Who Holds Power in the United Kingdom Today

In the socially stratified society where everyone tries to attain power at the detriment of others, the representation of authority

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

The Marxist approach proves that the least deprived individuals are the ruling class and the most deprived individuals are in the working class. In the hierarchy Marxists believe that most of the deprived people shouldn’t have and education and they should be working in factories and other environments like this. Marxist know that the most deprived individuals work in poor conditions that could make them ill, people in the lower class don’t earn as much as a higher class would. This is because they are in the lower class and they live and work in poor conditions so they don’t need to earn as much.

Although few people would deny that pressure groups play an important role in British politics, critics have argued that this role may not be the one suggested by the pluralist model. Pressure groups improve participation, but in an unequal way, benefiting the well organized but

Hughes (1984) stated that, ‘Weber regarded power as the primary relationship between unequal groups in society’. Power can be divided into three spheres of activity – class, status and party. (Marsh, 2013, p160) Class situation is determined by the shared life chances that people enjoy as a result of the value of their skills and possessions in the market place. Status defines how a community judges someone’s social status according to cultural standards such as education, occupation, speech and dress. Party is when people organise themselves into political parties that represent their economic interests. (Marsh, 2013)

The ruling of the privileged has been around since the conception of organized society. “The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another - no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.” This is a quote from social scientist Fredrich Engels that shows the outlook of most people towards a privileged ruling; this system was deemed unfair to the majority, which led to monarchies, the main representative of minority ruling, losing their power. Although we believe the true power in modern democratic societies’ rests on the majority, it truly rests with the powerful elite.

On the most elitist extreme, Mills in The Power Elite (1956) provides a strong argument that the decisions made in politics are the direct result of the actions of a highly selective group of individuals who do not have the best interests of the mass public at heart. This elite is made up of (presumably) men from the realms of business, military, and high-level politics. Socio-economic factors such as income and social circle keep the elite in a position of power through their cumulative advantage. The tight control over decisions and actions of importance that this elite has is legitimized by their positions of legal, economic, and political importance.

A famous quote of Karl Marx says: “The Rich will do anything for the poor, but get off their backs.” This saying indicates the power imbalance between the rich and the poor, as the rich have the freedom to do whatever they want to the poor, while the poor can do nothing about it. This is an example of Marxism because there are power struggles between the rich and the poor.. Marxism is a well-known theory, originating from the mid 19th century by Karl Marx, and it is used to reveal historical content, power imbalances, and political beliefs. In other words.

I am more of a pluralist, but understand the need for some of the power elite system. The people should ultimately decide what the country should more go towards, they should be the force that evolves the country. And forming special interests groups are great, because a group has more power than a signal individual. I believe that the elitists are more of a balancing force, or restoring force. Which allows the people to guide the country, but not to far into one direction too fast. This is because people’s perception and ideas might be skewed to exactly what the facts of the situation are. So the elitists are there to be knowledgeable enough to make decisions that will not let the people go in a direction, where they really don’t want to go.

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

In contrast, England is an individualist society promoting self-reliance and independence and was referred to by Edmund Adamus as a; ‘selfish and hedonistic wasteland’ (Telegraph, 2014). This relates to the theory of social mobility, and is again intertwined in capitalism. The political structure is a representative democracy, which in contrast to the Nama communities involves the option for the population voting for a party who’ll make decisions on their behalf; the majority vote will determine who is awarded power for a period of four years. Often the party in power will make decisions that, due to the nature of representative democracy, have not been made on a formed consensus, these decisions can be made in favour of the upper classes or the wealthy, neglecting the needs of the poor, this ties in with Marx’ theory of class struggle and could be seen as Oligarchy. In England social stratification is more complex than that of the Nama, and can be identified by a class system. In the epoch of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) - the times of the industrial revolution and The Communist Manifesto - England was believed to have a ‘functionalist’ (Durkheim) class system operating very much like that of a beehive, where all had their role. The class system arguably still resides, and is simplified to Upper, Middle, and Working class. This social stratum is generally identified by income.

At first sight it seems like this organisation of power is in correlation with Democracy. Nevertheless because different political parties rules those three arms of government, this coalition has blocked the resolution of certain conflict or issues regardless of the people’s opinion.

Rather than nominate candidates that share their beliefs for governmental positions, interest groups merely try to gain the attention of those already in office. Furthermore, political parties have very broad platforms and opinions that they prioritize. Interest groups usually have one or two stances that they will not concede, like anti-gun laws or pro-life opinions (“The Relationship”). Because of this difference in policies, political parties and interest groups often have sharply contrasting structures. Political parties, with all the topics that they form opinions about, are more flexible.

The unpopularity of MPs has become something of a running joke. According to Proud (2014, para.5), MPs are “lazy, overpaid, corrupt, self-interested and inept”. Yet, a succession of studies has proven that MPs are anything but lazy; on the contrary, they work such ludicrous hours that many pay a “disastrous price” in their “private and family lives” (Weinberg, Cooper and Weinberg, 1999, p. 79). The “inflexible and unwelcoming attitude of the House [of Commons] towards families” hardly helps matters (House of Commons, 2010, p. 82). As Korris (2011, p. 12) notes, such findings underscore “the need for a review of the role of MPs not just to build an improved political system but for the very well-being of MPs themselves”.

As our history, has been acknowledged there is something special. Our ancestors died because they were not able to work together. However, special interest groups are groups of individuals who come together because they share a similar self-interest and want to influence policies in their favor. Interest groups unite people to work as one into influencing policies that benefit the interest group and the population. Interest groups hold great power because it is an individual’s self-interest to pertain to an interest group. They operate in our society by advertising the interest groups with incentives and motives to join. However, in order to form a Special Interest, the groups must have to influence public policy, obtain a great power over