An analysis of the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary institution alongside the United State’s legislature, whilst comparing its history to the modern structure; reveals numerous differences and inherent similarities in its composition and limitations of power. British legislature “consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-6). The United Kingdom features a parliamentary institution; universally, in contemporary politics, the “[l]ower houses, such as the British House of Commons or the Japanese House of Representatives, are designed to represent local interests from across the entire country;” whereas “most upper houses in today’s world have been designed to provide a national focus to the concerns of the people and to allow a more removed segment of the government the opportunity to evaluate potential legislation,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-5a).
The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 members, and the U.S. Senate has 100 members; whereas the UK’s House of Lords has 785 members, and the UK House of Commons has 650 members, (Parliament). The House of Commons are publicly elected and are responsible for “granting money to the government through approving Bills that raise taxes;” whereby the House of the Lords is used for “making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government;” Parliament adds that “[g]enerally, the decisions made in one House have to be approved by the other” (Parliament). Alan Siaroff notes that the United Kingdom is the only Parliament in the world with a larger upper chamber than lower chamber, writing that “used to be even bigger until most of the hereditary lords were removed from it,” (Siaroff, A., p. 153). Whilst America was forming its legislature, George Washington (1732–1799) wrote to Bryan Fairfax (1736–1802) on July 20th, 1774; whereby Washington noted that “we applied to the House of Lords and House of Commons in their different legislative capacities, setting forth, that, as Englishmen, we could not be deprived of this essential and valuable part of a constitution,” (Washington, G., pp. 67, 68). Historian Kevin Dooley adds that “[t]he belief that there exists the need for a two-chambered legislature comes from the British model of proper governance,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-2). This was decided to separate the ruling class from the working class, and was “designed to lessen the legislative ability of the monarch and to balance the power of the competing socioeconomic interests of Great Britain,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6).
The Founding Premises of the Legislatures
Despite their similarities, the United Kingdom and the United States legislatures were both established with radical differentiation. American legislature was founded through the union of radical revolution; while the United Kingdom’s legislature was forged through tradition, dating back over a thousand years since the Anglo-Saxon Witan, (Parliament). In correlation, both legislatures were crafted to diffuse and limit the authority of the nation from the monarch; reappointing representation to the interests of the people, (Dooley, K., Ch. 6). Of America, Dooley writes, “[t]he Framers were responsive to Plato’s and Aristotle’s warnings against the excesses of self-interest and popular government. They were well versed in the teachings of political philosophy and carefully designed the Senate so that it would remain impervious to the whims of the electorate,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6). Dooley notes that “[t]he delegates at the Constitutional Convention were thus largely split on how the executive branch should be structured and in the amount of power the office should be granted,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 7).
George Washington advocated for a bicameral legislature, whereas Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) believed in a single unicameral legislature. The two Founding Fathers debated this matter over coffee, where it was concluded that the Senate was to act as a buffer for legislative action—coffee was used to signify legislation and the Senate, a saucer to cool before introduction to the consumer, (Dooley, K., 6). The Senate was deemed necessary to dilute the potency of popular influence, yet today voiding Plato’s warnings of absolute regime. Aristotle reiterated the same principle, including the necessary ingredients for a functional Republic—rather than remaining without solution, as in Plato’s unilateral critique of politics. The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 has left U.S. Senators controlled by the will of the constituent, whereby demagoguery persists.
Historian David Barton, speaking on the States before the federalizing under the Constitution, reports that Europe is, “composed of many small and independent nations (sometimes called European ‘states’), [and] they are joined together under a single European Parliament. Yet each individual nation/’state’ – and not the European Parliament – exercises powers over its own people, and each refuses to relinquish its own complete sovereignty to the European Parliament. The American States were much the same,” (Barton, D., p. 35).
Jeremy Bentham (1784–1832) advocated for utilitarian unicameralism, naming “three superior options: greater efficiency, greater accountability, and fewer expenses,” (Dooley, K., 6.6). Bentham believed that the community was a “fictitious body,” and that “[t]he principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law,” (Bentham, J., p. 7). Deposing Benthamian political theory, the “Federalist Paper No. 62 postulated that granting state legislatures control over the Senate selection process served as a “convenient link” between the state and federal governments,” (Dooley, K., 6-2). Since their creation, these institutions have drastically changed from their original values. Contemporary polity exhibits elements of Aristotelian political theory; including the blatant neglect of the importance of balancing powers—avoiding a de-evolution to despotism. The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 represented a shift in the polity of America, whereby the majority ruled the interests of the state. Once established, political influence and coercive action were invoked upon the American citizen to influence the will of the majority to better suit the interests of the elites. Historian Kevin Dooley writes that “[i]n the United Kingdom, history has determined that there are two heads: the monarch (head of state) and the prime minister (head of government),” (Dooley, K., Ch. 7-5b). Dooley adds, “[t]he House of Representative[s] was viewed as the people’s body, but the Senate was structured to prevent the popular and fickle sentiments of mass society from dominating the national agenda,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-2). This ideal was later destroyed by popular appeal under the despotic Seventeenth Amendment; voiding Aristotle’s presupposition that a mixed constitution was essential to counteract any absolute regime from invoking tyranny. Dooley expounds on this congressional catastrophe, writing that it “all changed 126 years later when the Seventeenth Amendment (1913) to the Constitution transformed the Senate selection process from an appointive to an elective position,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-2).
American institutions, though influenced by the United Kingdom’s division in powers, have taken on their own form over the centuries since its founding. Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933), the 30th President of the United States of America wrote of the nation’s founding and the changes government has endured, writing; “[o]urs, as you know, is a government of limited powers. The Constitution confers the authority for certain actions upon the President and the Congress, and explicitly prohibits them from taking other actions. This is done to protect the rights and liberties of the people;” he remarked “[t]he Government is limited, only the people are absolute,” (Coolidge, C., p. 71). Coolidge added “whenever the legislative or executive power undertakes to overstep the bounds of its limitations, any person who is injured may resort to the courts for protection and remedy. We do not submit the precious rights of the people to the hazard of a prejudiced and irresponsible political determination, but preserve and protect them by an independent and impartial judicial determination. We do not expose the rights of the weak to the danger of being overcome in the public forum by popular uproar, but protect them in the sanctity of the courtroom, where the still, small voice will not fail to be heard. Any attempt to change this method of procedure is an attempt to put the people again in jeopardy of the impositions and the tyrannies from which the first Continental Congress sought to deliver them. The only position that Americans can take is that they are against all despotism whether it emanate from a monarch, from a parliament, or from a mob,” (Coolidge, C., pp. 71, 72). Coolidge noted of the delicate balance of powers and the necessity of their separations. John Rawls (1921–2002) later described “one distinction between medieval and modern constitutionalism is that in the former the supremacy of law was not secured by established institutional controls. The check to the ruler who in his judgments and edicts opposed the sense of justice of the community was limited for the most part to the right of resistance by the whole society, or any part. Even this right seems not to have been interpreted as a corporate act; an unjust king was simply put aside;” Rawls concludes that “[t]hus the Middle Ages lacked the basic ideas of modern constitutional government, the idea of the sovereign people who have final authority and the institutionalizing of this authority by means of elections and parliaments, and other constitutional forms,” (Rawls, J., p. 338).
The Division of Power
In America, the Senate is responsible for foreign policy; while the House of Representatives is responsible for formal declarations of war and control of the power of the purse. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords is representative of the Upper House and the house of Commons is the Lower House, responsible for the representation of the people. (Dooley, K., Ch. 7-5b). The Founders of America divided power between each legislature without premeditation, as Dooley notes, “[t]he drafters of the U.S. Constitution improvised in the creation of Congress. Although Congress is typically viewed as a single institution, it is actually divided into two self-ruling legislative chambers. The Framers created a bicameral legislature (i.e., two-chamber legislature) consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each was intended to serve a specific function,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-2). Thomas Jefferson penned a warning to George Washington in 1788, stating that “into real hostilities, this country would with difficulty be drawn. Her finances are too deranged, her internal union too much dissolved, to hazard a war,” (Jefferson, T., p. 2497). Mark David Hall writes, “Christian commitments led the founders to create a constitutional order that strictly limits the power of the national government, separates the powers it does have among different branches, and provides checks and balances to prevent any one institution or person from becoming tyrannical. They believed in a higher law, often called natural law, and thought that natural rights were based upon this law, (Hall, M., p 151).
Thomas Jefferson observed that “[t]he nation is pressing on fast to a fixed constitution. Such a revolution in the public opinion has taken place, that the crown already feels its powers bounded, and is obliged, by its measures, to acknowledge limits;” professing that America must reflect the structure of Britain’s distribution of power, “[h]ow that representative will be organized is yet uncertain. Among a thousand projects, the best seems to me, that of dividing them into two Houses, of Commons and Nobles; the Commons to be chosen by the Provincial Assemblies, who are chosen themselves by the people, and the Nobles by the body of Noblesse, as in Scotland,” (Jefferson, T., p. 2497). Concluding his message to Washington, Jefferson stated that, “I look forward to the general adoption of the new constitution with anxiety, as necessary for us under our present circumstances,” (Jefferson, T., p. 2499).
To ensure that America benefitted from an Aristotelian mixed constitution, the Founders provided each chamber with a specific function. Kevin Dooley writes, “U.S. senators, on the other hand, were not viewed as representatives of the people by the Framers. Instead, senators were viewed as guardians of the public trust and the protectors of states’ rights, (Dooley, K., Ch. 6-2). Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that it was “essential to distinguish between the legal Sovereign of jurisprudence, and the political Sovereign of political science and philosophy… The Sovereign is that body in the State in which political power ought always to reside, and in which the right to such power does always reside,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 12564).
Campaigns, Elections and Appointments
In America, the members of each institution are elected based on their personal opinion on the matter; to best represent the needs of the citizen. This occurs through a vote that occurs in each of the 435 districts across the nation, whereby a Representative is elected to speak on behalf of their communities, literally representing the interests of the individual. Up on 1913, the State chose the Senate; however in contemporary politics the majority rules. Senators must be elected through popularity, blurring the significance of bicameralism and its importance to efficient politics and the avoidance of tyranny.
In theory, this ensures that the candidate caters to the interests of their constituents—in reality, it facilitates demagoguery, weaponizing the interests of the individual, and manipulating the consensus of the collective. Dooley expounds, “[i]n the United States, politicians are free to vote on a particular measure; in a parliamentary system, most politicians are not free to choose. They are expected to vote along party lines,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 7-5b). Parliamentary institutions must vote in accordance with their respective parties, no matter their personal interest in the matter. This is vastly different from U.S. legislature whereby Representatives are expected to dissent against their own party should any odor of tyranny arise. In the UK, there are 215 more districts than the 435 possessed by America; UK Parliament writes that the “650 areas [are] called constituencies. During an election everyone eligible to cast a vote in a constituency selects one candidate to be their MP. The candidate who gets the most votes becomes the MP for that area until the next election,” reports the UK Parliament’s website. Moreover, every general election, “all constituencies become vacant;” a Member of Parliament is then elected “from a list of candidates…[occurring] every five years,” (Parliament).
Should the Prime Minister (PM) fail to uphold his duties, he can be ejected through a Motion of No Confidence—initiated by the House of Commons, should the PM be deemed incompetent, (Parliament). The official Glossary of the UK Parliament states “the confidence of the House of Commons has been seen as central to a government’s authority to govern in the UK,” (Parliament). Accordingly, “[t]he prime minister can, at any time, hire and fire ministers…[and] abolish government departments or create new ones,” (BBC).
The Influence of Public Opinion
In the United Kingdom, public opinion bears little influence over the final considerations actions of the incumbent Prime Minister; in contrast public opinion retains considerable representation within the House of Commons, as resides their purpose. Dooley notes “the prime minister operates according to the party platform,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 7-5b). Yet the parties must abide by the will of their constituency; their official website reports, “[a]nyone in the UK can petition Parliament about an issue they care about or that affects them…Parliament questions the government on our behalf about its plans, to make sure they are properly thought through, and looks at them in detail before agreeing to them,” (Parliament). The House of Commons represents the representative interests of the working-class people, whereby the House of Lords acts as the second opinion for legislation proposed by the House of Commons; itself removed from politics. Dooley adds that the House of Commons has “never had the final word on policy initiatives;” and that the people’s voice was deposed by the “aristocratic, royally appointed and approved House of Lords,” (Dooley, K., 7-5b).
The United States of America stands converse to the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary institution;—in practice, U.S. public opinion holds zero influence over government action; yet in theory, the legislature is designed to hold over four times the amount [435/100] of representation over the interests of government. The United Kingdom bears 45% of the constituency’s representation through the House of Commons, whereas the United States of America’s House of Representatives reserves 81% of constituency representation. The House of Lords claims to “persuade government” utilizing a utilitarian majoritarian approach to government policy, as the Senators were intended to represent the needs of the State. Instead, the federal government doubled down, passing the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, thereby deeming the interests of the state as “public opinion” ensuing in the usurpation of power from the individual. In response, the contemporary spirit of civic anarchism remains an inherent right acknowledged at the founding of the American nation, whereby every citizen bears the capacity to dissent against despotic government action—even overthrow the entire government with the intent to retain its original image—should a tyrannic state ensue. Yet contemporary politicians have forced citizens into a position of servitude, utilizing taxpayer-funded Executive Branch institutions to surveil and persecute dissent. Moreover, citizens have been indoctrinated with fear from the mainstream media, assuring their neighbor is their enemy, and only defaulting individual sovereignty to the government for the greater good. The Prime Minister is obligated to attend Question Time, a weekly policy discussion at the House of Commons; this influences policy, as “policies are generated within the prime minister’s cabinet,” (Dooley, K., Ch 6-5a). The purpose of this provision is to tether the sovereignty of the Prime Minister to the will of objections produced by the House of Commons on behalf of the citizen.
Institutionalism itself is not rooted in America’s history; yet was set into motion by the permanent Establishment that began harboring themselves in positions of power since the 1800s, (or the Federalization of the Confederacy in 1787 depending on one’s perspective). As Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) wrote of public opinion at America’s founding, “[t]he Baptists had begun in the colonies in mid-seventeenth-century Rhode Island. There they emerged not only as a liberal but as a radically individualist group. Their ‘creed’ was individualism not only in religion, but also in political philosophy, to the point of anarchism,” (Rothbard, M., p. 164). In modern America anarchist political philosophy and antipolitical theory remains an essential potential state of collective leverage among constituents against tyranny. Modern incumbent politicians remain extraordinary in their abilities to achieve astounding feats, otherwise impossible to the average plebian in our contemporary democratic state. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was able to increase her personal net worth by 265%—from $31.38 million to $114.66 million—in just ten years, (OpenSecrets). Pelosi’s accumulation of wealth while acting as a sitting member of Congress displays the precision, diligence, and astuteness that all citizens should position themselves to be influenced by. That is, until the constituent considers how an incumbent pol is in fact able to attain such accumulations of wealth on a public salary. At this point, the inquirer arrives at the realization that it is in fact their personal income taxes financing the entire operation; or the politician has neglected their position of service to the public to place their focus elsewhere from the needs of our nation—despotic cruise control. Data from a Gallup poll reveals that public opinion is important and should be recognized as such. A mere 47% of Americans trust the Judicial Branch; 43% of Americans trust the Executive Branch; while, the lowest of all, 38% of Americans trust incumbent legislators, (Gallup). Alarmingly, this is the state that the nation resides; the Constitution was crafted to ensure union throughout the States; not sew division and seeds of despair among constituency.
As it is written by the Lord a government must function under His provision; without objectivity, the governance itself remains anchored to the tides of temporal culture, thereby drifting to sea. Scripture states, “[w]hoever abides in the teaching[s] [of Christ] has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works,” (2 John 1:9-11; ESV). For “[i]f a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end, (Mark 3:24-26; ESV). By Biblical principles, the Christian should practice the power of discernment, in order to decipher malevolent demagogues from those willing to materialize the obligation in the interest of the constituent; whereby Paul wrote, “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil,” (Hebrews 5:14; ESV).
Conclusion
Public opinion remains essential to the political distribution of power, and the representation of the constituency. Historically, political theorists throughout the world have warned against popular governance, despotism, and the tyranny of the majority; citing that autocracy ensues upon the revocation of minority interests. The United Kingdom’s parliament uses the House of Lords to temper legislation produced in the House of Commons; correlative to American federalism, bills introduced by the House of Representatives must pass through to Senate to become law. Bills introduced in the Senate must be passed through the House; Congress remains a bicameral outfit.
Bibliography
Barton, David. Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion. WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.
BBC. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). What Does the Prime Minister Actually do? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48497953
Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. White Dog Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Coolidge, Calvin. Calvin Coolidge on The Founders: Reflections on The American Revolution & The Founding Fathers. Church & Reid Books. Kindle Edition.
Gallup. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). Trust in Federal Government Branches Continues to Falter. https://news.gallup.com/poll/402737/trust-federal-government-branches-continues-falter.aspx
Hall, Mark David. Did America Have a Christian Founding? Separating Modern Myth from Historical Truth. HarperCollins Christian Publishing. Kindle Edition.
OpenSecrets. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). Nancy Pelosi- Net Worth. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/nancy-pelosi/net-worth?cid=N00007360&year=2015
Jefferson, T. Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson. (Delphi Series Ten Book 4). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Parliament. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). Birth of the English Parliament. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/
Parliament. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). Motion of No Confidence. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/?id=32625
Parliament. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). How MPs are Elected. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/
Parliament. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). The Evolution of Parliament – UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/
Parliament. (Accessed on February 19th, 2024). The Two-House System. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/system/
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice (Belknap). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Collected Works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Delphi Series Eight Book 18). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Rothbard, Murray N. Conceived in Liberty. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
Siaroff, A. (2013). Institutional Variations of Democracies – In Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics, Third Edition (pp. 137–168). University of Toronto Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctv2fjwqh1.11
Washington, George. George Washington. Liberty Fund, Inc. Kindle Edition.
JMBK.NEWS 