Democracy in the US, UK, and Slovakia

Indispensable Role of Political Parties

Political parties are fundamental to modern democracy.

• Connect citizens and the state by aggregating fragmented demands into coherent policy platforms.
• Resolve conflicts and stabilize politics by channeling diverse interests into cooperative governing coalitions.
• Reduce information and coordination costs for voters and politicians.
• Party label acts as an informational shortcut, simplifying complex debates into clearer choices.
• Mobilize voters through campaigns, recruitment, and encouragement of turnout.
• Make large-scale self-government feasible.
• Recruit, train, and select leadership, socializing individuals into democratic values and processes.
• Act as a first barrier against demagogic or anti-democratic figures.
• Historical analysis confirms that parties are necessary building blocks of democracy.
• They stabilize democracy by organizing political competition.
• They created modern democracy, coinciding with mass enfranchisement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Impact of Electoral Systems: FPTP vs. Proportional Representation

Electoral systems re-engineer the party landscape.

First Past the Post (FPTP)

• Used in the UK and USA for their main national elections.

• Winner-take-all system where the candidate with the most votes in a district wins.

• Favors the top two parties and penalizes smaller parties.

• Duverger's Law: Mechanical effect (underrepresentation of smaller parties) and psychological effect (strategic voting).

  • Voters fear wasting their vote on a minor party, strategically voting for one of the two front runners.

  • Example: The UK Liberal Democrats often win 20% of the national vote but secure a tiny number of seats because their support is spread out.

Proportional Representation (PR)

• Used in Slovakia with a nationwide constituency and a 5% threshold.

• Seats are allocated to party lists in proportion to their national vote share.

• Encourages the existence and growth of multiple parties.

  • Example: A party with 7% or 8% of the national vote can secure a decent number of seats.

• Leads to multi-party systems where the parliament's composition closely mirrors the national vote.

Big Picture Impact

• FPTP systems discourage new party formation due to high barriers to entry.

  • Ambitious politicians often work within existing major parties.

  • Creates a stable equilibrium of two main parties with long continuity.

  • Example: The Tea Party influencing the Republican Party in the US.

• Under proportional representation, new parties can proliferate more easily.

  • Modest support can translate directly into parliamentary seats.

  • Leads to more fluidity and volatility in the party system.

  • Ensures a pluralistic political landscape that reflects diverse preferences in society.

Party Systems: UK, USA, and Slovakia

United Kingdom

• Two-party dominance, mainly Conservatives and Labour.

• FPTP system amplifies the leading party's seat share.

  • Example: In 2019, the Conservatives got 56% of seats with 43.6% of the popular vote.

• Parties became catch-all entities, absorbing diverse social cleavages.

• The unwritten constitution relies heavily on this system.

• High party discipline through the whip system ensures government cohesion.

• Sometimes called an elective dictatorship, powerful decisive governance accountable through the next general election.

• No legal mechanism to ban a political party for its ideology.

  • Relies more on societal rejection and anti-terrorism laws for specific groups.

  • Example: Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists was constrained by the Public Order Act of 1936, not a total ban.

United States

• Two-party contest since the 1850s.

• FPTP system for congress and the electoral college.

  • Example: Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but received zero electoral votes.

• Democratic and Republican parties are big tents, absorbing various movements.

• American parties are more decentralized than European ones.

• Rising polarization has led to stricter party-line voting.

• No formal mechanisms to compel a member to resign for voting against the party line.

• Parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution.

  • The First Amendment implicitly protects their activities, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

  • Court decisions treat parties as private associations performing a public function.

Slovakia

• Newer democracy, designed with lessons from history, embracing PR and explicit constitutional guarantees for pluralism.

• Constitution protects the right to form and join parties, subject to narrow restrictions.

• Mandates a separation of party and state.

• The constitutional court reviews party dissolution decisions.

• PR system regularly sees six, seven, or eight parties in parliament.

  • Coalition governments are the norm, requiring negotiation and compromise.

• Ensures broad pluralism and minority representation in policymaking.

• Coalitions can be unstable, leading to shorter government lifespans and policy zigzags.

Legislative Power in Comparative Perspective

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy

• United Kingdom: Unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty.

  • Parliament holds supreme legal authority; courts cannot overrule primary legislation.

  • No parliament can bind a future one.

  • Fusion of powers: the prime minister is a member of parliament, accountable to the legislature.

• United States: Codified constitution, constitutional supremacy.

  • The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

  • Strict separation of powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

  • Congress is granted only enumerated powers.

  • The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to exercise implied powers.

Legislative Structure and Composition

United Kingdom

• Bicameral: House of Commons and House of Lords.

• House of Commons: 650 directly elected members of parliament representing local constituencies.

  • The primary lawmaking institution with ultimate authority over legislation and government finances.

• House of Lords: Predominantly unelected, comprising around 800 members.

  • Functions mainly as a revising chamber, scrutinizing bills, suggesting amendments, and debating topical issues.

  • Cannot block or amend financial bills.

United States

• Bicameral: House of Representatives and Senate.

• House of Representatives: 435 members, apportioned by population, elected for two-year terms.

  • Initiates all revenue bills and has the sole power to impeach federal officials.

• Senate: 100 members, two from each state, elected for six-year terms.

  • Confirms presidential appointments and ratifies treaties.

  • Tries impeachment cases brought by the House.

  • Can amend or block any legislation from the House.

Lawmaking Process

United Kingdom

• The government overwhelmingly controls the legislative agenda and drafts most laws.

• Uses a serial processing system: A bill completes all its stages in one house before moving to the other.

• Key Stages:

  • First reading: Formal introduction.

  • Second reading: Debate on the bill's main principles.

  • Committee stage: Detailed review by a public bill committee with line-by-line debate and consideration of amendments.

  • Report stage: Further debate and amendments in the whole house.

  • Third reading: Brief debate on the final shape of the bill, followed by a vote.

  • House of Lords: Repeats a similar process.

  • Royal assent: Formal enactment into law.

United States

• The right of initiative rests with any individual member of Congress.

• Uses parallel processing: A bill must pass both the House and Senate in absolutely identical form.

• Key Procedural Hurdles:

  • Committee: Holds hearings and markup sessions; many bills die in committee.

  • Floor debate: Structured and limited in the House; unlimited debate in the Senate.

  • Filibuster: Senators can prolong debate indefinitely, requiring cloture (three-fifths supermajority) to overcome.

  • Presidential action: The president can sign a bill into law, let it become law without their signature, or veto it.

  • Veto override: Requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

Checks and Balances

United Kingdom

• Operates within parliamentary sovereignty.

• Courts cannot directly strike down primary legislation.

• The Human Rights Act of 1998 allows courts to issue a declaration of incompatibility if a law conflicts with convention rights.

  • It's an indirect advisory check, relying more on political pressure and convention rather than direct legal invalidation.

• Relies more heavily on political accountability.

United States

• Built on constitutional supremacy and explicit legally enforceable checks.

• The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it to declare laws unconstitutional.

• Explicit checks on Congress's power:

  • The president can veto legislation.

  • The Senate confirms presidential appointments and ratifies treaties.

  • Both chambers of Congress can investigate the executive branch and hold the power of the purse.

  • The House has the power to impeach federal officials.

• The President can issue executive orders to enact policy directives without direct congressional approval.

Addressing Political Extremism

The Dilemma of Militant Democracy

• Karl Lowenstein's concept of militant democracy: Democracies should preemptively defend themselves by restricting the liberties of anti-democratic groups.
• There is inherent tension between valuing freedom of expression and defending against those who would undermine the system.
• It is used to navigate between principle and pragmatism, between openness and self-preservation.

Spectrum of Responses Democracies have Developed

• Constitutional and legal bans on political parties.
• Surveillance and policing of extremist activities.
• Financial and regulatory measures to constrain extremism.
• Explicitly embedded militant democracy clauses in constitutions.

Comparative Approaches to Extremism

United States

• Often seen as standing at the most tolerant end of the spectrum with strong free speech protections.

• There is no legal mechanism to outlaw a political party based solely on its anti-democratic beliefs.

• Key test: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that even speech advocating violence is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action.

  • The Ku Klux Klan was never outlawed as an organization itself, but its members were prosecuted for specific criminal acts.

• Times of crisis often test these principles, and periods like the Red Scare saw controversial overreaches.

Slovakia

• Actively embraces a form of militant democracy.

• Its constitution explicitly allows restricting the right to form and associate in political parties.

  • Key episode: The 2005 ban of the neo-fascist party Slovinska Pospolito (STNP).

  • Marian Kotleva resurfaced with a new party, his People's Party nSlovakia (ESNS), but it was not banned back in 2019.

• The courts set a high bar, requiring concrete evidence of active subversion.

United Kingdom

• It has never outright banned a political party just for its ideology and peacetime.

• Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists was not banned as a party before World War II.

  • The government passed the Public Order Act of 1936, which banned the wearing of political uniforms in public and outlawed private paramilitary forces.

• Postwar, a key legal response has been the development of hate speech laws and anti-discrimination laws.

• This aims to contain the harms of extremist propaganda, particularly incitement, without necessarily banning the organization itself.

Conclusion

Democracies find different balancing points and have different responses, revealing a clear spectrum of democratic self-defense.

• The US tilts toward maximal tolerance.
• Slovakia, deeply shaped by the legacy of totalitarianism, embraces legal self-defense more readily.
• The UK has a pragmatic containment strategy, addressing harmful behaviors and violent intent while still allowing a generally broad range of political expression.