Political Parties in the UK and the US - Term Paper Example

Insert full names Instructor’s name Insert Course name 21st June 2012 Introduction The political background of different countries currently takes a multiparty form as opposed to autocratic leadership experienced in most nations in yester years. The roles played by various political parties in a typical and obviously democratic country are of core importance particularly when sound governance attainment is the ultimate goal of a particular political system (Hudson 8). They particularly serve to provide a wider array of views for various statutory debates aimed at developing policies that will most likely serve all citizens equitably. In right terms, these parties serve to link what the government has to offer with what the public at grassroots level demands. They are thus termed as important entities that facilitate transparency and thorough scrutiny of the processes by which a particular government is run (Lehman 4). To run a party therefore, governments are many a time obliged to provide relevant support to these parties whether they are in the opposition in respect to the ruling party because they are indeed integral parts of the government in place (Wild et al 7). However, the treatments accorded to various parties vary greatly among various governments. It is this difference that this essay focuses on. It compares how the overall issue of political parties is viewed in the United States (U.S.) with the same issue when it comes to the United Kingdom (U.K.). The aspects of importance like the attitudinal attributes of the various leaders, the voting systems and processes, efficacy in providing financial support to the parties therein, the policies that define the governing and running of political parties and, the functions of the parties in general. This comparison is intended to determine which of the two countries gives the political parties greater attention and concern as integral parts of the overall government body. Strength of the Parties and the Voting Processes The political systems of the two countries, in respect to political parties’ strength, are quite different. In the U.S., political parties are quite decentralized (Lehman 6) paying attention to the highly appreciated role of the public and the different points of views by different communities at grassroots level. Here, the voting process begins with nomination of potential leaders by the public (Lehman 6). The voters, in their respective localities or regions say districts, are accorded the role of nominating a leader for each party to vie for an administrative seat. It is considered that it is only right for the people at the grassroots level to decide the leader who they think as having the qualities they themselves need rather than a person who have virtually different values in respect to the services expected for a particular region. Therefore, voting is a bottom-top process whereas the active policy denies the party members to nominate any candidate except for the running of the party itself (non-federal) (Lehman 6). In this sense therefore, such a party has been denied some powers and are literally weak to this effect. In the U.K., the political parties are centralized (Wild et al 4) and this means that the general governance takes a top-down module or policy. The party members or the leading team nominates a candidate and presents him or her for the voters during the voting process. Each party presents its nominee for a particular seat (Wild et al 6-7). In other words, the people at the grassroots level who support a particular party are denied the chance to decide the person who they feel deserves the candidature grant. It is clear that the policy employed here gives the various parties’ greater decision making powers in comparison to that of the U.S. Taking the respective governments as the reference points, the U.K. government apparently gives political parties an upper hand at the expense of the public opinion (Wild et al 7). On the contrary, the U.S. government accords more respect to the public opinion on the leadership quality than it does to the party leaders and generally the public often has their feelings and options heard and put to effect. The policy in the U.S. term the public as vital stakeholders in the management of an economy as they are the receivers of the effects of the policies decided upon by the chosen leaders (Lehman 5). It is often taken as important to let the public decide its own verdict so as to avoid complains where things appear to go haywire in the leadership stratum. The Number of the Political Parties Although it is not a relatively good measure of the value that a particular government attaches to political parties, the number of these parties in a country can literally give a gross picture of the emphasis accorded to them by the nation. The freedom to create new parties can be attributed to a high attention to their presence (Hudson 6). In the U.S., only two political parties of substance prevail; the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (Lehman 4). The other smaller parties do not at all possess relevant public backing. The implication from the leaders’ point of view is that it is not the party that matters but the traits of the leaders (Lehman 5). In the U.K., things are different; the influential parties are several (Wild et al 8). Examples are the currently ruling Conservative Party, the Labor Party and the Liberal Democrat Party among others. The wider variety of political parties of significance here infers a greater attention to the parties and interparty competitions (Hudson 9). Funding of Political Parties The U.K. political parties have faced a lot of difficulties when raising the necessary financial base for a particular party to afford the involving election campaigns and for spreading their messages to the public (Hudson 4). Practically, the political parties are expected to raise their own funds. As a result, some parties are funded by big companies, for instance, the Conservative Party and therefore most of the party’s policies and goals are in line with the wish of these companies. Labor Party is at large funded by the various occupational trade unions and the trend is the same for other parties (Hudson 6). In short, the U.K. government does not fund the political parties’ activities. However, there has been a recent suggestion by various leaders that if there was some public funding of the political parties, the respective party’s activities could be smoother and that better services to the public would be highly probable (Wild et al 7-8). In the U.S., public funding for electoral campaigns is not allowed for the candidates running for federal seats other than the presidential seat (Lehman 9). However, different states have different standings in respect to the question of funding political aspirations at the states/local level. Local authorities of 55% of the states allow public funding for the candidates (Lehman 10) but with different limitation levels on the spending of such funds. The significant point here is that in general, political parties are allowed some public funding although selectively. All this notwithstanding, it is important to note that the purpose of public funding is not necessarily for the party itself but for ensuring success in the overall electoral process. However, in comparison with the U.K., concerns of political party support by the government through funding of the parties activities are relatively more in the U.S. The Recognition of the Functions of Political Parties In view of a normal civilian, parties mean a lot in the U.S. but the government treats them only as platforms on which leaders necessary for the running of the government are appointed. Once the leaders are appointed, all the other party activities are taken as private. The financial support offered by the respective states indicated a relatively substantial support taking the U.S. as a whole, as opposed to the U.K.’s absolute privatization (Wild et al 6) of political parties’ activities. Related to this difference is the U.S. government’s justification of whatever support it provides to the parties by recognizing the role of the political parties in the controlling of the national development. Conclusion Despite the fact that the U.K. government does not fund the political parties’ activities, the policy of the top-down form that allows the parties to predominate the process of nominating leaders over the public opinion displays a heightened approval and trust for the parties. On the contrary, although there is some public funding of the parties as indicated above, the political parties have been denied the capacity to nominate leaders for voting for in the U.S. and this task is left to the public. The indication in the U.S. is that individuals are more important than a particular party, which is viewed only as a vehicle that propels a candidate to achieve his or her political ambition. Political parties are thus more important to the U.K. government than they are to the U.S. government, given the welfare of the public as the point of reference. Works Cited Hudson Alan. UK Support for Political Parties: A stock‐take Produced for DFID and the FCO. London: Overseas Development Institute, 2009. Print. Lehman Keith. “US Political Party Platforms: Progressive-Democratic Party”. Lighthouse Journal 17; 32. 2012. Print. Wild, Leni, Foresti, Marta and Harris, Dan. ‘Why accountability matters’- Briefing Note. London: ODI, 2010. Print. Read More