News   /   Viewpoints

Unelected figure holds key to British general elections

A general view of the parliament building in the UK (file photo)

By Jane Calvary, investigative journalist

 

The upcoming British general elections are supposed to be about political parties, tackling Britain’s monstrous problems. With the prospect of a 2nd consecutive ultra-hung parliament looming, the talks are more about post-election configurations and the inevitable constitutional crises that may follow.

But why is not there much talk about the role of the unelected monarch in forming the election outcome and the way she can influence it against the norms of democracy? Is there a deliberate attempt to sweep many undemocratic aspects of the general elections under the carpet?

It is argued that the Queen has none of the absolute powers of her forebears. That is not true, and technically, she is the most legally powerful person in the United Kingdom. The Queen has massive powers, including extraordinary powers, when it comes to the general elections. She plays a central role in the system and retains two of the most important powers in the political life of Britain: the power to dissolve parliament and the power to appoint the prime minister.

The Queen’s power to dissolve the parliament is the most important surviving power. The Queen could exercise it on the advice of her ministers. While Elizabeth II has never forced dissolution and has refused to do so, it remains a significant power. She can also dismiss any government should she wish to do so. In emergency circumstances, the Sovereign has the power to exercise considerable influence. The Queen’s other more sensitive prerogative power is that of appointing the prime minister. Most of the times, this is the formality of appointing the captain of the winning team but when a hung parliament is formed, the true nature of her undemocratic powers unveil.

A hung parliament is formed when there is no definite outcome in the elections. If one party doesn’t gain half of the seats in the parliament plus one (326 seats), it won’t have an overall majority and thus won’t be able to pass laws without the support of the members of the other parties. In that case, a hung parliament is formed. In a hung parliament, the formation of a coalition between the main party and another smaller party (or parties) could pave the way for reaching the golden 326 seats mark. The queen could exercise her reserved power to declare the election results void and call for a new election. In addition, the Monarch can torpedo the democratic principles of the general elections and call on someone other than the leader of the majority party to form the government.

In November 1975, in the Australian general elections, the British Queen dismissed Gough Whitlam, the leader of the Labor Party as prime minister. That was despite his party holding a majority in the Australian House of Representatives. The decision led to the greatest constitutional crisis in Australian history. Today, it is commonly known as the Dismissal Crisis.

In November 1963, Harold Macmillan, the then prime minister, had to retire because of poor health. As the Conservative Party didn’t hold leadership elections then, the Queen made the choice herself. Rab Butler, the Baron Butler of Saffron Walden, was the strongest candidate but on McMillan’s advice, the Queen chose an outsider, Alec Douglas-Home. The Queen directly intervened in the political processes of the Tory Party in a bid to pave the way for the formation of a new government with a prime minister she desired.

Following the general elections in 1974, although Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath had fewer MPs than the Labour Party, he did not resign and spent four days trying to organise a coalition with the Liberals. Once again, the Queen emerged as an ultimate power-holder for the role she played. She communicated with the Conservative prime minister saying, “If you can form a government, I’m prepared to accept it.” So, despite the fact that that Tory government had been defeated by the people at the general elections, the Queen was ready to give the Tories another run. Heath remained prime minister and until he resigned, there was no vacancy!

British Queen Elizabth II (c), April 2, 2015 (© AFP)

 

It’s clear that situations like this in the upcoming general elections will put the Queen in an awkward position. Quite recently, the Privy Council of senior Cabinet Ministers assembled at Buckingham Palace following the prime minister’s decision to dissolve the parliament and call general elections. All the polls point to another hung parliament, and there is a big chance that Elizabeth’s ultimate power to dismiss the electorate’s decision brings new crisis for the Monarchy, which already faces protests.

The undemocratic nature of the British electoral system is not restricted to the Monarch’s extraordinary powers. According to the United Nations Charter, all people are entitled to take part in the government of their countries, directly or through freely chosen representatives. The right to vote is mandated by international laws. Yet, in Britain, many are deprived of this very major right. Convicted prisoners are denied the right to vote in the British general elections. Despite the European court of human rights’ rulings on the violations of inmates’ rights to vote, the British government and the House of Commons insist on pushing ahead, depriving prisoners of their fundamental rights.

The unfair and disproportionate voting system is another major flaw of the British elections. The current voting system in Britain (First Past the Post) is clearly primitive, dating back to the medieval age. Such a system guarantees that the top two parties always keep the majority of the parliament seats, heavily discriminating against other parties. It technically results in forming a House with many under-represented parties.

JC/HJL


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Press TV News Roku