Legitimacy, Power and Consent: Governments have the power to make immense changes, but do they always have sufficient consent?

When the UK's Conservative government assumed office, it took upon itself the task of completely altering the country's approach to government. Massive budget cuts followed, with cutbacks to public services to match, including cuts to pensions, welfare and education.

But Tory attempts to change the UK's approach to government have had a profound effect upon more than just policy. It has changed the entire fabric of the debate when it comes to political economics. For every move the Tories have made in government, the Labour Party has been right there in opposition - not to argue against each move, but to argue that they have a better alternative for that same move (BBC, 2013).

These massive changes raise concerns rooted in power and consent. The changes, accomplished despite the fact that the changes in policy and governance have provoked massive protests (Bowcott, 2013), and despite the fact that the Tories only scraped into office as part of a coalition, call into question how the legitimate use of authority is determined by the UK's democratic process.

For any kind of major change to be made, power needs to be concentrated in some kind of executive, delegated to that authority from those over whom that power will be wielded. In a democracy this follows the principle of the consent of the governed. In Britain, the government of the day, the power it is wielding, and the massive changes it is forcing, seems to be in direct contrast to how that power is gained - achieved with just the barest plurality support, scraped from an election with a poor voter turnout.

With so much power available to those who are able to claim victory with such a low level of support, there do not seem to be enough safeguards to ensure that power is wielded with the full consent of the governed.

Part of the problem is the quality of consent received. When any kind of dissatisfaction arises with the way a government is proceeding, it creates a vacuum that the competing factions seek to use to advance their ideological approach. Following an inconclusive election in 2010, the current Conservative government has been accused of taking it as an opportunity for imposing their own ideologically driven changes (Eaton, 2010), rather than what is really necessary or for what they have a mandate.

In those conditions - in light of a crisis or shift in support - it can be hard to determine what exactly the electorate's new representatives have been nominated to achieve. This Conservative government has come to power in just such a situation, after thirteen years of Labour government.

And once a faction has succeeded in gathering sufficient support, that government then controls massive powers, with little restriction from a weak parliament, and with little requirement placed upon them to seek further consent. To an extent, coalition government arguably reigns in the worst excesses of a partisan governance, but that is a weak alternative to proper accountability before a chamber of representatives or the people themselves directly.

The political views of the people are, and have been for a long time, spread across a wide range of the political spectrum in Britain - even when support has coalesced around just two parties (Bogdanor, 1983). This, however, simply has not been reflected in the country's political system. Too much control is concentrated, unrestricted, with too little consent, into the hands of the victor; and with only the barest plurality support, drawn from elections with poor turnouts, considered a mandate for drastic change.

For a democracy, in particular, the principle of consent seems to be held in very low esteem. There is certainly an important issue to be settled in terms of the best course to be followed - something in which debate, scrutiny and evidence need to play a greater part. But all of that is for nothing without a better standard of consent - because without it, liberty will always be threatened by policies imposed seemingly without or against the will of the people.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Ed Balls: Labour would axe wealthy pensioners' fuel cash'; 3 June 2013.

+ Owen Bowcott's 'Lawyers protest outside parliament against legal aid cuts'; in The Guardian; 22 May 2013.
- More reports following cuts protests:
BBC's 'Anti-cuts march: Tens of thousands at London protest'; 27 March 2011.
2010 UK student protests on Wikipedia.

+ George Eaton's 'Cameron is wrong: the spending cuts are ideological'; in New Statesman; 31 December 2010.

+ Vernon Bogdanor's 'Multi-Party Politics and the Constitution'; Cambridge University Press, 1983.