Key Concepts- Democracy and Structure

Overview
Britain's power had to be shared out among four main groups of people (set out in the British constitution), as of the Bill of Rights, 1689. This was so that no single member held ultimate power by themselves. Following the Glorious  Revolution of 1681, the king could not have more power than any one individual, instead of this they were positioned at the centre of the feudal system. Although the monarch was permitted to contribute to the politics, they were not able to control it. However, it is worth noting that the monarch could appoint their own ministers within members of Parliament (they must be part of Westminster). 

Britain's democratic system began to slowly become more disproportional as the population increased but the number of enfranchised people fell. Engaging the population in politics was not seen as necessary at this time as the people had free press, rule of law, and religious tolerance. This meant that it was generally accepted as liberal and democratic, despite its unfair representation at a local level. In addition to this, being able and qualifying to vote varied from borough to borough, for example in some potwallopers could vote (those with a fireplace big enough for a pot to cook in it), whilst in others only land owners could vote. 

The British Constitution

The four main groups that made up the British Constitution were; the Monarch, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Privy Council. Below is a detailed insight to each group 

• The Monarch-  The King began at the top of the hierarchy with ministers below known as 'agents of the king'. In order to be successful the king had to be held in esteem by his ministers. In order to ensure this he would have to hand out knighthoods an bonuses often so their support was guaranteed. It was also believed that the king had the divine right to rule which helped them secure their power. However, in 1689 the Bill of Rights was passed (following the Glorious Revolution), which limited the power of the monarch. By 1783, Britain had established its constitutional monarchy. This mean that the King must accept the decisions that Parliament made. This included decisions on both national and local levels, on taxation, spending, and much more. Not only this, but the Monarch also became financially dependant on Parliament. Although, the monarch still had some influence over general policy, they could choose and dismiss ministers (though they could only choose within Westminster), and dissolve Parliament. Furthermore, the monarch maintained the ability to veto bills during legislation, this was very unlikely, however, as it would risk their income. Overall the monarch's influence decreased hugely during this time, even the Prime Minister was in greater need of support from the House of Commons compared to the Monarch 

• The House of Lords-  This is a group of unelected members of Parliament, and so are appointed. They are generally considered the lower tier. However, they used to have much greater influence on decisions made about and for Britain as they originally had political power over the House of Commons. Now, their power over the House of Commons is more infrequent (but its influence and superiority was notable during Brexit debates in 2016). In the 1700s they opposed William Pitt's Parliament attempts to reform the Parliament as they threatened their high position in the hierarchy. 

• The House of Commons-  This is the elected house, now considered the upper tier. As the Prime Minister gained more power, so did the House of Commons and their overall influence increased. Proof of this is the Prime Minister needing more support from the House of Commons over the monarch. Whilst they are an elected body, it was usually just the wealthy land owners that were represented. In 1780, less than 3% of the population could vote which left a huge majority greatly unrepresented. Some cities did not have any representation at all, others left representation disproportional due to large variations in population. In 1792 and 1795 Pitt worked to reform Parliament so the bigger cities were better represented, however, both attempts failed. It is also important to remember that MPs received no salary which meant they had to be wealthy to begin with so they could afford to work without pay.  

• Privy Councils-  These were the Monarch's trusted advisers, consulting on Policy decisions, with connections to Parliament. Members of the Privy Council were appointed for life, and, whilst their advice was valuable and influential, the monarch maintained the right to accept the advice and members had to accept and respect what the monarch decided to do. In addition to this they would also have to convince Parliament that decision of monarch was the right one

Whether Britain's political system at this time was truly democratic or not has been the cause of much debate. Those that argue that it was say the Constitutional Monarchy after the the Bill of Rights was, overall, a fair system; that the power was spread equally with no one individual with ultimate power; that therefore it was not a dictatorship; and finally, that some still had the right to vote. Others argue it was not as only 3% could vote, leaving 97% unrepresented which was hugely disproportional and corrupt; and the concept of Rotten Boroughs (towns and villages with few people eligible to vote out of a large group) were shameful as it meant MPs from that area would not be able to fairly represent everyone from that constituency.