Politics: Comparative Theories - Cultural Theory

-The theory is particularly relevant when examining constitutions and their origins, the nature and traditional values of political parties, and the background to why legislatures and judicial benches have developed as they have.

-If politics were a play, this theory could be seen as the production process leading up to it being performed, and key historic features of the venue.

-The constitutions share cultural similarities and differences when it comes to their stance on individual rights.

-While the US Constitution is more explicit about the protection of individual rights, and Americans historically have a greater attachment to individual liberty, the UK too has a historic attachment to civil liberties.

-Several key documents express in different but cumulative ways the need to limit the ability of monarchs to deny justice or subvert parliament in the UK.

-Both the 1215 Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights stress this point.

-The comparison grows stronger when we recognise that neither the British nor US Constitution started off with the intention of protecting the rights and liberties of every man and woman.

-The Magna Carta, often regarded as the foundational source of the British Constitution, was an agreement between King John and his barons.

-The 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention was a gathering of a white colonial male elite to thrash out a plan that would not only ensure the survival and flourishing of the new nation but also reflect their own political views and priorities.

-That both documents have been capable of adaptation, significant revision and numerous subsequent additions (especially in the case of the UK) suggests significant vision on the part of the drafters.

-A historical legacy when comparing the 2 constitutions is how in the UK, there remains a legacy of hereditary practice and deference.

-This can be seen partly in the antiquity of some constitutional documents, for example, the 1215 Magna Carta.

-It is also present in the titles of the 2 legislative chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

-There is a general acceptance that the presence of hereditary peers and 26 bishops, while not necessarily logical, does not amount to a major affront to democracy.

-By contrast, the US Constitution did not borrow from monarchical or hereditary principles.

-In fact, it took some inspiration from aspects of ancient Rome and Greece (note the use of the term 'Senate').

-Both constitutions, therefore, have roots in the past via classical republicanism (USA) and traditional monarchism (UK).

-They have the same fundamental aims: to influence public policy-making at all levels of government in the interests of their cause and to protect/promote the interests of their members.

-In both countries, groups that struggle to gain attention for their policies (usually because there is little ideological compatibility with any politicians) resort to demonstrations or direct action, rather than lobbying such as BLM and Extinction Rebellion. Wealthy groups, such as corporations, will use political donations, whereas resource-poor groups will rely on other methods. This can be shown in the US by the Soros Fund Management, which contributed $179,892,584 to Democrats during the 2020 Federal Election Cycle. In the UK, this can be shown by Bridgemere UK PLC donating £1,000,000 to the Conservative and Unionist Party during the 2019 General Election Campaign.

Differences:

-They operate in very different constitutional systems, with these constitutional arrangements producing different political cultures.

-In the US, because of guaranteed constitutional rights, particularly First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, the right to assembly and the right to ‘petition the government for redress of grievances’ political participation via these groups is very common.

-American citizens like to think of their society as open (pluralist) and that these groups are more accepted and not the ‘serpents that strangle’ or impede government as they are often seen in the UK.

-In the UK, there is a weaker culture of participation through these groups but it could be argued that this is less of the case between trade unions and the Labour Party, especially affiliated unions such as UNISON, Unite, ASLEF and the FBU.

-It is a product of evolution and gradual change.

-It retains traditional residual elements of aristocratic and church power, especially in the Lords.

In the US:

-It is a product of revolution, created largely in one go at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

-It contains some terms from the classical republican world, such as Senate.

-The US Constitution was deliberately formulated with clear principles in mind, alongside the inevitable compromises needed to make it broadly acceptable.

-From the start, it embraced key features, such as republicanism and representative government. It was, after all, the product of revolution and, one might add, one short-lived failed attempt.

-The British Constitution by contrast is the product of centuries of evolution and has been gradually adapted over time to incorporate the notions of parliamentary government (1689) as well as democratisation and expansion of the franchise from 1832 onwards.

-The British Constitution is essentially still monarchical, which although largely ceremonial in form today, still involves the monarch's use of prerogative powers as opposed to the enumerated powers in the US document.

-Yet, it is also the case that there is scope for vagueness in the US Constitution, where some powers are implied and not clearly set out.

The UK Parliament:

-The debating floor of the Commons and especially occasions such as PMQs are mainstays of political theatre.

-The debating floor of the Commons has drama and an overtly adversarial nature.

The US Congress:

In the UK, devolution is a very recent addition to the UK Constitution, first being adopted by parliamentary statute by the Government of Wales Act in July 1998. Since devolution is parliamentary statute, in theory, the UK Parliament could reverse devolution, although that is extremely unlikely in the current political climate.