Universal Suffrage
Universal suffrage as practised in the United Kingdom has been in existence for less than 100 years. The
Representation of the People Act 1918 gave all men over the age of 21 (with the exception of those possessing a legal incapacity or other disqualifications) the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. It also enfranchised women aged 30 or over providing they met specific qualifications set down in the Act. Universal suffrage, in the sense that men and women were enfranchised on equal terms, did not come about until the
Representation of the People Act 1928,
when all men and women aged over 21 who did not possess a legal incapacity or other disqualification were given the vote; the right to vote to all those over the age of 18 did not come about until the
Representation of the People Act 1969.
However, prior to 1918, the electorate of the United Kingdom was comprised of the privileged few compared to the adult population as a whole. Only 40% of the adult male population were allowed to vote with the remaining 60% and all women disenfranchised. Even so, events during the early twentieth century would lead the legislators of the United Kingdom to radically widen the franchise.
Ireland and World War I
When the First World War broke out in the summer of 1914, it was for the United Kingdom a timely distraction from domestic problems facing the government. Chief among the issues facing the Liberal Administration was the fallout from the
Home Rule Bill 1912 which led to the
Government of Ireland Act 1914 (
Home Rule Act). This Act gave devolved government to Ireland, but it faced opposition from the Protestant, Unionist population in the north of the Emerald Isle who saw it as the precursor to the breakup of the Union. An armed militia, the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed to prevent the implication of the Act and a rival, Nationalist militia, the Irish Volunteers, vowed to help the British should there be trouble.
|
|
| Placements of Rebel forces and British troops around Dublin during the Easter Rising, 1916 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
With stalemate, the outbreak of the war on the European continent saw the Act suspended until the end of hostilities and civil war in Ireland was averted. Despite the global conflict, the question of Home Rule refused to go away and the Nationalist
Easter Rising in 1916 saw an Irish Republic proclaimed in the south. From 24th to the 29th April 1916, members of the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army fought the British Army on the streets of Dublin. Doomed to failure, the Rising was a foretaste of the Irish War of Independence which was to last from 1919 to 1921 resulting in the partition of Ireland into the Irish Free State and Ulster.
The vast majority of the volunteer British Army that fought in the First World War had no voting rights in the United Kingdom. The war saw much social upheaval and brought together people from different ends of the social spectrum. Although primarily drawn from the aristocracy, officers endured the hardships of the frontline trenches along with the ordinary rank and file soldiers, many of whom had volunteered en masse with their friends to form distinct "pals" battalions. The soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting for the British Empire expected concessions when the war ended and were promised "a land fit for heroes".
When their menfolk marched off to war, the women of Britain took on the roles their husbands, fathers and sons had vacated. With more women working in industries and areas usually the preserve of the male population, it was inevitable that the women would want a voice. Buoyed by the Suffragette Movement activities prior to the outbreak of World War I, women emerged into the peace believing voting rights would also be granted to them. Such expectations would only increase the pressure on the Coalition Government to concede voting rights to the ordinary working man. Events elsewhere on the continent prior to the end of the war also played a part in forcing the hand of the British Government.
Russia - February 1917 and October 1917 Revolutions
By 1917, the Russian population was tired of the war with Germany. With millions of Russians dead, revolution was in the air as troops mutinied and deserted in their thousands to flock to the Bolshevik cause. In February 1917 (the Russians used the old Julian calendar which was one month behind the Gregorian calendar used by the West), the Duma (the Russian parliament) was forced to cede concessions to the revolutionaries and Tsar Nicholas II, the last of the Romanov dynasty, was forced to abdicate as supreme ruler of the Russian Empire. However, disaffected with the Provisional Government's decision to continue to fight the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, took over the country in October (November) 1917. With the Provisional Government overthrown, an armistice was agreed between Russia and its protagonists, Germany and the Central Powers, in December 1917. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed in March 1918 effectively ending the Russian involvement in the First World War. Russia now entered a period of civil war which was to last until 1922 when the Soviet Union was born.
1918
 |
| Demobilisation of British Soldiers after WW I |
There are two strands to the argument as to why the British Government introduced the Representation of the People Act 1918. An optimist might argue that the British Government expanded the suffrage to the common man as a just reward for their enduring the long and bloody conflict of the Great War. It was only right and proper that the British servicemen should have a say in who should represent them in the Parliament that symbolised the democracy they had been fighting to preserve.
A cynic's view would be that, fearing the sort of Socialist revolution that had occurred in Russia, and with the memory of the Easter Rising still fresh in their minds, The Establishment preferred to give a sop to the returning soldiers, sailors and airmen in the hope that any post-war upheaval could be averted.
Whatever the truth, for many a deal is concluded in secret, behind closed doors, the price for the slaughter suffered by the British people during the Great War, was an enfranchisement of approximately 13.7 million adults in 1918; overnight, the electorate had trebled from the 7.7 million eligible to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million.
2015 General Election
From the ideals of "votes for all" comes the desire for fair representation. However, the United Kingdom General Election is decided by the "First Past the Post" method whereby the winner of a seat in the "Mother of all Parliaments" is the person who receives the most votes. On the face of it, this seems a perfectly fair way of achieving the desired end result of electing a Member of Parliament (M.P.) - if
X receives more votes than
Y,
Z,
A and
B, then he/she has the confidence of the electorate and should be returned to Parliament as the M.P. for their constituency. But, what if the combined number of votes cast for
Y,
Z,
A and
B total more than the votes cast for
X? In this case, the majority of the electorate did not actually want
X as their M.P. and he/she is actually voted into office by a minority of those who took part in the ballot. Is this fair? It could be argued that it is not and that to have a true reflection of the political will of the people, a "Proportional Representation" method of counting votes should be used.
N.B. There are a number of "Proportional Representation" voting models used throughout the world and, as there are a myriad of fine articles on the World Wide Web extolling the virtues of each method (e.g. see
Electoral Reform Society - Voting Systems Made Simple), I do not intend to review them all here.
 |
| The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP |
However, the world turns, things change and people must adapt to those changes. It is widely accepted that the 2015 General Election in the United Kingdom produced shocks and surprises that all the pollsters did not foresee prior to the country going to the polls on Thursday 7th May. A majority Conservative Government was returned and, as far as David Cameron is concerned, it is business as usual. That is fine for the Conservative Party and its supporters, but for many, the result left a sour taste in the mouth which had more to do with the inevitable sour grapes. By the very nature of the British method of electing its M.P.s, the winning party is always going to be elected by a minority of those who chose to vote. The turnout for the 2015 General Election was 66.1% of the total electorate (33.9% of those eligible, for one reason or another, chose not to exercise their democratic right to vote). Of that 66.1%, a total of 36.9% voted for the Conservatives resulting in that party receiving 331 seats. However, the figure of 36.9% is misleading, because, of the total electorate, only 36.9/100.0 x 66.1 = 24.4% wanted the Conservatives/David Cameron to win; less than a quarter of the total electorate - conversely 63.1% of those who voted and 63.1/100.0 x 66.1 = 41.7% of the total electorate wanted someone other than the Conservatives/David Cameron to win. These figures alone illustrate that, despite the vernacular, in the minds of the electorate, this is not a "majority" government.
The disproportionate share of seats per party compared to the number of votes polled for each, and the relative cost in votes per each seat won is shown in the table below:
From the above, it is abundantly clear that, for the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party (SNP) in particular, the ratio for number of seats won per vote cast is relatively small (34,244 and 25,972 respectively). For the Green Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the same ratio shows how this method of polling could be construed as being a grossly unfair method of electing MPs; to gain 1 seat, the Green Party received 1,157,613 votes and for its solitary seat, UKIP received 3,881,129. If one considers the share of the vote each party received, the SNP polled 4.7% of the vote compared to the Green Party's 3.8% and UKIP's 12.6%, but the SNP won 56 seats compared to the other two parties' 1 apiece.
The Future?
When the British Government drew up the Bill prior to passing the
Representation of the People Act 1918, part of the debate centred around the prospect of introducing proportional representation as a means of electing M.P.s. This idea was swiftly dispensed with and it was not until 2011, when the United Kingdom held a referendum to determine whether to introduce an
Alternative Vote for general elections, that the idea of proportional representation was mooted again. The country decided to reject the idea with 67.9% of those who voted calling for a "No" as opposed to 32.1% for the "Yes" vote. However, and following the argument above, with only a turnout of 19.1 million people, or 42.2% of those eligible to vote, those voting "No" only amounted to 67.9/100 x 42.2 = 28.7% of the total electorate - not really a resounding "No".
The message from the 2015 General Election and the 2011 AV Referendum (and many of the elections held over the years) is that there is a great deal of voter apathy amongst the electorate. In Australia, voting is compulsory in law. The question of whether a similar statute should be introduced into the United Kingdom, thus compelling the electorate to exercise their right to vote, is fuel for another debate. However, the population of these islands is a culturally rich and diverse mix of peoples. These communities will have differing views, each worthy of a voice in Parliament, but, with a first past the post method of determining the winner of a ballot, many of these voices remain unheard. The Green Party and UKIP may come from different parts of the political spectrum, but they have one thing in common - the 2015 General Election left them both disproportionately muted in relation to the support they received at the ballot box.
If the views of all the people of the United Kingdom are to be represented at Westminster, then the "First Past the Post" method of conducting an election needs to be replaced by a fairer means of determining who should become an M.P. A more in-depth debate needs to take place regarding the various modes of Proportional Representation and then the best fit for the country chosen. In this way, when someone marks their ballot paper and puts it into the ballot box, they will have the confidence that their voice is going to be heard. Isn't that a fit and proper legacy for the sacrifices made by the men and women of the United Kingdom 100 years ago on the battlefields and Home Front of WWI?
