Introduction
Politics is one of the most complicated social phenomena that human beings have designed to structure the relations between each other. The values and principles of politics do not always coincide with the values of ordinary people as far as politics has communication and achieving goals as its major focus. Thus, for politicians, it is paramount to settle the controversial questions, even if this settlement demands agreements with their former rivals. Elections, political parties, and interests are the main terms used to characterize politics in a comparative way. This paper focuses on the analysis of elections, political parties, and interests in the United Kingdom and Ukraine through the Rational Choice Theory in order to carry out the comparative analysis of politics techniques and election systems of these two countries.
Elections, Parties, and Interests
Starting with the basic definitions discussed further in this paper, elections can be defined as the assessment given by the nation in respect of the politicians whose ideas the citizens support and whom they want to decide important issues in the Parliament: “Parliamentary elections…should be seen as a referendum on the performance of sitting MPs, not merely as a snapshot nationwide opinion poll determining party voting weights for the next Parliament” (Keegan, 2005). The peculiarity of modern political development is the party system according to which people vote for parties and their platforms rather than for individual politicians (Ace, 2009). Moreover, one of the most important issues in politics is the fact that every party represents the interests of a certain group of people. Thus, in both UK and Ukraine, politics and elections are based on party principles, which differ in several aspects.
Election System in the UK
The discussion of the election system of the United Kingdom should be started by the statement that elections in the UK are carried not because it is demanded by law, but because both politicians and the citizens realize the necessity to evaluate the work of Parliament for a certain period of time (Keegan, 2005). Based on the evaluation, the Parliament either keeps working, or its members are substituted by those who people believe to be able to work more effectively. Elections are not the opportunities to come to power but rather examinations for politicians who are responsible for their work (Keegan, 2005). The periods at which elections are held are mainly unstable as the next election is determined by the need for change rather than by the pure law about the electoral system of the United Kingdom.
Further on, the electoral system of the United Kingdom, as well as of the number of other countries nowadays, is characterized by the party system: “Nearly all MPs represent political parties. The party with the most MPs after a general election usually forms the Government. The next largest party becomes the official Opposition” (Parliament, 2009). Accordingly, the party system can be called proportionate as the party receiving the largest number of votes becomes responsible for the executive branch of power in the UK. The history of the party system is rather long in the UK: “The system of political parties, which has existed in one form or another since at least the 18th century, is an essential element in the working of the constitution” (Parliament, 2009). The dominant parties in the UK today are the Labor Party and the Conservative Party that have been forming the Government since Ward War II (Parliament, 2009).
As it has been already saying, parties are created to represent the interests of the social classes of a certain country. In the UK, the dominant parties are the Conservatives, the Labor Party, and Liberal Democratic Party (Parliament, 2009). Thus, throughout its long history, the Conservative Party of the UK has always been known to represent the interests of monarchy, middle-class business, and agricultural industry. On the other hand, the British Labor Party represents the interests of the working class of the society, which was formerly called the proletarian interests (Parliament, 2009). The minor parties of the British Parliament are also representatives of groups’ interests. Crossbenchers, for example, as the non-partisan people choose to represent situational interests of the social groups demanding it at a certain moment, while Liberal Democrats claim to be concerned with the interests of the whole nation without dividing it into classes or groups (Keegan, 2005).
Election System in Ukraine
The electoral system in Ukraine has attracted the attention of the leading news agencies and political scholars as to the one that is imbalanced and has two, if not three, centers of power, whose functions are sometimes crossed and conflicted (Ace, 2009). The very procedure of Parliamentary elections in Ukraine, as compared to the UK, takes place every four years irrespective of the urgent need for change, etc. In other words, the Parliament of Ukraine is elected for four years, and only the President can dissolve it before the next election by his order (Wolanskyj, 2008).
The party system is also present in Ukraine. The number of political parties exceeds the one observed in the UK manifold as Ukraine stands for the freedom of religious, social, and political views (Ace, 2009). Currently, the dominant parties in Ukraine include the Party of Regions, Julia Tymoshenko Block, and Our Ukraine (Nasha Ukraina) (Wolanskyj, 2008). The peculiarity of the party system lies in the fact that not the parties with the majority of votes form the government, but only the Constitutional majority of Parliament seats allow the political forces to offer the person for the Prime Minister Office (Wolanskyj, 2008). Accordingly, the parties have to negotiate Coalitions to be able to form the government, and the rest of the Parliament automatically becomes the official opposition (Wolanskyj, 2008).
The question of interests is at all absent from the political discussion in Ukraine as far as all the political parties claim to represent the interests of the whole nation, but the reality is that all the powerful political forces in Ukraine are controlled by the representatives of the higher classes, big business, and industry (Ace, 2009). Therefore, the idea of the interest-based parties, some of which represent the working class and others represent business, is not working in the Ukrainian reality.
Rational Choice Theory Criticism
The above-presented data on the electoral systems of the United Kingdom and Ukraine allow making the conclusion that rational choice theory is not applicable for their consideration. The rational choice theory as such holds that people make their choices on the whole, and in politics, in particular, based on rational thinking and potential personal benefits: “In rational choice theories, individuals are seen as motivated by the wants or goals that express their ‘preferences’” (Scott, 2000). This definition is held by scholars like Scott (2000), Browning et al. (2000), etc., to be true for elections, for the party preferences that citizens have, and for their understanding of the interests of the parties they vote for representatives. Politics as such is held for an independent variable, while elections, parties, and interests are dependant variables as they are determined by rational choices of people.
However, if the UK electoral system is considered, it becomes obvious that voters base their decisions on personal assessments of the work of this or that politician or political party, while rational focus on their platforms and the conformity of the latter to the actual activities while at power becomes the concern of voters rather seldom (Keegan, 2005). In Ukraine, the situation is the same as the voters support the political parties that managed to carry out the most impressive election campaigns or whose leaders are charismatic persons enjoying the respect of the social groups (Wolanskyj, 2008). Accordingly, not only elections, parties, and interests are dependant variables as they are determined by rational choices of people, but politics as such becomes a dependant variable as it is formed by personal preferences of voters but not by rational choice (Scott, 2000). Accordingly, the rational choice theory displaying only dependant variables cannot be considered valid and applicable for the comparative analysis of political phenomena on the whole and electoral systems in particular.
Conclusions
To conclude, the electoral systems of the UK and Ukraine display similarities and differences, but they cannot be analyzed through the rational choice theory. However, the attempt to analyze the political processes through the rational choice theory is not a valid one. In the UK, elections are viewed as an assessment of the work of politicians and giving, or not, them a chance to continue their work. In Ukraine, elections are held regularly according to the law, but their results are predetermined by personal, mainly emotional, preferences of voters and not a rational choice.
Works Cited
- Ace. “Ukraine – the Perils of Majoritarianism in a New Democracy.” 2009. Ace project.
- Browning, G., A. Halcli, and F. Webster. Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. Sage Publications, 2000.
- Keegan, Martin. “UK Electoral Systems.” 2005. SCANT.
- Parliament. “The Party System.” 2009. The UK Parliament.
- Scott, John. “Rational Choice Theory.” Private WWW. 2000. Essex.
- Wolanskyj, L. “The electoral system: Progress or stagnation?” ICPS Newsletter 2008: pp. 1 – 2.