British Liberalism, Political Democracy and Parliamentarism

[p013] BRITISH LIBERALISM, POLITICAL DEMOCRACY, AND PARLIAMENTARISM Political democracy has had a long and hard pull in Great Britain, writes Mr. Bevan. But since the General Elections of 1929, which were the first on the basis of complete adult suffrage, we have had a matured democracy. Mr. Bevan credits Liberalism with this achievement. “Its intention was to win power for the new forms of property thrown up by the Industrial Revolution. Its achievement was to win political power for the people irrespective of property.” (p. 8). If we may believe Mr. Bevan, Liberalism, against its will, accomplished the political revolution of achieving “the sovereignty of the people in Parliament.” — He is much too. generous with Liberalism and misrepresents its historical role. Liberalism took over the 11

[p014] task of holding the fort for capitalism against the advancing hosts of Labour. It was able to do this for many decades, but it had to pay a certain price to hold the upper ranks of the working class in line with the capitalist regime. This was the prime reason for whatever concessions and reforms the Liberals accorded to the workers. But these were primarily obtained through demands and pressures exerted by the Labour movement, not from the generosity or goodwill of the Liberal governments. And even these reforms were doled out in miserly fashion. Mr. Bevan himself recalls how the Liberal leaders long opposed giving the vote to women. — _ Once Liberalism could no longer fulfil its functions of forestalling and frustrating the forward movement of the masses, its political mission was exhausted. The capitalist class had no further use for this political instrument of deception, while the workers shifted their support to the Labour Party. That is why the Liberal Party is ready for the undertaker. Mr. Bevan’s idealisation of bourgeois Liberalism is linked with his habit of idealising bourgeois democracy. From 1929 on, he says, “there was fully developed political liberty, expressing itself through constitutional forms which had matured for many centuries, and had as their central point an elected assembly commanding the respect of the community.” (p. 11). To say the least, this is highly exaggerated: to tell the truth, it is downright misleading about the present system of parliamentary democracy under capitalist rule in Great Britain today. Mr. Bevan himself points out not a few imperfections in this “fully developed political liberty.” Although he, too, believes in the religion of parliamentary democracy, he belongs among the left-wing Dissenters. He is not an orthodox worshipper at the shrine, His book makes some illuminating observations on Parliament. He describes how “the atmosphere of Par- liament, its physical arrangements, its procedure, its semi- ecclesiastical ritual” (p. 5) are designed to overawe the representatives of Labour and bring them to their knees in 12

[p015] prostration before the past and the powers-that-be. This helps explain the behaviour of many Labour M.P.s who speak far more strongly against entrenched wealth in their constituencies than they act in the House of Commons. This accords with the historic function of Parliament which is quite different from Mr. Bevan’s conception. “The function of parliamentary democracy, under universal franchise, historically considered, is to expose wealth- privilege to the attack of the people. It is a sword pointed at the heart of property-power. The arena where the issues are joined is Parliament”, he writes. (p. 5). This is so one-sided as to be completely misleading. Parliament was created by capitalism as a form of its own rule to promote its class interests. It has been maintained to safeguard wealth-privilege against the attacks of the people by obstructing their demands and taming their ‘representatives. This “sword pointed at the heart of property-power” has turned out to be blunted at the edge. After 300 years of Parliament, and even six years of a majority Labour Government, the heart of that property- power still survives. We will discuss later whether Parliament actually is, as Mr. Bevan says, “the arena where the issues joined.” But even he recognises the role of the House of Commons in distorting the will of the people and protecting the power of property, when he writes: “In one sense the House of Commons is the most unrepresentative of representative assemblies. It is an elaborate conspiracy to prevent the real clash of opinion which exists outside from finding an appropriate echo within its walls. It is a social shock-absorber placed between privilege and the pressure of popular discontent.” (p. 7). This is well said and deserves to be held clearly in view whenever Parliament is under consideration. Mr. Bevan rightly complains. that the House of Commons does not provide adequate facilities for M.P.s of moderate means. An even more fundamental defect is that the House does not provide adequate facilities for representing the people. Its own foundations are far from perfect democracy. 13