British election
Thursday, 6 May 2010
THE 2009 global economic crisis brought Great Britain to the brink of economic collapse. It survived the crisis and escaped the fate of Iceland or Greece, but with a cost. The country is now burdened with a budget deficit of 170 billion pounds. Against this backdrop, the Britons go to the polls today to elect a new government. Surprisingly, the main focus of the election campaign and debates was not on the issues of economic recovery and reconstruction. The leaders of the main parties in the election -- the ruling Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party -- at best obfuscated on the economic challenge and none put forward clear and specific programmes how they plan to fix the troubling economy. All, however, know the government that will come in the wake of today's general election will have little choice other than taking hard decisions in economic matters if things are to improve. The governor of the Bank of England is reported to have confided in an American economist on the eve of the final leaders' debate live on the television, which dealt with economy, that 'the spending cuts needed to get the nation back on track will be so severe that the winning party can expect to be cast into the political wilderness for a generation'. Possibly, the leaders did not want to spoil the mood of the electorate by earnestly debating on their preferred economic policies but the next government will have to grapple with the reality.
The mood of the electorate was shaped by the novelty of leaders' televised debates. As Labour's Gordon Brown, Conservative's David Cameron and Lib Dems' Nick Clegg competed with each other to win the heart of the voters, the orthodox view that a general election in Britain is all about rotating power between the Labour and the Conservative parties radically changed and the prospect of a three-horse race became a distinct possibility. The Liberal Democratic Party was the biggest beneficiary of the newly introduced system of leaders' public debate. With the surge of the Liberal Democrats in the opinion polls, two issues -- election reform and immigration -- came to the fore. The Liberal Democratic Party historically champions proportionate representation and advocates a liberal immigration policy. Britain has been grappling with election reforms since the 19th century and immigration is a highly divisive issue in the present-day British polity.
These two issues in the British election obviously have some bearings for Bangladesh. Bangladesh has adopted Westminster-type of parliamentary democracy, a feature of which is the first-past-the-post election system. Inadequacies and abuses of this system are evident and many democracies have introduced the proportionate representation system to better reflect popular opinion in governance by ensuring 'representation of all parties in a legislature in proportion to their popular vote'.
Bangladesh needs to keenly watch British immigration policy. The number of British Bangladeshi, officially, is 500,000 which constitutes 0.8 per cent of UK's population. There are also a large number of so-called illegal immigrants. The highest concentration of Bangladeshis outside Bangladesh is in East London. British immigration policy thus impacts Bangladesh.
It is widely speculated that the May 06 general election will produce a hung parliament, with neither the Labour and the Conservatives emerging as clean winners and the Liberal Democrats playing the role of the kingmaker. Britain does not have a good experience in coalition or minority government. Whatever may be the shape of the government -- single-party majority government or coalition/minority government -- Britain now needs an effective government to handle its ailing economy and bring necessary reforms in governance.
The mood of the electorate was shaped by the novelty of leaders' televised debates. As Labour's Gordon Brown, Conservative's David Cameron and Lib Dems' Nick Clegg competed with each other to win the heart of the voters, the orthodox view that a general election in Britain is all about rotating power between the Labour and the Conservative parties radically changed and the prospect of a three-horse race became a distinct possibility. The Liberal Democratic Party was the biggest beneficiary of the newly introduced system of leaders' public debate. With the surge of the Liberal Democrats in the opinion polls, two issues -- election reform and immigration -- came to the fore. The Liberal Democratic Party historically champions proportionate representation and advocates a liberal immigration policy. Britain has been grappling with election reforms since the 19th century and immigration is a highly divisive issue in the present-day British polity.
These two issues in the British election obviously have some bearings for Bangladesh. Bangladesh has adopted Westminster-type of parliamentary democracy, a feature of which is the first-past-the-post election system. Inadequacies and abuses of this system are evident and many democracies have introduced the proportionate representation system to better reflect popular opinion in governance by ensuring 'representation of all parties in a legislature in proportion to their popular vote'.
Bangladesh needs to keenly watch British immigration policy. The number of British Bangladeshi, officially, is 500,000 which constitutes 0.8 per cent of UK's population. There are also a large number of so-called illegal immigrants. The highest concentration of Bangladeshis outside Bangladesh is in East London. British immigration policy thus impacts Bangladesh.
It is widely speculated that the May 06 general election will produce a hung parliament, with neither the Labour and the Conservatives emerging as clean winners and the Liberal Democrats playing the role of the kingmaker. Britain does not have a good experience in coalition or minority government. Whatever may be the shape of the government -- single-party majority government or coalition/minority government -- Britain now needs an effective government to handle its ailing economy and bring necessary reforms in governance.