# How democratic is the UK really?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [May 15, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576 "2010-05-15T20:54:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/41 "2010-05-16T21:21:02Z")
> [@tetranz](#):
>
> I don’t think the US has any real safeguards against a small group or one person holding the balance of power in congress. It just hasn’t really happened in a significant way. What if congress was split almost evenly and one or two independents effectively held the balance of power? Hasn’t Joe Lieberman come close to that in some situations in the senate?
You have to remember that American parties are far broader and have far less discipline than those in parliamentary systems. In part, that’s due to there only being two major parties that need to accommodate a wide range of views. In any case, strict down-the-aisle voting is actually fairly unusual, and generally only happens with especially controversial issues. So with a near-evenly split legislative house, moderates on both sides will have a lot of power to sway policy, but that’s always been true.
---
### Author:  [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/42 "2010-05-16T21:24:34Z")
> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> And maybe it’s because I’m British but frankly I’ve never seen the point of bicameral systems. We elect one house of parliament - why do we need another bunch of people sitting around arguing about the same bills that the Commons has already debated?
Bicameral parliaments are our way of dealing elements of what you call the West Lothian Question. It’s balancing regional and population differences. In the UK this needs to be done in the HoC.
In Australia the Senate was conceived as a “States” house of review in a federal system. If you base electorates on the principle of “one vote, one value”, then the more populous states have the numbers.
In the current parliament of 150 NSW & Vic have a majority (87 seats) and with Queensland there is a 76% majority (115).
The Senate, having equal representation from each state (12) and two from each territory is a mechanism to balance that.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/43 "2010-05-16T23:15:57Z")
[QUOTE=septimus]
I skimmed the article but failed to see the specific allegation that Bangkok “elite” had rigged the Constitution for their gain. A big problem with the Constitution was maintaining strong parties (e.g., M.P. kicked out of his party loses seat in Parliament); this helped the regional (rural) parties, not Bangkok’s more liberal parties.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t find it now in the report I cited. I thought it might have been in [this report](http://asiafoundation.org/pdf/wp8.pdf) by the Asia Foundation instead but I can’t see it there either. I definitely read it somewhere (and I remember the word “elites” sticking out to me) but I can’t remember where so forget about that point. Nevertheless it seems clear some people (including yourself) had some problems with that Constitution, such as with the BA degree requirement.
> [@septimus](#):
>
> I live in rural Thailand. I don’t want to generalize what I see to every province, but at least in the four subdistricts (ca 40 villages) in my immediate area, villagers are definitely paid: often in local elections, almost always in Parliamentary elections. No, I won’t show a URL (you may Google blogs if you wish for similar comments by other rural residents); this is what I’ve learned with my own eyes and ears. Rates are 200-300 baht per vote ($6 or 9) and/or candidate buying rounds of beer, etc. It’s common knowledge that banks need to order extra banknotes before elections, and robbery risk is said to rise. A few years ago, in neighboring village a _hua khanaen_ was murdered, apparently because he kept a candidate’s money instead of distributing it to voters. A _hua khanaen_ (literally “head of votes”, canvasser) can range to small-scale: two of my wife’s relatives have told me of their own experiences signing up voters and finally distributing the money. Parliamentary candidates prefer to buy entire villages; it make verification easier – individual ballots are secret (though not always), but village results are open. Vote buying is technically illegal, and re-elections are sometimes ordered. I recall a large party about the time of such a re-election where the disqualified winner (who was not barred from the re-election) was distributing election cards (itself illegal) and hesitated when she saw me.
That’s interesting. And clearly if you’ve seen it yourself then you know better than I do. Apparently the Pollwatch Foundation backs you up, finding that there was minor vote buying in the 2001 election and more serious vote buying in the 2005 election. But it seems there’s been accusations of vote buying and corruption leveled at all sides (page 2 of one Pollwatch [report](http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/iri-asia/POLLWATCH%20final%20report%20(referendum).pdf) says that there was vote buying from both pro-charter and anti-charter forces in the 2007 referendum on the new constitution for instance), and it seems pretty unanimous among reports I’ve heard, including from yourself, that Thaksin and his party still retains significant public support, vote-buying or not. The Asia Foundation report I cited above says:
> [@](#):
>
> For over a decade, the urban middle class has condemned their rural
> cousins for continuing to return disreputable individuals to Parliament. Rural
> voters have always countered that they are not ignorant buffalo who fail to
> understand the value of their vote. In addition to a bit of cash at election time,
> disreputable as their MPs might be in the eyes of the urban middle class, these
> MPs bring roads, electricity, water, and jobs to their constituents. Rural citizens
> have understood the value of their vote.
In that context, I can’t see how it can be considered democratic for Thaksin to be ousted in a military coup and for his party and hundreds of his party’s representatives to be barred from participating in any future elections. They did the same things that all sides have been accused of to some extent and they retain widespread public support, but it seems to me worryingly like the party has been shut down more because it posed too much of a threat to its rivals than anything else.
---
### Author:  [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/44 "2010-05-17T00:14:46Z")
> [@tetranz](#):
>
> I think there will be a referendum soon to decide if we want to keep MMP after 20 years of trying it or go back to FPP. No system is perfect but I hope we stay with MMP. We’ve had our problems but I don’t think it’s been too bad.
Personally, I hope they toss MMP out. It was one of the (many) reasons we left NZ.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/45 "2010-05-17T00:20:03Z")
Well, at least the legislature in Bangkok knows how to handle Thai votes! 😛
---
### Author:  [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/46 "2010-05-17T04:09:32Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> I don’t want to take the thread into a tangent, but this is a very biased interpretation of the situation in Thailand. Thaksin Shinawatra repeatedly won landslide victories in elections which were deemed free and fair by independent observers. To this day he retains the support of the majority of Thais, and the vast majority of rural Thais, who believe he represents them. He had a 3rd election victory invalidated by the courts because of the “awkward positioning of voting booths”, widely seen as a corrupt decision, and was then ousted in a military coup, whose leaders dissolve his party and banned them from competing in the next elections.
>
> I’d be protesting too to be honest.
The situation is very complicated, and I do not want to get into it here, although Thaksin is basically indistinguishable from Al Capone and good riddance to him. But I do want to say my wife voted in that election with the “awkward positioning of voting booths,” and it was no minor consideration. First, they were not enclosed booths, just a table. In the past, they were turned so no one behind you could see how you were voting, but in that election they were turned so that the election officials had a clear view of how everyone was marking their ballots.
---
### Author:  [@Rayne\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayne_Man)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/47 "2010-05-17T06:58:32Z")
Going back to the original question, Today’s _Times_ is reporting that the new coalition is going to create a hundred new Conservative and Lib-Dem Peers to counteract the Labour predominance in the House of Lords. This is designed to get their proposed legislation through the upper house.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/48 "2010-05-17T09:26:52Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#):
>
> The situation is very complicated, and I do not want to get into it here, although Thaksin is basically indistinguishable from Al Capone and good riddance to him. But I do want to say my wife voted in that election with the “awkward positioning of voting booths,” and it was no minor consideration. First, they were not enclosed booths, just a table. In the past, they were turned so no one behind you could see how you were voting, but in that election they were turned so that the election officials had a clear view of how everyone was marking their ballots.
Fair enough. That doesn’t sound like a corrupt decision, and I’ve heard a lot of bad things about Thaksin. But I still wonder how it can considered democratic for a leader and party with widespread support to be ousted in a military coup and the party and all of the top party officials banned from competing in future elections.
---
### Author:  [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/49 "2010-05-17T09:41:22Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> I’m also sorry for any thread hijacking here, but I cannot let this stand. It is your comments which show bias. Recall that Thaksin’s _very first_ selection as Prime Minister was corrupt. As a government franchisee he was ineligible under the brand-new constitution but got a waiver via a split decision of a court, with some of the judges later admitting they’d been under severe pressure. He went on to commit numerous frauds and felonies.
>
> True, I suppose, if buying votes is considered “free and fair.” Do you deny that most rural Thai elections essentially go to the highest bidder?
>
> Wow!! I really wonder how familiar you are with Thai politics, or with Thaksin’s nature.
I’m quite familiar with Thai politics but am by no means an expert, this could be the subject of an interesting thread if you choose to start one.
---
### Author:  [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/50 "2010-05-17T11:06:22Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> Our political systems are completely different - the US is a federal, presidential republic, the UK is a unitary state and parliamentary democracy.
The words “republic” and “democracy” are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. Both US and UK are democracies, US is a republic and UK is a monarchy. UK also happens to be a parliamentary democracy, where whatever party/parties that has a majority in parliament form a government (to put it simple), whereas US is not. In a republic the president can be elected and serve as head of state as in US, France or Germany or the situation can be like in Switzerland where the title is rotated among the members of the Federal council, which, as a whole is considered head of state. He/she/it can have lots of power as in US or France or be mostly ceremonial as in Germany etc etc.
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/51 "2010-05-17T12:18:36Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> But I still wonder how it can considered democratic for a leader and party with widespread support to be ousted in a military coup and the party and all of the top party officials banned from competing in future elections.
Thaksin’s government was extremely corrupt; he’d violated election laws and was looting the state treasury. (BTW, to ask for details on judicial status of charges against Thaksin is to give more credit to Thai institutions than they deserve, corrupt and incompetent as they are.)
Yes, Thaksin had widespread support. But please recall the very first sentences in my very first post in this thread:
> [@](#):
>
> To ask how “democratic” a country is, one must first define the term. Is it just following popular whim?
> [@Lust4Life](#):
>
> I’m quite familiar with Thai politics but am by no means an expert, this could be the subject of an interesting thread if you choose to start one.
I’m no expert either, but I think I have better knowledge of the “facts on the ground” in rural Thailand than are often depicted by foreign press.
I’ve started one or two recent threads; don’t remember if you participated. Can you start a thread on the matter that interests you? I’ll try to participate.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/52 "2010-05-17T12:38:22Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> Thaksin’s government was extremely corrupt; he’d violated election laws and was looting the state treasury. (BTW, to ask for details on judicial status of charges against Thaksin is to give more credit to Thai institutions than they deserve, corrupt and incompetent as they are.)
>
> Yes, Thaksin had widespread support. But please recall the very first sentences in my very first post in this thread:
>
> To ask how “democratic” a country is, one must first define the term. Is it just following popular whim?
Whatever the definition is, I think it’s pretty undeniable that being a democratic country entails the will of the people being represented in the political system. I don’t know a great deal about Thai politics, but on a basic level, when a party like Thai Rak Thai that has widespread - perhaps even majority - support in Thailand is barred from participating in any future elections, that seems undemocratic to me. Particularly when a lot of the arguments made against that party seem to be couched in terms of, “only rural people vote for them, and they don’t understand what they’re doing; the highly-educated classes are smarter and should make these decisions for them”, personally I find that kind of rhetoric very sinister.
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/53 "2010-05-17T15:41:28Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> … when a party like Thai Rak Thai … is barred from participating in any future elections, that seems undemocratic to me. Particularly when a lot of the arguments made against that party seem to be couched in terms of, "only rural people vote for them, and they don’t understand what they’re doing …
😕 😕 The party was convicted of illegal operations (e.g. vote buying) and was thus banned, by the appropriate court, under the law.
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of Thai judiciary may be, your comment seems to completely ignore that the ban was imposed legally, not by some whim.
Let me ask you something, **The Great Philosopher** : Rightly or wrongly, many of us oppose Thaksin not because of some silly court ruling, but because of the extent and obviousness of his crimes and perfidies. Your comments make me ask this: Are you aware of Thaksin’s criminal nature? (Or do you think it’s just more trumped-up nonsense from the “Bangkok elite”?)
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/54 "2010-05-17T16:34:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> 1. Leadership chooses who runs for election in the ridings
> 2. On major issues, the MPs vote along party lines
These are characteristics of a strong party system. You can argue that a strong party system is more democratic, because voters can be a little more confident that they know what policies they are voting in favor of.
In our weak party system, we vote for individuals, but our governmental system doesn’t give those individuals to enact policy on their own. So, essentially, we don’t really know what we’re voting for in a specific sense, only in a very general sense.
In systems in which the party is strong, then we can be a little more confident that voting for a member of that party represents a vote for a specific series of policy choices. I argue that this is _more_ democratic, not less.
---
### Author:  [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/55 "2010-05-17T17:45:24Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> Fair enough. That doesn’t sound like a corrupt decision, and I’ve heard a lot of bad things about Thaksin. But I still wonder how it can considered democratic for a leader and party with widespread support to be ousted in a military coup and the party and all of the top party officials banned from competing in future elections.
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#):
>
> Whatever the definition is, I think it’s pretty undeniable that being a democratic country entails the will of the people being represented in the political system. I don’t know a great deal about Thai politics, but on a basic level, when a party like Thai Rak Thai that has widespread - perhaps even majority - support in Thailand is barred from participating in any future elections, that seems undemocratic to me. Particularly when a lot of the arguments made against that party seem to be couched in terms of, “only rural people vote for them, and they don’t understand what they’re doing; the highly-educated classes are smarter and should make these decisions for them”, personally I find that kind of rhetoric very sinister.
They’re not barred forever. They were barred for five years, AFTER they or their parties were found guilty of corruption. That is a legal punishment. The five-year bans were not introduced with the coup; other politicians were slapped with them in the past, even democrats.
But we’ll have to agree to disagree when it comes to Thaksin. It’s like having to explain why Hitler was bad (another one who was popularly elected). I find many of your views a gross oversimplification of what is in reality an extremely complex situation. “Class struggle” plays well in the international press, so the reds play it up, but that’s really one very small part. It’s really a struggle for power between two or three elites, each one trying to garner as many followers as possible. And this has also never been a truly democratic country. The military allows only enough democracy as it feels is safe and is always there to step in when they feel their power threatened. By no means is it democracy as practiced in the West. 2006 was only the latest in a long series of coups. You could even say that was Thaksin’s main sin, threatening the power of the military.
---
### Author:  [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/56 "2010-05-17T18:27:54Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> 😕 😕 The party was convicted of illegal operations (e.g. vote buying) and was thus banned, by the appropriate court, under the law.
>
> Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of Thai judiciary may be, your comment seems to completely ignore that the ban was imposed legally, not by some whim.
>
> Let me ask you something, **The Great Philosopher** : Rightly or wrongly, many of us oppose Thaksin not because of some silly court ruling, but because of the extent and obviousness of his crimes and perfidies. **Your comments make me ask this: Are you aware of Thaksin’s criminal nature? (Or do you think it’s just more trumped-up nonsense from the “Bangkok elite”?)**
I suspect the answer to your question is no, he’s not really aware of Thaksin’s criminal nature. The poster possibly thought I was exaggerating if not outright kidding when I likened Thaksin to Al Capone, but you would know I really wasn’t. Besides looting the Treasury and other general forms of normal corruption for him and his cronies, quite a few of his political and business rivals were found mysteriously deceased during his 5-1/2 years in office. And let’s not forget the thousands killed under his War on Drugs, when police who were ordered to fill their quotas simply settled old scores and shot old rivals as “drug dealers.” How many were killed in that period? 3000, wasn’t it? And precious few of them drug dealers. That sort of activity largely seems to have disappeared.
---
### Author:  [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/57 "2010-05-17T23:20:09Z")
> [@acsenray](#):
>
> In our weak party system, we vote for individuals, but our governmental system doesn’t give those individuals to enact policy on their own.
As an indication of this, I understand an individual US Senator/Congressman’s voting record on the various pieces of legislation is public record. In parliamentary systems, a roll call of individual representatives and their vote isn’t taken, (though of course the party numbers men will know them exactly). Even major Bills can pass “on the voices” without a formal vote being taken.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/58 "2010-05-18T00:17:36Z")
Just as an aside, the U.S. Congress has voice votes, too, but any one member can demand a recorded vote.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/59 "2010-05-18T02:27:33Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#):
>
> They’re not barred forever. They were barred for five years, AFTER they or their parties were found guilty of corruption. That is a legal punishment. The five-year bans were not introduced with the coup; other politicians were slapped with them in the past, even democrats.
>
> But we’ll have to agree to disagree when it comes to Thaksin. It’s like having to explain why Hitler was bad (another one who was popularly elected). I find many of your views a gross oversimplification of what is in reality an extremely complex situation. “Class struggle” plays well in the international press, so the reds play it up, but that’s really one very small part. It’s really a struggle for power between two or three elites, each one trying to garner as many followers as possible. And this has also never been a truly democratic country. The military allows only enough democracy as it feels is safe and is always there to step in when they feel their power threatened. By no means is it democracy as practiced in the West. 2006 was only the latest in a long series of coups. You could even say that was Thaksin’s main sin, threatening the power of the military.
I’ve never expressed my support for Thaksin personally - I’m not affected by Thai politics enough to ‘support’ anyone really. I’m not making a simplified argument about class struggle. I’m aware of some of the accusations of criminality and corruption against Thaksin and the history of coups in the country, and I’ve accepted (in fact I provided a cite for) the significant evidence that Thaksin and his party were corrupt and bought votes.
The only point I’m making is that, from my far-away vantage point, it doesn’t seem fair to label one side ‘democratic’ and the other side ‘anti-democratic’, as **septimus** did. It seems much more complicated than that. There’s evidence that lots of parties and politicians, including Thaksin’s rivals, have been guilty of corruption. There’s evidence that they bought votes too. The fact that the popular parties representing rural people, Thai Rak Thai and the PPP, were both dissolved by the courts which have been known to come under political pressure, and amid rhetoric about rural people not ‘understanding enough to vote’ for these parties and so on, has a worrying ring to me. Essentially all I’m saying is that the situation is not a clear-cut case of, “Thai Rak Thai, the PPP and their supporters are criminal, anti-democratic monsters; their rivals are the clean, democratic ones” and it doesn’t seem fair to represent it as such.
---
### Author:  [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2010, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576/60 "2010-05-19T08:44:16Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#):
>
> As an indication of this, I understand an individual US Senator/Congressman’s voting record on the various pieces of legislation is public record. In parliamentary systems, a roll call of individual representatives and their vote isn’t taken, (though of course the party numbers men will know them exactly). Even major Bills can pass “on the voices” without a formal vote being taken.
Individual MPs’ voting records certainly are public in the UK. You can look up any MP on [The Public Whip](http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/index.php) or [They Work For You.](http://www.theyworkforyou.com/) The latter gives more information about the issues they’ve voted on, the former gives more information about when they’ve rebelled against the whip (I love that terminology. :D)
It’s actually quite rare for an MP to _always_ vote in line with his party. Even Cameron and Clegg have had frequent rebellions and Gordon Brown rebelled once. (The reason there are none listed for the current parliament is that it’s so new there haven’t been any votes yet).
There are also a number of votes where the parties officially don’t tell their members which way to vote and are not allowed to send the party Whip round to persuade them.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-uk-really/539576.md?page=4)