Cathy Schlader
A Constitutional Revolution in Britain?
By: Donley t. Studlar
The article “A Constitutional Revolution in Britain”, written by Donley T. Studlar,
explains how the Labor party proposed constitutional reform led by Prime Minster Tony
Blair.
In 1997 the Labor party had gained power in Parliament. One of the Labor’s main
agenda items was constructional reform. They wanted the British public to become more
involved with the operation of the government instead of taking a backseat to it. The
Labor party also wanted to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives because the
two parties have similar social and economic polices. In this reform, the Labor party had
six main items it wanted to address 1) give more power to Scotland and Wales, 2) have
an elected major for London and other cites, 3) to remove the voting power of hereditary
peers in the House of Lords, 4) incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights
into British law, 5) a Freedom of Information Act, and 6) electoral reform including the
system for Members of Parliament. However, the British constitution is hard to change
because it is “unwritten”. This means there are a series of laws and practices that give
authority to the state, as well as define relationships between the state and the citizen. To
change any law Parliament only requires a simple majority in the House of Commons
even if the House of Lords disapprove.
The article explains how, and with what referendums the Labor party wants to
reform the British constitution. It goes into detail about what changes they have made
and how they want to continue to make changes. Some of the reforms may be hard to
attain because of the long standing tradition of an “unwritten” constitution, however, that
will not deter the Labor party from trying to pass referendums. In the end, the article
points out opposing views from newspapers and politicians alike, but concludes that the
Labor party has largely fulfilled its promises it made back in 1997.
Whitney Kippes
PLS 350
Langill
Capitalism and Democracy*
By Gabriel A. Almond
Almond discusses four viewpoints on the complex relationship between
capitalism and democracy. Through several case studies, and expert analyst
opinion Almond approaches the issue very pragmatically. Rather than
presenting a clear view as his own, Almond presents each view clearly and with
no sense of malice toward any of them. The four views involve the support of
capitalism by democracy and vice versa, and the hindrance of capitalism by
democracy and vice versa.
The first argument presented is that capitalism supports democracy. The
argument basically goes that modern democracy rose alongside the expansion of
capitalism. The fact that modern democracy exists primarily in economically
privately owned institutions is clear. Almond uses several case studies and
examples from history including references to the United States and Great Britain.
However the opposite opinion, that capitalism subverts democracy, is equally
well represented. The theory is that a point will be reached where too much
ownership is placed in a select few, and democracies will no longer function as it
was intended. Of course, Marx argued that capitalism in its very nature
subverted democracy by creating a somewhat bourgeois democracy rather than
a system of equality. The proposed solution to the problem would be further
employee control of industry, a rather socialist principle. Almond never clearly
states which view he favors, but rather presents both options and leaves the
reader to make his own choice.
The third argument is that democracy subverts capitalism. Almond
presents the idea that a democracy that accepts the welfare state will be the real
threat to the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Almond references
several professionals who believe that the encroachment on the private sector
has been slowly changing our free democracy into a completely chaotic mess.
The formation of dense networks which comes about through capitalism seems
to subvert the very idea of democracy. On the contrary, Almond also analyzes
the idea that democracy fosters capitalism. Rather than using a vast amount of
opinions, Almond approaches this idea with many examples of case studies
proving this to be true. However, Almond seems to doubt whether or not
capitalism would have survived in a purely democratic state without any sort of
welfare state.
Almond concludes that democracy and capitalism both support and
subvert each other through their very nature. Democratic capitalism through the
welfare state seems to encourage its survival and often even enhancement
through these institutions. Through his presentation, Almond paints a clear
picture of all the issues faced by the combination of capitalism and democracy.
Almond doesn’t seem to offer any sort of solution, but rather a case by case
study of the issues involved.
"Does New Labour Deserve a Third Term?"
Malcolm Leeman
_________________________
The article consists of letters between Anthony Giddens (an
ardent labour supporter) and David Marquand (once supporter
turned critic). Essentially, the two spar it out on the
rights and wrongs of Labour’s past two terms in power,
their policies, reforms and changes. Of course, by now it
is known Labour won a historic consecutive third term in
power, but with a significantly reduced majority down to 66
seats from 167 in 2001.
Giddens (supporter) believes that New Labour has
successfully transformed Britain from the Thatcherite
society (more nationalist/ eroding public sector) into a
more social democratic one. He argues it is on social
justice issues that Labour has really delivered. Basically,
his argument for Labour revolves around it’s strengthening
of public institutions and the public domain by channeling
funds raised from increased tax and the booming economy,
into the NHS and education.
Marquand on the other hand believes that when Labour won a
landslide victory in 1997, although initially welcoming it,
he soon become disillusioned feeling all the rhetoric about
sweeping modernization and this idea of Britain as a “young
country” pointed to a clear lack of “ideological
conviction”. He sees Labour as having eroded the “public
domain” – the domain of citizenship, equity, service and
professionalism, arguing Labour has shown total disdain for
many public institutions and values, such as the rule of
law and judicial independence.For instance, the Iraq war
which he claims was illegal and in clear defiance of
international law. For example, now in February of 2006,
Blair was recently defeated when trying to introduce the
highly controversial religious hatred bill which was seen
by many as a clear attack on free speech. If enacted it
would have outlawed open attacks of religion, such
restrictions on free speech are suited more too fascist
dictatorship. It is issues and values such as these, basic
rights and freedoms which have been treated with utter
contempt by New Labour.
Marquand argues that Britain’s recent economic upturn was
inherited by the Labour party, following the successful
tenureship of Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke. However he
does accept that Gordon Brown can be credited for advancing
and stablising the now strong British economy. In actual
fact however, in the run up to the 2005 election the
Conservatives did not draw much attention to this, as it
would have paid credence to Labour’s economic successes.
The Iraq war is another main point of argument. Marquand
points to Blair’s behavior, how it undermined the authority
of the U.N, split his own party and Britain’s relationship
with the EU, and in the end, sacrificed his own credibility.
He views it as a defining moment of Blair’s premiership,
much like Suez for Eden, this too was in his eyes a
complete disaster. Gidden’s response is to justify the war,
by drawing attention to Saddam’s continual defiance of UN
sanctions, and pointed to his inability to draw clear
evidence there were no WMD in the buildup to war to defuse
war. He points to the threat of terrorism, linking that to
the dangers of complacency and backing out of war with
Saddam.