Why is it that once people elect a government, they lose control over its decisions?

Question

How come governments take on a life of their own after being elected? Why do the people that chose one party over another for the policies that were promised have no part in decisions and policies?

Why are the people not consulted when important matters arise, like declaring war on a nation or when one part of a country suffers drought while another part has to release water downriver?

We elect parties who place experts in positions where their decisions affect our lives in ways we cannot control or check.
When will democracies evolve back into a system that takes the people's opinion into account?

Answer 1

Firstly, can I commend you upon coming up with such a fantastically thought-provoking question. The issues you raise are plentiful, but broadly speaking involve accountability, participation, government versus governance and the tension between parliamentary political parties and local communities interests.

I would suggest that the reason governments take upon a life of their own after being elected is that they are required to do so. Unusually, in the UK, the strucutres and positions are in place prior to an election. So, we have a 'shadow cabinet' for example which becomes the cabinet if that political party wins a general election. The process is instantaneous, and is in marked contrast with say the American system which results in key posts remaining empty for many months after an election has taken place.

Why do people have no part in the decisions and policies? In part, I'm afraid the answer has to be apathy. In the UK, we have a very consultative process involving white papers, green papers, bills, then Acts of Parliament. At all points prior to the bill becoming an act, an individual is free to make representation (to quite literally 'lobby' their member of parliament in the house of commons by walking into the public lobby and asking to speak with their MP about an issue). Very few do. Equally, white papers and green papers are put out for consultation, for the public and interested parties to respond to, and yet very few people take the time to (a) read them (b) understand them and (c) respond to them and comment and make a reply, which would then in turn get recorded in the government response to the public consultation, itself a public document, which often results in the government either amending, or redrafting its policy before it is put into legislation.

Why are the people not consulted when matters like declaring war arise is a really good question, and goes into the running of the nation state in the circumstances when it is under threat. To the best of my knowledge, it was Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, the meeting-place beneath Whitehall used during the Second World War that gave its name to the COBRA committee, which handles crises such as foot and mouth, or wars such as Iraq. The members of the COBRA committee are however not quite the same as the members of the cabinet. So, the leader of the government of the day has the ability under times of extreme threat to national security to dispense with the usual democratically elected cabinet and to quite literally go underground into bunker-mode, to COBRA (as was), and take decisions via a mandate that it based upon a need to protect the nations interests without consulting either parliament or the electorate. That's simply the way our constitution is written and the way our special powers have evolved. It's there for a reason, and basically relies upon the premise that someone has to carry the can and that person is the Prime Minister of the day, in consultation with the monarch. The Prime Minister holds the top job, and so gets the power to run the country with even less accountability than usual when the situation justifies it such as when it is perceived to be under attack.

In non-emergency situations, the concept of political parties is an example of how power is used to influence the voting process of democratically elected members of parliament. Parliamentary parties, use their 'whips' to politically direct individual members of parliament to in effect toe the governments line on a particular vote. If for example, a bill is coming up for a key vote and the parliamentary party thinks that the vote is likely to be a somewhat narrow majority or even could be defeated, the whips will require the members of their political party to vote for a bill the government has proposed irrespective of that member of parliament's personal feelings on the matter.

There was a very good speech given around 1830 (+/- 20 years) during the Bristol riots by the then MP, who argued to the rioting mob, who had just trashed most of the city and burnt the jail to the ground, releasing its prisoners, and attempted to kill the Lord Mayor of the day, that a member of parliament is sent to the House of Commons to represent the interests of the nation as a whole rather than the interests of their own constituents or their own local electorates wishes and interests. The needs of the many basically outweigh the needs of the few. (Very Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek fame I know)

Once elected, our MPs are subject to the parliamentary party and its Whips and their pressures, to vote in a particular pattern. Failure to do so incurrs the whip's wrath and support for say a new school or a new hospital in an MPs ward becomes less likely the more times that MP strays from their party line. So, for the individual MP it pays to stay 'on message' and to support their parliamentary party over and above the needs and interests of their local party and the people who put them there.

Accountability comes through the ballot, but in a general election that may typically be only called once every four years. On individual issues, any registered voter may lobby their MP at any time, or may write to their MP on an individual issue, or may use the e-government websites such as the 10 downing street site to start an e-petition to get a particular point raised and supported. However, the question of how accountable are MPs once voted in is a good one.

On the question of governance however, things have moved on a lot in the past ten years. Local institutions that deliver public services such as health, housing and education are increasingly being delvered not by institutions owned and run by the state but by organisations in the 'third sector', neither entirely public nor entirely private. So, the former council housing in your ward may now be owned by an housing association, which has a board of governors who run the company that delivers the housing service. That housing asociation will likely write its own policy. They are answerable through the corporate structure of the company and regulated through the state via the housing corporation. Likewise, NHS Foundation Hospitals may be built and owned by private companies, run by NHS trusts and the board of the trust take the decisions, locally, over funding priorities which affect lives locally - and individuals can influence their local trusts policies through campaigning, attending consultation meetings, writing letters to the trust headquarters etc. Similarly, schools increasingly are moving into the third sector, with new schools being built under Private Finance Initiatives rather than with money from the local authority, and with the operation and the policies being set by a board of govenors that is drawn from the local community - giving local parents and interested parties an opportunity in shaping the decisions that affect how education services are delivered locally.

Consultation and participation are really important aspects of a civil society, but I would argue that our democractic processes provide many opportunities for peoples opinions to be taken into account, it's just that very few people take the opportunity to learn what the processes are and to exercise them.

Answer 2

We don't lose control of decision making. We choose the wrong people to support and represent us. All governments do have lives of there own. And The People are the creators. There wouldn't be much point to government if they were'nt capable of operating and thinking for themselves.
It seems to me you don't fully appreciate the reason we have government as opposed to vote counters. If every question someone had was voted on etc. we would never accomplish anything. We are not a true democracy (because true democracy would never work) we are a representative republic.
We elect leaders because, regardless of leadership abilities, individuals are different. And ideas, especially good ones, would clash. We do not assume leadership positions. We choose those who uphold morals closest to our constitution and to our own beliefs(or at least we used to and should try to again). Therein lies the problem: People don't evaluate the person to be elected enough and only focus on the agenda of the candidate. Our power lies in electing the right people and upholding the basic and founding beliefs. The system that comprises our government is the best on earth right now. The further away we pull from it the less control we keep and the more we give to the government and minority and radical groups.
Some information if freely given can be used as a weapon to hurt the common good. We as citizens do not inherit the right to any and all knowledge and information. We entrust our leaders and elected officials to carefully handle secret information.
I would also hope that on matters such as declaring war are rooted to beliefs, morals and values. Not mere opinions.

Answer 3

We live in a republic and that's how things work. We elect a government filled with people we trust to make the decisions for us. If we don't like what they're doing, we vote them out. So in effect, we have exactly what you're saying. We the people just don't wield that power very well by letting the parties dictate things instead of us dictating the parties. When you look at the ballot and thing both of these guys suck, that's our fault. We didn't make sure 2 well qualfied candidates got onto the ballot in the first place.

What your suggesting is a pure democracy. As far as I know there has never been one of those. All we would do is vote for things. Yeah, it makes sense to vote for a war, but how about a new road? Or if we should regulate ketchup? (we do). It would be a full time job for everyone in the country to vote for all the laws. Who would determine which laws were "important" enough to have everyone vote on and others which our congressmen would? So, pure democracies don't actually work. Republics do.

Answer 4

We do not live in a country that has a direct democracy. Our nation has always been too large for the people to have a direct say in every decision. Even when it comes to big decisions like war, our elected leaders must make the decisions, usually because it would take much too long to poll everyone in the country.

We have a representative democracy where we choose the leaders that make the decisions for us. Therefore, it is important to try to vote for people with similar views to your own personal ones.

Answer 5

People elect a party, not an individual. Although we are supposed to be represented by the individual we elect, they are controlled by the party that they represent. We also elect them because we support their morals. Therefore, if they make a decision, it is not based on what they belive their constituents wanted, but what their morals dictate. Thus, the above two factors intermingle to produce a vote that may not agree with our believe systems or judgements, but what they personally, and what their party's dictate. However, pressure groups provide an outlet for our discontent, as well as support for the opposition, That scares the government to conceed.

Answer 6

Yes a good question.
The nature of a state has an effect,strongly pointing towards there political stability in the country concerned.The nature and behavior of people targeted to bring glory in there nation.The complexity of matters from people living in and there educational expertise.Also religious matters differs in such countries where there is more than one race and religion.each one would need to rule that country in a different manner opposed to other parties.
The other item to point out is acquiring of models from neighboring or abroad countries,over which not all people in the country would be able to travel out and reach for these models.in the end opposition will prevail leading in declaration of war.With war it is not easy to seek for consultation,it happens quietly.

this is just an overview of what i can say.

L2000

Answer 7

we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. We vote for people that we think will do the best job in providing for our needs. That's why it is so important to get out and vote and not only vote but do your research on each candidate.

Answer 8

i do not imagine that she can provide him a lot means in route of authorities affairs, she may possibly ask for his advice on some concerns yet she gained't provide him all the means making judgements

Answer 9

Been going on since time began every where in the world and isn't likely to change any time soon.

Answer 10

Greed and power detroys minds