Can Britain Be Justifiably Referred To As A Democracy (Essay Sample)

Can Britain be justifiably referred to as a democracy while so few MPs are either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds?
Institutional affiliation
Students’ name
Course code
Date
City
Britain as an Undemocratic Society
Most studies generally agree that political representatives incline to be drawn from the elite stratum of civilization. Specifically, even in situations where representation is based on a fair and democratic processes, it is often observed that the parliamentary assemblies remain unrepresentative, and specifically, that they do not entirely represent the females, ethnic minorities, the less fortunate, and the undereducated in the society. Interestingly, this is mostly observed at the national level representation. Bird, Saalfeld, and Wüst, (2010) note that for a parliament or a legislative assembly to be regarded as being unrepresentative of an individual group, it implies that it does not mirror the populace from which it is drawn. In the recent years, the political representation of women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups has continued to receive mounting attention in most spheres of the British society. Indeed, the 2010 elections saw these minority groups win an all-time high amount of chairs in the House of Commons, leading to 23% female members of parliament (MPs) and 4.1% from the BAME group. Interestingly, these figures rose further in 2015 when women and the BAME accounted for 29.4% and 6.3% of the parliamentarians respectively (Nugent, and Krook, 2016). Nevertheless, it is still believed that these figures remain far from proportionate to these group’s share of the country’s population standing at 51% and 13% respectively. Reports indicate that despite the increase in the number of minority representatives, ethnic minority women continue to be even more under-represented at 1.5% and 3.1 of all parliamentarians in 2010 and 2015 respectively (p. 112). This paints a grim picture of the extent to which representativeness in the UK and whether the country epitomizes a democratic state. This paper presents a brief analysis of what democracy entails and the extent to which Britain fits the description of a democracy. The report portrays Britain as an advanced society that is nonetheless bound by the traditional chains of chauvinism which largely undermines the democratic space of women and minorities.
Latest elections in the UK ensued larger levels of diversity in the British House of Commons. As earlier pointed out, from 2010 and 2015, the portion of female representatives grew from 22.8% to 29.4% while that of the BAME grew from 4.2% to 6.3% (Nugent, and Krook, 2016). However, Fieldhouse, and Sobolewska, (2015) indicate that the representation of BAME and women is still disproportionate despite the numbers climbing over time. For instance, before 2010, the British House of Commons had merely two blacks and no Asian members of parliament. Thus, even though the totals rose to 10 in 2010 before doubling to 21 in 2015, these figures nonetheless reflect less than 50% of the women and BAME share of the UK’s populace (p. 89). A closure observation of these numbers account for both gendered and racial dynamics of political segregation. More profoundly, the information reveals that these diminuendos work simultaneously such that opportunities for clinching an elective seat are subject to concurrent as well as shared developments of sex and ethnicity. Proponents of these observation term this concept as intersectionality such that racism and sexism play an integral role in election outcomes.
One major impediment to democracy is the electoral rules and systems in a country. Clark, et al., (2013) note that the electoral norms and systems in a territory largely moderate the effect of the magnitude and dispersal of ethnic population and women on representation. More precisely, the proportionate list-based regimes give minorities more chances of clinching elective seats compared to the modest plurality system in which every contender is required to win over the bulk of the local populace. Under a proportional system, parties have greater incentives to table a list of contenders that resemble a given population (Shrivastava, 2005). However, in the majoritarian structure, as it is in Britain, contesters are nominated for single member district with the selection method largely determined by the local constituency party that has the inducement to select a candidate that mostly resembles the local populace (Fieldhouse, and Sobolewska, 2015). Yet, the fact that the majority of the UK’s population is primarily white, with the men having more say in politics, the system always ensure that not a balanced ticket is produced at the national level. With regards to the electoral process, it emerges that some countries such as the US use race as a benchmark for drawing up district frontiers and thus used explicitly in advancing the prospects of minority candidates (Fieldhouse, and Cutts, 2010). Nevertheless, for cases such as the UK, the process of redistricting never takes into account the minorities.
UK’s election system is also faulted for being discriminatory. Specifically, unlike other nations that use group-based quotas to reserve seats or mandate a given percentage of group members on aspirant lists, the British electoral system – which as earlier pointed out is structured on single-member districts- drives political parties to primarily emphasize on the distribution of the shortlists of hopefuls deliberated prior to the selection of a single candidate. Fieldhouse, and Cutts, (2010) note that a fair and democratic strategy would require all shortlists to include members of certain groups, and thereby ensuring that candidates from the given group are selected. Alternatively, the shortlists could comprise some participants of a particular group, with no further constraints, such that individuals of any affiliation have equal chances of being a party’s nominee (Reiser, 2014). Such probably explains why during the late nighties, the Labour Party was litigated by minority members on the basis of the violation of the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) 1975 and Race Relations Act 1965 (Goodwin, 2011). Interestingly, even though this case saw the SDA amended and consequently allowing parties to adopt all-women shortlists (AWS), the amendment nevertheless introduced more uncertainties vis-à-vis the legitimacy of all-black shortlists (ABS) as a move meant to augment the representation by BAME.
The role of political parties is to mobilize the electorate to be part of the electorate process. This is essential in a democratic society where the election of political leaders largely depends on the members of the electorate. Ruedin, (2009) posit that the election of a representative assembly largely depends on the extent to which the public takes part in the election. Where a given segment of the population fails to participate in an election, then the election results might be regarded as not being fare. Similarly, Heath, et al., (2011) note the involvement rates of ethnic factions is a vital determinant in assessing the degree to which political parties charm minority groups to elect minority contenders. Thus, as earlier pointed out, political parties have an integral role in mobilizing and incorporating minority groups and women into the political sphere. However, as gatekeepers of representation, political parties in the UK have consistently emerged as less permeable than their counterparts in the US (Fieldhouse, and Sobolewska, 2015). According to Clark, et al., (2013), studies in the US show that racial diversity is linked with weak mobilizing forces, though the parties mostly target black voters in densely populated areas. The same pattern is also observed in the UK where parties tend to reach out to minority groups in regions of high concentration at the expense of lowly populated areas. Nevertheless, Nugent, and Krook, (2016) conclude that parties in the UK are yet to carry out as much voter mobilization drives in areas mostly populated by minorities as they do in regions with high concentrations of white voters.
Another point to consider in assessing the level of representation in a democracy is the supply and demand of aspirants. Among other dynamics, the supply of entrants is determined by the magnitude of the populace, its societal attributes, the level of commitment in electoral processes and the degree to which the philosophy of political parties is friendly (Heath, et al., 2011). According to Stafford, Bécares, and Nazroo, (2010), a series of barriers affect the supply of women and minority candidates ranging from private costs to casual and unprinted rules, the process of patronage, hostilities in the nomination processes and the overall absence of interaction between parties and the minorities in question.
Also important in determining the pattern of representation are socio-economic inequalities. Reiser, (2014) bring to attention that British minorities especially the Blacks, women and the physically challenged have historically been deprived in the labor market such that they are averagely more poor that the white majority populace. From literature, it is noted that models of resource mobilization note that facets with low levels of academic achievement and lower class positions tend to have lesser levels of political participation (Heath, et al., 2011). Indeed, existing studies observe that some minority groups are less likely to register as voters compared to the white majority which in turn indicates that the probability of most major parties seeking minority candidates is low (Ruedin, 2009). Furthermore, there is a high chance that the social class structure is...