House of Commons

Jürgen Habermas’ The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere has been described as outdated and incompatible with 21st century democracies. Among other things, Habermas’ initial formulation excluded the state from the public sphere. Recently, a revised model of the public sphere has emerged that positions the state and other law-making bodies at its centre. Although some theorists have embraced this revised model, others continue to exclude the state or oversimplify its role. While some research has examined how parliaments fit into this revised model, no research has been published on this in a Canadian context. This thesis attempts to fill this gap by answering the research question: Does the Canadian House of Commons constitute a form of the public sphere?
To answer this question, the Canadian House of Commons is explored along three dimensions of the public sphere – structure, representation, and interaction. This system of classification conforms to the essential function and institutional criteria of classical theory and also accounts for revised models of the public sphere. Ultimately, this work argues that the Canadian House of Commons satisfies the structural and representational dimensions of the public sphere. Its interactional dimension, however, is found to be inconsistent with public sphere theory due to a lack of real deliberation and the pervasiveness of party politics.

The Labour Party had three leaders in the 1980s. None found the experience fulfilling. James Callaghan, Michael Foot, and Neil Kinnock, as leaders do, sought to convey their purpose, and to shape the party; it was their misfortune to try to lead at a moment when the very nature of leadership was questioned, and the motivations of those who led doubted. Their circumstances varied but the outcomes were similar. As each tried to manage the party and appeal to the public, there were challenges to their authority (both formal and informal), representations to convey and misrepresentations to endure, both at the time and subsequently. Though each has been considered individually, this chapter offers the first comparative assessment.

The Second World War had a central role in the history of Britain's Labour Party. The experience culminated in the party's success in the 1945 general election, a victory that was held to have been the result of its concentration on domestic policy planning and in promising the public a welfarist post-war settlement. It has almost been assumed that Labour was not involved in the strategic or operational conduct of the war, including what was the first, became the longest-standing, and has remained the most controversial, aspect of Britain's waging of war: strategic, area, or ‘obliteration’ bombing. The disposition of what some maintained was - or should be - an internationalist party of working people towards the mass killing of civilians has not formally been considered before: whether the party approved of the policy or how far it merely had other (it may have felt) more-pressing priorities. Such an examination illustrates ‘labourism’ in the war and in its ambivalence towards Europe and Europeans also, perhaps, afterwards.

The victorious conclusion of the war coupled with a great democratising reform created a sense of expectation that the parliament that was elected in December 1918 could not more starkly have disappointed. There was shock at the overnight transformation of party politics, and general confusion. To the central criticism that that 1918 Reform Act had provided for a deeply unrepresentative and therefore undemocratic House of Commons, came complaints that the legislature had become merely an appendage of the executive, and parliamentary government had been supplanted by party government. Many observers opined that the authority of the House of Commons had been undermined. This article considers how the implications of the act were envisaged, and how they were experienced and reported. It will look at the legislature that resulted, its members, and how they adapted to and changed its procedures and conventions. Lastly it will reflect on the politics of the impact of the Reform Act, on the parties, on their policies, and on a new political environment. Through their writings at the time and their reflections subsequently, those who were Members and those who were observers of Parliament testified to how they felt the House of Commons had changed as a result of the impact of the 1918 Reform Act.

Classical Association Annual Conference 2015, University of Bristol, 12 April 2015.

A. Serafim explores how speakers employ humour as a rhetorical strategy to assist them in the attainment of their argumentative objectives. He will suggest that the use of humour in Greco-Roman discourse can help us better understand its use in contemporary discourse.

The Pink Parliament.
The debate over the women underrepresentation in politics has seen an increasing pile of books with titles that combine “women” and “parliament”. According to the UN Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration, it is generally accepted that a more equitable representation of women in parliament is required worldwide to more accurately reflect the composition of society and to ensure that women’s diverse interests are taken into account. The inequality between men and women in positions of power and decision-making is an issue of vital importance for any democracy. Canada is witnessing a growing debate about the underrepresentation of women in Parliament, but there is still a long way to go. The aim of this paper is to answer the following questions: why are women only one-quarter of the House of Commons, and after many years at the “plateau” of about one-fifth? And would the election of more female MPs create a substantially different House of Commons?

Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for democracy. It ensures that issues of common concern are freely and openly debated and allows for the criticism of government actions.  In this sense, its purpose is to “[promote] the free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions”.  Despite this important function, freedom of expression is not absolute. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [hereafter the Charter] permits limits on freedom of expression if they are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society. 

While it is possible to debate whether any limits to such a fundamental freedom are justifiable, and indeed the courts have done so many times, it is nevertheless commonly accepted that this is the case. Interestingly, freedom of expression is limited not only within society as a whole, but also within its governing democratic institutions. At first glance, such limitations appear counterintuitive. How can elected representatives properly deliberate and create laws if they do not have the ability to speak freely while doing so?

The purpose of this paper is to explore this inconsistency in the law surrounding freedom of expression. Section I of this paper reviews the existing jurisprudence on freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Charter and lays out the analytical framework found in Irwin Toy Ltd. v Quebec (Attorney General) [hereafter Irwin Toy]  and Montréal (City) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc. [hereafter Montréal (City)].  Section II then considers the scope of freedom of expression guaranteed within the House of Commons using the lens of parliamentary privilege. Lastly, Section III applies the tests from Irwin Toy and Montréal (City) to determine whether the limits imposed on freedom of expression within the House of Commons are consistent with the Charter guarantee under Section 2(b).

Democracy in UK is not real but a Pseudo Democracy where citizens have no power to elect their own Head of the State. Queen sits as a feudal Lord and Monarch, which they call Constitutional Monarchy. But other wings of the Government have also been affected.

Lijphart’ın kavramsal şemasında Westminster Modeli, çoğunlukçuluk (majoritarianism) için ilk örnek olma özelliği taşımaktadır. Tarihsel olarak, Westminster modeli, yönetimleri etkileyen bir model sağlamıştır ve ilk halindeyken bile genellenemeyen kendine özgü (sui generis) özelliklere sahiptir. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti için 2007 ile başlayan parlamenter sistemindeki değişim, 2017 referandumu ile birlikte başkanlık sistemine dönüşmüştür. Çalışmanın yöntemi olarak bu makale, analizinde nitel bir yaklaşım kullanmaktadır. Bu makale, Westminster modeli ile Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sistemindeki ‘Bakan Yardımcılığı’ müessesesine karşılaştırmalı olarak odaklanmakta ve incelemektedir.

In Lijphart’s conceptual scheme, the Westminster model is the prototype for majoritarianism. Historically, the Westminster model has provided a model that influences administrations, and has distinctive (sui generis) characteristics that cannot be generalized even in the first place. The change in the parliamentary system for the Republic of Turkey, which began in 2007, turned into a presidential system with the 2017 referendum. As a method of the study, this article uses a qualitative approach in its analysis. This article comparatively focuses on and examines the Westminster model and the ‘deputy minister’ establishment in the Presidential government system.

Опубликовано в сборнике: Культурно-исторические исследования в Поволжье: проблемы и перспективы материалы III Всероссийского научно-методологического семинара. Министерство культуры Российской Федерации; Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Самарский государственный институт культуры». 2015. С. 405-413.

Organizer: Andreas Serafim (University of Cyprus/ Open University of Cyprus/ University College London)      

Chair: Roger Brock (University of Leeds)

Panelists: Richard Toye (University of Exeter), Charles Marsh (University of Kansas), Christian Kock (University of Copenhagen), Andreas Serafim (University of Cyprus/ Open University of Cyprus/ University College London)

Since antiquity the art of rhetorical persuasion has been employed in many different aspects of civic life, especially public speaking. Rhetoric is central to political processes and outcomes: it gives the speakers the power to influence their audience to achieve their political aims. Although what we know today as the art of public speaking has undergone continuous change since the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Cicero, and Quintilian, nevertheless, it has been suggested that Greco-Roman rhetoric has influenced how contemporary politics is articulated. This panel seeks to examine whether elements of ancient rhetoric can be detected in modern political speeches.
Four scholars from diverse research spectrums – specialists in ancient rhetoric/oratory and others working on contemporary political speech making and communication – examine the application of ancient rhetorical stratagems, figures, tropes, and forms of arguments in contemporary political discourse.

1. R. Toye explores Winston Churchill’s troubled relationship with the Classics, in the context of wider political and cultural attitudes to the Classical learning over the course of his political and literary career.

2. C. Marsh argues that Isocratean rhetoric, with its rejection of Platonic certainties and its solicitation of dissent, provides a proven alternative to modern dilutions of Platonic rhetoric in American politics.

3. C. Kock identifies features of Hitler’s rhetoric that may have made it gripping to large crowds, using a 1940 speech at the “Sportpalast” as example. Thinking about powerful rhetoric in Hermogenes and St. Augustine is found to give suggestive hints.

4. A. Serafim explores how speakers employ humour as a rhetorical strategy to assist them in the attainment of their argumentative objectives. He will suggest that the use of humour in Greco-Roman discourse can help us better understand its use in contemporary discourse.

In modern British politics particular socioeconomic and demographic groups have established an unprecedented presence in government. The overall composition of the House of Commons, however, continues to be highly unrepresentative of society as a whole and this poses serious challenges to Britain’s long-established democratic principles.

From our early twenty-first century vantage point the parliamentary proceedings at Westminster may seem rather sedate and tranquil. Jokes abound of somniferous speeches and genial lunches, whilst the footage of half-empty chambers often broadcast on parliamentlive.tv helps perpetuate this image of political torpor. At Prime Minister’s Questions, when the House of Commons most closely resembles a bearpit, proceedings are both boisterous and passionate, but they are generally ...

Time and Politics: Parliament and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and the British World, is the first cultural and transnational history of modern procedural reform in the Westminster parliamentary system. The book centres on the nineteenth-century emergence of a desire to modernise and make more efficient the procedural rules of parliamentary law-making. Contrary to existing interpretations, which see that history as a product of transformations in political structure and practice, this book demonstrates how the evolution of Parliament’s rules was structured by transformations within the wider culture of time. The spread of an increasingly rigorous time discipline in concert with a growing consciousness of being modern, this book argues, worked to progressively erode the legitimacy of the historically developed rules of parliamentary debate and law-making while simultaneously implanting new ways of judging the effectiveness of parliamentary institutions. By the 1880s, this proc...