Development of British Parliamentary System/Democracy:

British political heritage centred on two primary modes of checking royal or executive governmental
power: inalienable civil liberties for all Englishmen, and the institution of the Parliament, representing
the ruler’s obligation to atleast consult some notables of the community for important decisions.

Britain had emerged from the 1688 Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights with the constitutional
character of the monarchy firmly established. The monarch, still the executive and the de facto head of
government, appointed his ministers, who helped him in deciding policy. The bicameral Parliament, with
a House of Lords and a House of Commons, had effective control over legislation, especially through
holding the nation’s purse strings. Balancing between the two was the Prime Minister, who was appointed
by and responsible to the monarch, but generally needed the support of the majority in the Parliament in
order to get legislation passed. Stability in the working relationship between the crown and the House of
Commons was achieved by a set of very fundamental operating conventions.

Thus, worked the famous ‘balanced’ British Constitution, with a balance between the three pure forms of
government, namely the monarchy, the aristocracy and democracy, which were represented by the
Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, respectively.
 The upper house was largely composed of cosmopolitan landlords, living in cities and drawing
their income from landed estates.
 The Lower House was populated mostly by smaller landlords and members of the country gentry;
there were also members of the mercantile and professional classes, especially lawyers. Along with
the place-men, the first two groups had a kind of instinctive royalist loyalty, and a sense of fulfilling
duty through political participation; they would generally tend to vote for the status quo.

The two major political parties were the Whigs and the Tories, which had emerged through the
revolutionary century of the 1600s. However, both parties had at various points split and regrouped over
various issues; these developments had come to redefine the meanings of the terms Whig and Tory. Both
were basically aristocratic factions, not mass-organized grassroots parties. They essentially represented
two different political perspectives or attitudes: one could be a Whig on one issue, Tory on another, even
up until the latter half of the 19th century.

By late 18th century, this system was facing challenges from various quarters.
 Firstly, the industrial revolution was starting to radically alter the economic balance of the
country; the distribution of seats in Parliament was severely out of sync with socio-economic
realities. Another outcome of industrialisation was the emergence of new social classes – the
workers, industrialists, financiers – and institutions, all increasingly clamouring for power and a
voice in government.
 Secondly, there was the influence of the great ideological debates of the time, especially after the
American and French revolutions. Ideas of popular representation, republicanism, liberty, equality,
liberalism, socialism and the beginnings of democracy, all made their impact felt.

The Napoleonic years saw the emergence and elaboration of the various ideological positions on political
reforms. In the post-Napoleonic years, the debate over political reforms takes a new form. The social
effects of industrialisation start playing a very important factor affecting politics, along with the new
ideological ambience of Restoration Europe. Due to these (and other) factors, elite politics starts giving
way to mass politics, even street politics. The issue of parliamentary reforms becomes a matter of
mobilising the masses on this or that issue. Further, different classes had different conceptions of the
desired reforms.
The issues are also majorly affected by the economic business cycles of boom, recession, depression and
recovery. In times of hardship middle class leadership was often able to mobilise the working classes for

1
some kind of radical (by British standards) agitation; when such crises were over, the reformers would
generally try to break with the masses. Whereas in times of prosperity, there were virtually no broad,
cross-class coalitions.

The actual era of parliamentary reforms. This can be divided for convenience into 5 broad phases:
 The first lasted from 1815 to 1820, and was characterised by demobilisation, rising food prices,
economic hardship, and the first of the industrial depressions. Now democracy became a kind of
panacea for some groups such as artisan, and sometimes even took on the form of millenarian
expectations. This was the period of the first big mass-based political meetings, in the new
industrial districts. These often threw up exceptional orators, generally from middle-class
backgrounds.

 The second phase, from 1820 to 1832. On the whole this was a period of rising prosperity. This led
to a decline in mass agitation and radical debate. The consequent relaxation of the Tory
government’s fears in the 1820s opened the way for reform. The Tories themselves start a cautious
programme, and try to adapt the government to the new style of mass politics. They introduced
certain social welfare legislation and some police reforms. They also repealed most of the older
Combination Laws prohibiting trade unions, repealed repressive legislation against Catholics, and
relaxed the Corn Laws.
In 1830, the prosperity of the 1820s comes to an end, giving rise to agrarian and industrial
depression, fresh discontent and even agrarian riots. By now, democracy is definitely on the
agenda, and by the end of 1830, issues that were earlier the matter of parliamentary discussions
now become subjects of huge mass debates. This was the background to the Whigs coming to
power, under Charles Grey, in November 1830; it also resulted in the formation of a number of
reform coalitions — the middle classes wanted limited reforms to enable them to enter
Parliamentary politics, but they needed mass support to push these through.

The Whigs hoped to use moderate reform measures to take the sting out of the reform coalitions; they
also hoped to get support from landlords and industrialists. Hence, they mobilised forces in support of the
Reform Bill, introduced by John Russell in March 1831.

 The third phase lasted from 1832 to 1867. The 1830s and 1840s were dominated by the Chartist
Movement, which grew out of frustrations with the failure of the earlier trade union movement
and the very conservative Reform Act of 1832. The famous ‘People’s Charter’ of 1838 enumerated
the six main demands of this movement: universal male suffrage, election by secret ballot,
abolition of property qualifications for MPs, payment of salaries to MPs, equal electoral districts
and annual Parliamentary elections. These demands were taken up by workers of the industrial
districts, especially in London, Birmingham and Leeds, and the movement became much more
radical, particularly in times of economic discontent. The three peaks of Chartist activity were in
1839, 1847 and 1848. The movement didn’t really talk of a violent overthrow of the state; in fact in
practise, the movement was basically parliamentary in nature, since it took the form most often of
petitions to the Parliament; these were rejected all three times.
This movement tended to die out during times of economic stability. With the rejection of its
petitions, the leadership generally couldn’t resolve the problem of what to do next. Eventually the
Chartist movement became a spent force by the late 1840s and 1850s, with a tendency to move
away from street politics towards more institutionalised forms of agitation, through channels such
as the trade unions and collective bargaining.

The demand for democracy received a further thrust from the debates over the American civil war, which
was seen by the British lower classes as a war for democracy, especially since the upper orders supported
the Confederate cause. These years saw the emergence of new leaders who were more adventurous in

2
their thinking. They were thinking in terms of actually giving the vote to more sections of society, not just
of manipulating public opinion.
The two stands – Liberal and Conservative – were personified in the figures of William Gladstone and
Benjamin Disraeli respectively. Gladstone represented the rising mercantile and industrial section of the
ruling elite.
These two strands ultimately manifested themselves in the political philosophies of the new Liberal and
Conservative parties formed after Palmerston’s death in 1865. Both were speaking of parliamentary
reform in the 1850s and 1860s.
The third phase was brought to a close with the passing of the second Reform Act in 1867 by Disraeli.
This extended the right to vote still further down the class ladder, adding over a million voters – including
many urban working men – and nearly doubling the electorate.

 The fourth phase lasted from 1867 to 1885. With the creation of rival mass constituencies, it saw
the emergence of the two main political parties of Britain in the form recognisably similar to
todays. The Liberals presented themselves as champions of desirable changes. The Conservatives
presented themselves as the preservers of Britain’s traditional institutions and the Empire. But
both were appealing to much the same electorate – the middle and working classes. Both shared a
commitment to the new industrial economy, modernisation, the existing social order and class
divisions, the parliamentary framework. Hence post 1867, electoral reforms was not really a Party
issue.

 The final phase can be seen as lasting from 1885 onwards till the present. An important
development was the decline of the old Liberal party, and its replacement by the Labour Party in
the two-party dominated system. This was accompanied by a strengthening of the Conservative
Party. Important Acts in this phase include the Local Governments Acts of 1888 and 1894.
Especially significant was the Parliament Act of 1911, which dealt with the residual powers of the
House of Lords. This House lost all power over money bills, and kept only a suspensory veto of two
sessions over other bills. Also, the maximum time between Parliamentary elections was reduced to
five years.

In 1918, the Representation of People Act gave universal franchise for all males above 21 years of age, and
finally gave the vote to women; atleast, to women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of
householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5 or graduates of British universities. This
inequality was removed by the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, which provided for universal adult franchise
above the age of 21. Later, the voting age was reduced to the present 18 years. Lastly, a few years ago, an
Act was passed further reducing the powers of the House of Lords.

Having traced this development of parliamentary democracy in one of the foremost nations of today’s
world, it is tempting to conclude that Britain indeed should and does serve as a model for all aspiring
democratic states. But one must not loose sight of all that Britain has failed to accomplish in this
direction. Recent events, in which the Prime Minister of Britain seems to be freely going against the will
or opinion of not just a majority of the population, but also of a significant portion of the Parliament, lead
one to question the attainment of the ideal of democracy, even in as politically advanced a country as
Great Britain.