by Peter Joyce
The economic climate
Public confidence in legislatures may be especially affected by the economic climate. Factors such as recession are likely to have an adverse impact on the way the public view all institutions of government, especially when it appears that they have no instant solutions to contemporary problems. Recession is further likely to reduce the capacity of institutions of government to act as innovators: rather than act as dynamic proponents of reform (which may enhance the standing of such bodies in the public eye) both executives and legislators are disposed towards inaction and to pruning public spending. This is a less adventurous exercise than initiating new programmes and may have an adverse effect on the way in which the public view the machinery of government.
Performance of a diverse range of functions
Legislatures perform a wide range of functions. However, not all of these are compatible. In particular, prominent attention to the role of promoting local considerations (which is termed ‘parochialism’) may detract from the legislature’s ability to exercise superintendence over national affairs and provide the appearance of a fragmented body with no overall sense of purpose. This may also result in the decline of the aura and prestige of that body and thus its authority.
It has been argued that the parochialism of members of the American Congress detracts from that body’s ability or willingness to view matters from an overall national perspective. Although American Congressional elections are fought by candidates who represent the nation’s major parties, the main influence on the outcome of these elections is the personal vote a candidate can attract. This personal vote may be secured on the basis of that person’s campaigning style and how they ‘come across’ to local voters. However, the key basis of a personal vote is the candidate’s previous record when in office. This record can be based on factors which include accessibility to local constituents (especially the provision of help to those with problems), the voicing of support for local interests or causes and particularly the ability to attract government resources into the constituency the candidate represents.
It follows, therefore, that incumbent candidates (that is, those who were elected at the previous contest and are seeking re-election) are in a far better position to win seats in the House of Representatives or Senate than is a candidate who has no record to advance and is seeking to win a seat for the first time. Only factors such as a dilatory record in advancing constituency interests or being involved in some form of scandal are likely to offset the incumbent’s advantage. Although sitting candidates do sometimes lose, a key feature of elections to Congress is that incumbents are in a good position to win and usually do so.
In the 109th Congress (which met in 2004), the average length of service for a member of the House of Representatives was 9.3 years and 12.1 years for a senator. In Congressional elections that were held in 2008, only 19 incumbents in the House of Representatives were defeated in the election (and a further four in the primaries). Thirty-one retired and a total of 381 incumbents were re-elected. Thirty-five seats in the Senate were subject to election: all Democrat incumbents were re-elected although five Republican incumbents were defeated.
It has been argued that this situation results in Congress having a dual character: it is at one and the same time a body composed of politicians with a keen interest (or even a preoccupation) with local affairs and also a forum for making national policy. Concern with the former consideration may detract from the latter function and reduce Congress’s effectiveness in responding to current or future problems.
Sleaze
The authority of legislatures may be adversely affected by perceptions that members of these bodies are motivated by a desire to further their own self interests rather than to serve the public. Allegations of corrupt behavior or ‘sleaze’ have been made in connection with the behaviour of public officials in a number of countries in recent years and below we consider the situation in the UK.
Sleaze describes the abuse of power by elected public officials who improperly exploit their office for personal gain, party advantage (which may especially benefit party leaders to secure or retain their hold on power) or for sexual motives. The term also embraces attempts to cover up such inappropriate behaviour either by those guilty of misconduct or by their political colleagues.
In the United Kingdom problems included the ‘cash for questions’ accusation in 1994 that a small number of Conservative members of parliament had accepted money to table parliamentary questions. This resulted in the appointment of a Committee on Standards in Public Life whose recommendations (contained in the first report of this body in 1995) included establishing an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
However, the reforms that were initiated during the 1990s did not eliminate perceptions of sleaze. Towards the end of the 1990s problems surfaced with respect to the activities of lobbying firms which had been implicated in the 1994 ‘cash for questions’ episode. It was alleged that aides to ministers either joined these firms and were able to use their former contacts to secure access to ministers or were prepared to use their position inside government to offer access to ministers or to confidential information. This resulted in the government bringing forward a new code to regulate lobbying in 1998, whose provisions included prohibiting a minister’s political aides from leaking confidential information to lobbyists. However, this failed to end problems associated with the activities of lobbying firms and in 2010 three former Labour cabinet members were accused of involvement in an ‘influence for cash’ scandal which alleged that they were willing to use their past contacts in government to secure changes in legislation sought by lobbyists.
Additional problems surfaced in 2009 when a national newspaper published details of MPs’ expense accounts. Although in most cases MPs had broken no law relating to their expense claims, public opinion was concerned regarding the wide range of expenses which an MP could legitimately claim for. This issue resulted in the resignation of the Speaker, George Martin, in June 2009 and ensured that the desire to ‘clean up politics’ received a high profile in the 2010 UK general election.
Question
Using examples drawn from any country with which you are familiar, account for the decline in the power and authority of legislatures since the last decades of the twentieth century.
The decline of legislatures?
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE LEGISLATURES IN A STATE OF IRREVERSIBLE DECLINE?
* * *
Insight
Despite the emergence of developments that have underlined both the power and authority of legislatures, they remain important aspects of the machinery of government in countries with liberal democratic political systems.
* * *
In the two previous sections we have referred to difficulties faced by contemporary legislatures. We have argued that they face two related sets of problems – changes affecting the power of these bodies, which have hindered their ability to discharge traditional functions effectively, and changes in public perceptions of the aura and prestige of such bodies, which have had an adverse effect on their authority. These arguments can be amalgamated into the suggestion that there has been a decline in legislatures.
However, although we have charted major developments that have contributed to arguments alleging the decline of such bodies, it is important to appreciate that they continue to perform valuable and vital roles in political affairs. Some of the problems to which we have drawn attention are neither universal nor insuperable. For example, the dominant hold which governments exercise over the law-making process is greater in some countries than in others. In both Germany and Italy, for example, there remains a considerable degree of scope for legislation to be initiated by ordinary (or ‘backbench’) members of the legislature.
We have drawn attention to the impact of the party system on the role of legislatures. However, the strength of party varies from one liberal democracy to another and this has an obvious bearing on the subservience
of legislature to the executive. For example, the nature of the American party relationship between Congress and the president is one factor that explains why Congress has retained an extremely significant role in law making.
Additionally, the dominance governments possess over the conduct of legislatures through the operations of the party system is not always a constant feature in the political affairs of a country. There are occasions on which legislatures may assert themselves to a greater degree. This is when (in a parliamentary system) no one party possesses overall majority support in the legislature or when (in a presidential system) the executive branch of government is controlled by a different party from that which controls the legislature.
* * *
Legislature assertiveness – some examples
Governments chosen from a party that controls the legislature can normally expect their policies to be approved. However, this is not always the case, even in countries with highly disciplined party systems. Legislators cannot be relied upon to slavishly follow their leader’s wishes. The UK’s Labour government suffered 16 ‘backbench rebellions’ between 1997 and 2001, and 19 between 2001 and 2005, in which a number of Labour MPs failed to vote in accordance with their leader’s wishes. The most serious rebellion came in 2003 when 121 Labour MPs defied a three-line whip and voted against the government and in support of a resolution that declared the case for military action against Saddam Hussein was ‘as yet unproven’.
The government suffered five defeats in the House of Commons between 2005 and 2010, including on its policy to restrict the right of former Gurkha soldiers to settle in the UK: 27 Labour MPs voted against their government on this issue in April 2009.
A government’s position is potentially weaker when it does not possess a majority of votes in the legislature. In Ireland during the 1980s the absence of one party with an overall majority gave the Daíl the opportunity to exercise its right to dismiss governments. Two were dismissed and a third was forced to resign and seek a dissolution.
When the presidency and National Assembly in France were controlled by different political parties during periods of what is termed ‘cohabitation’, the president was forced to appoint a prime minister who enjoyed the support of the National Assembly. This situation occurred in 1986–8, 1993–5 and again in 1997–2002 when President Chirac (of the conservative RPR party) was obliged to appoint his defeated opponent in the 1995 presidential election, the socialist Lionel Jospin, to the office of prime minister. In such situations, governments become accountable to the legislature rather than to the president, thus enhancing the power of the former at the expense of the latter.
Thus, the party system is a double-edged sword. Although it sometimes aids executive dominance over the legislature, it may also enable legislatures to assert themselves at the expense of executive power. Their ability to do this may further be enhanced by reforms which we discuss in the following section.
* * *
THE ROLE OF SELECT COMMITTEES
Legislatures may seek to provide themselves with mechanisms designed to elicit information on the affairs of government, thus enhancing that body’s ability effectively to scrutinize the actions of the government. Individual legislators may be provided with financial aid to employ staff, one of whose roles could be to provide expert knowledge of specific policy areas. Members of the UK parliament and members of the Irish Daíl are extremely poorly served in this respect while American legislators fare far better, with large personal staffs and the support of expert research services.
The use of select committees has been a key reform to facilitate legislative scrutiny of the affairs of government in a number of liberal democracies. Their deliberations provide a source of information which is separate from that provided by the executive branch. Further, the non-partisan climate within which select committee discussions are held may reduce the domination exerted by the executive branch of government, thereby enhancing the status of the legislature.
In the UK, the Public Accounts Committee was an early example of a select committee that monitored the work of government. Specifically, it examined the accounts of government departments and sought to ensure that money voted by parliament was spent effectively and for the purposes that parliament had agreed. Its work is aided by the comptroller and auditor-general and the National Audit Office.
In 1979, a new system of select committees was introduced into the House of Commons to monitor the work performed by all key government departments. Such bodies were designed to make all MPs more informed concerning the work of government. To aid them in their deliberations, such committees were empowered to hire staff with expertise in the area of government with which they were concerned and to secure evidence from persons who were not MPs but who possessed knowledge of the subject area under discussion. This reform was not universally welcomed, however. Some politicians feared that the power of these committees would further devalue parliament as an institution and that key legislative functions would be transferred to committees. It was also argued that these bodies would promote consensus politics since committee members would feel pressurized to compromise their views in order to produce a unanimous report.
Major reforms to the system of select committees were introduced into the New Zealand parliament by the incoming Labour government in 1985. These reforms were designed to subject the process of government to enhanced parliamentary and public scrutiny. One significant innovation was the power of such committees to inquire on their own initiative into any area of government administration, policy or spending.
Question
In what ways might contemporary legislatures overcome domination by the executive branch of government?
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
The main role of legislatures is to enact law. In the UK and USA they perform a process through which a ‘bill’ becomes an ‘Act’.
Legislatures carry out a wide range of functions other than law making, including exercising scrutiny over the actions of the executive branch of government.
Legislatures perform much of their work by orally debating issues that are presented to them for their consideration.
Committees are widely used by legislatures to enable an issue to receive detailed consideration.
Legislatures may be unicameral or bicameral, composed of either one or two debating chambers.
Developments that include the enhanced role played by the executive branch of government in law making have exerted an adverse impact on the power of legislatures in both parliamentary and presidential systems of government.
The authority or prestige of legislatures has been undermined by issues that include allegations of sleaze and corrupt behaviour by legislators.
Arguments alleging the decline of legislatures rest on the arguments presented above relating to the decline in both the power and authority of these bodies.
Although legislatures have experienced a decline in their power and authority, they perform important functions in relation to the conduct of liberal democratic politics.
* * *
12
The judiciary and law enforcement
In this chapter you will learn:
how police forces are controlled
the way courts and judges operate
how politics may influence the work of judges.
The politics of law enforcement
* * *
Insight
Crime, law and order are key political issues especially at election time when the record of the government in combating these problems is a major aspect of political debate.
* * *
A system of law enforcement in any country must be seen as impartial if it is to be accepted as legitimate by its citizens. This is most easily guaranteed when the agencies engaged in the system of law enforcement (especially the courts and the police) are free from political pressures and biases and thus able to apply the law in the same manner to all persons within a country.
However, total freedom from political pressures or involvement is impossible in any system of government. The courts and the police do not operate in a vacuum. These bodies are subject to political pressures and the role they perform and the decisions they make may project them forcibly into the arena of politics.
Thus, as students of politics, we need to be aware of the nature of the work performed by the police and the courts. We also need to consider the extent to which their activities are influenced by political considerations and the way in which the work they perform has significance for the manner in which political issues are resolved.
The control and accountability of the police
* * *
Insight
The policing systems found in countries with liberal democratic political systems vary considerably, especially in connection with the exercise of control over their activities.
* * *
We are familiar with the sight of police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods on foot or in cars. Their main role is to ensure that all citizens obey the law. If they fail to do so, the police can invoke a range of sanctions. These may include cautioning or arresting a person who is breaking the law, but we need to ensure that the police carry out their duties fairly and impartially. These objectives highlight the importance of the mechanisms that exist for the exercise of control over police work and through which the police can be made to account for their actions. These are important issues in liberal democratic systems of government.