Is Britain's Parliamentary System Of Democracy Ideal?
Although ants and bees have elaborate social structures not clearly understood by researchers, and the former even has a queen, we alone have a country and a political system. This, however, took a long time to achieve. As a baseline, being a product of survival of the fittest, all living beings are engulfed with a fear of enemies. In this struggle, although some like lions are strong enough to defend themselves, as if understanding 'unity is strength,' those who aren't - the have-nots like hyenas, live and hunt in packs. Although we hunted like the latter, we selected a strong permanent leader for our day-to-day affairs in our primitive days. With dads appointing heirs with a bit of public support and love of genes, bloodlines started and later dynasties formed. Although occasionally interrupted by army dictators, even people's governments, almost akin to 'The King is dead… Long live the King' monarchy grabbed the biggest slice of pizza graph of the governing history of the world. Although making of a ruler by the people, who were more equal than others, interrupted democracy and is still doing so in China, democracy is the buzz word of today. Although a country and its borders are not made by nature, and it is not the claiming of self serving rights but duty that makes a country, using a strategy of making a government through rights and democracy brilliantly forms and maintains governments. With communism gone, monarchies vanishing, and army general-less recognised, democracy reigns supreme. Long before the French Revolution, reminding clash of civilizations, a clash between the commoners and the king brought democracy in England in the 13th century. Almost as a compromise, it saw the House of Lords for the Lords and the House of Commons for the common people. Although democracy got a chance to refine over the centuries and became matured, it divided into parliamentary and presidential systems, and suddenly received two heads - the UK and the USA. Although it has helped smooth the transition of power, it has offered stability for the development of the country, and as a gold standard even helped the formation of political systems of India and other countries… but Britain's parliamentary system is not without flaws. Its voters don't directly choose a leader but, almost like selecting a solicitor to plead a case in the court, choose MPs. Taking all our rights, as a second tier job, the MPs then select the ruler - when necessary. Although elected to serve constituents, losing individuality they follow what the Chief Whip says. Although a parliamentary majority easily brings a smooth change in power, its lack of power causes an equally bad mess. The resulting coalition government helps running of a government and gives writing material for journalists, but it doesn't give much to the country. Unlike the solicitor again, the 'detached leader' cannot be dismissed till the next election. Although presidential system avoids leadership problem and more, and even amount to 'best we have', it is not without problems either. Pinpointing problems, even in the American system yet offering solutions, the book 'Women's Power: Its Past, Its Present, Its Future: Femocracy', speaks much more by using the freedom of speech provided! ----------------------------------------------