Introduction
Before the 1997 general elections, the Labour party was viewed by the people as a party of reforms. The citizens of the UK had a lot of hope that once the party took over the government, reforms (especially constitution reforms) were inevitable. The party, fortunately, won the elections by a considerably large margin with more than 175 seats. Since then, various moves and provisions towards constitutional reforms have been made. Most of the reforms, as well as proposed reforms, revolve around the interests of the people including human rights, modernization, protection, democracy and decentralization of the government (Parpworth 2012).
Reforms Significance
The House of Lords has remained, for a considerable period now, a totally non-elected second chamber. The Labour Party had promised to reform this House in its manifesto before it came to power in 1997. After coming into power, the Labour MPs have continuously challenged the legitimacy of the non-elected peers of the House of Lords. Tony Blair’s government made a major step by reducing these non-elected peers from over 600 to only 92. This is a major step as far as the legitimacy and significance of constitutional democracy and modernization is concerned.
However, this reform is not as significant as it would have been if Tony Blair’s government would have adopted a better option. By the virtue that the house is unelected, the government had more effective options in implementing their reforms such as removal of the House of Lords, making it an all-elected chamber or an all-appointed chamber or making it a partly appointed-partly elected chamber. Constitutional democracy would only be exercised if the government reformed the house to be of fully elected peers or partially elected ones. Until this happens, the House of Lords will continue to be view as a constitutionally illegitimate house.
The reforms ensured that some of the members of the House will be appointed. It must be noted that appointing provides a lower level of constitutional democracy and modernization that election (Great Britain 2007). The reason behind this fact is that appointment is done by individuals elected by the people and not the people themselves. Individuals who did not elect the person endowed with the responsibility of appointing are, therefore, not represented in the exercise. The accountability of members of the house remains questionable.
The electoral reform intended to change and improve manners through which the desires of the public are expressed in election results. For a considerably long period before the Labour Party won the elections in 1997, the UK was known to use the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method. The Labour government, however, introduced new assemblies in Wales, London and Scotland. Further, members systems of proportional representation in all the previously mentioned assemblies were prioritized (Renwick 2010). Other changes such as the adoption of the supplementary vote system for directly-elected mayors were also well evident. This reform was considerably important as it ensures that the ‘voices’ of more people are put into consideration when political decisions are made.
The proportional representation system is seen as more representative, and it gives more choices to the voters than the previous systems. In addition, this system ensures that more proportional results are returned and also more parties get significant chunks of the vote.
Even so, much more is yet to be done if at all the reform is to prove important to the people of UK. The reforms are yet to be fully implemented, and the parliament is yet to adopt fully and implement the reform in its election operations. It is well evident that any governing party that fails to achieve the majority in the House of Commons resist from changing the system from FPTP to the proportional representation system. This insinuates that the reformed electoral system is not highly regarded in the internal operations of the houses and the parties.
Further, the system is yet to ensure that the tenets of popular sovereignty are highly regarded by ensuring that the referenda are legally binding (Lopez & Escajedo 2013). Any effective electoral system must ensure popular sovereignty as it is the voice of the majority that is regarded. The policy also provides for donations to political parties of up to £5000. This is unfortunate as it comes along with a considerable number of limitations including the increased possibility of scandals.
As pointed out in the introduction, devolution is an additional reform among the major reforms that have occurred since 1997. A regional government has been established in Scotland, Wales and North Ireland as well. Beyond the mere establishment of regional governments, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has granted powers to these subnational parliaments and their associated executive bodies. This reform was significant in the sense that the government moved closer to the people. With a government closer to them, the people can easily acquire some of the services in a more efficient and effective way (Mitchell 2011). Further, devolution ensured that the local populations are well represented as opposed to their representation in a central government in London.
The chances are high that the Westminster rarely understood the specific problems of the Scottish and Welsh populations. The reform also facilitated the reduction of resistance to change and unnecessary arguments in the Westminster. Before devolution, members of the Westminster found themselves in more unnecessary arguments than not, all emanating from the difference in problems experienced by the people they represent.
This reform is, however, hampered by the fact that different assemblies are given different powers depending on the decision made by the Westminster. England continues to seemingly dominate over the other regions as it seems to have more powers over the rest. The devolution reform would have been more effective in ensuring that decision-making powers and control have been decentralized if they were shared equally.
Since all the assemblies are of a similar subnational class, none should have more decision-making powers over the other. This element has hampered the success and the significance of the reform to a large extent. Further, by the virtue that the parliament of Westminster is still sovereign, various acts such as the Scotland Act of 1998 and the Wales Acts of 1998 can still be repealed (Great Britain 2009). Further, chances are still high that the governing parties can still override the bills passed by the parliament. In a nutshell, the devolution reform is yet to prove its significance to the people of the United Kingdom of the Great Britain.
In addition to the reforms is the Human Rights Acts 1998 whose aim was to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the UK law. With the reform in place, individuals are free to take their cases to domestic courts rather than wait for the slow and overstretched European Court of Human Rights. The reform was significant in ensuring that the congestion in the courts of human rights has been eased.
The reform has also increased both actual and perceived domestic protection violence protection with more women enjoying this advantage as they were the culprits (Evans 2003). Being a gay is safer in the UK than any other place in the world as a result of this reform. The reform ensures that individuals are treated equally irrespective of their race, gender, skin color or any other protected characteristics. Human-to-human respect has as well been increased forming an important segment of the reform.
However, the reform is weak because it can be overlooked by parliament through the mere declaration of incompatibility. As much as the reform is currently significant, its significance can easily be wiped away by parliament. The government has powers over the act where it can direct parliament to pass legislation that infringes the rights provided by the human rights act. This is not a hypothetical situation as it happened in 2001 when the government considered national security and advised parliament to pass the Terrorism Act of 2001 that infringes some of the provisions of the Human Rights Act, 1998.
The reform of the House of Commons Committee also forms one of the major and most significant reforms in the UK since 1997. The reform is also known as the Wrights reform, named after its chairs Tony Wright, and it intended to improve the procedures and relevance of the UK parliament. After concluding its operations by the end of the year 2009, the committee made various revolutionary recommendations.
Some of these recommendations include a reduction in the number of parliamentary committees, election of committee chairs by secret ballot, election of departmental members from parties through secret ballot and scheduling of backbench business by the house rather than the ministers amongst others (Great Britain 2013). These reforms have played a major role in strengthening the House of Commons and enhancing democracy. The recommendation to elect rather than appoint makes the whole process more democratic rather than dictatorial. Further, the fact that the departmental members are to be elected from within the parties gives more strength to the parties and more power in the house.
Unfortunately, the significance of these reforms is yet to be experienced as most of them are yet to be implemented. They continue to pose as mere recommendations rather than reforms except for a few of them such as benchmarking. The Labour Party’s manifesto had provided for these reforms in its manifesto. Unfortunately, it did not leave to oversee their implementation. Upon implementation, though, the House of Commons would attain international standards of modernization and democracy (Jogerst 2014).
The reforms are not, however, perceived to affect a large number of the UK citizens and, therefore, their implementation would have little or no impact on the majority of the people. As such, the significance would be minimal and would only benefit the House of Commons to a large extent. The people are rarely interested in issues that do not directly affect them such as the strength and power of the House of the Commons and the extent of democracy exercised.
Conclusion
Reference List
Evans, M. (2003). Constitution-making and the Labour Party. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=736550.
Great Britain. (2007). The House of Lords: reform. London, Stationery Office.
Great Britain. (2009). Devolution: a decade on. London, TSO.
Great Britain. (2012). Draft House of Lords Reform Bill: report: session 2010-12. Vol. 3, Vol. 3. London, Stationery Office.
Great Britain. (2013). Reforming the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons: twenty-fourth report of session 2013-14. Vol 1, Vol 1. London, TSO.
Jogerst, M. (2014). Reform in the House of Commons the select committee system. [Place of publication not identified], Univ Pr of Kentucky.
López, A., & Escajedo, L. (2013). The ways of federalism in Western Countries and the horizons of territorial autonomy in Spain. Volume 2 Volume 2. Berlin, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1082431.
Mitchell, J. (2011). Devolution in the UK. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Parpworth, N. (2012). Constitutional and administrative law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Renwick, A. (2010). The politics of electoral reform: changing the rules of democracy. Cambridge [U.K.], Cambridge University Press.
