speech have little legal definition. It also means there is no reliable way of deciding when, if at all, this right does not apply. Free speech is understood to be a basic principle. However, it can sometimes appear to clash with another principle, such as the right not to be discriminated against. For example, several people have found that, in exercising their right to freely air their opinion, they may be breaking laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, leading one public figure in 2006 to complain that people were now afraid to say what they think even in the local pub. (Taking extreme care not to say anything offensive is known as ‘political correctness’, or ‘PC’ for short, and the over-zealous application by authorities of anti-discrimination laws is referred to by critics as ‘political correctness gone mad’.) (Free speech?) Britain, almost uniquely in the world, is a country which has been politically stable for centuries. In addition, basic civil rights were also established (in principle if not always in practice) generations ago. As a result, its people tend to take these rights for granted and so perhaps have become lazy about defending them.

In modern Britain, it is not only the authorities with which the principle of free speech can sometimes conflict. It can also conflict with the values of a certain section of society. The best example of the latter remains the Salman Rushdie case (The Rushdie affair). As long as everybody in a country shares the same attitudes about what is most important in political life and about people’s rights and obligations, there is no real need to worry about inconsistencies or ambiguities in the law. Laws can just be interpreted in changing ways to match the change in prevailing opinion.¹⁰ This is what used to happen in Britain. But, in Britain today, different sections of society can sometimes have radically different priorities. The Rushdie case was the first notable example of what can happen as a result. In these circumstances, the traditional laissez-faire attitude to the law can become dangerous, and it may be necessary to frame something like a written constitution as a way of establishing certain basic principles.

Top