 Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to, good morning, good morning everyone. Welcome to Political Science 303 once again, right after the quiz. I know how some of you feel so we can talk about it in the break. We can chit chat about the quiz, no worries. What I want you to do, or what I want you to think about, regarding the quiz is Please consider it as a learning exercise. Okay, so so get ready for the midterm exam, which will be very similar in terms of style and structure. Okay, so there will be a little bit of choice but that you'll have to organize your ideas, take notes, do an outline and then try to jot down your ideas in a more systematic manner. All right, so that's about it, about the quiz. Again, we can gossip about it in the break but let me first let me first go over our course material this morning. We have a few latecomers so we can settle down and then we'll continue. Okay Where were we? I know you won't remember much of it because of the amnesia related to the quiz but but we've done British state and historical perspective, state tradition, critical junctures in history, then political economy of economic and social policies, you know the consensus era, well collectivist era, consensus era, then post 1970s, conservative revolution and all that, governance and policymaking, we've looked at the executive. What does the cabinet do? What does it look like? Also the Westminster model. Okay, so the typical Westminster model, the the principles of this very specific type of parliamentary democracy, okay? Then we did do an introduction to representation and participation. We I think started off with the legislature. I just want to you know do a recap of the legislature, right? I felt I rushed it a little bit, okay? So let me let me go back to where I was when I was discussing the Parliament. Sorry about this, this takes a while. Okay. The British Parliament is compulsive to houses. Therefore, it's what kind of a bicameral system, okay? Bicameral legislature, all right, which is generally found in consensus or majoritarian systems? Bicameral, yes, you're right, in the consensus systems, you're right. But that by but that consensus system, or is it the consensus system or the majoritarian model of democracy that exists more empirically prevalent worldwide? Which one of these? Is it the consensus system or is it the majoritarian system which is more prevalent, which is the dominant model in the world? Consensus, okay, that's good to remember, very good. Okay, in this system, we've got a bicameral legislature, we've got the upper house, the house of lords, and we've got the lower house. So whenever we generally, in general, whenever we refer to the Parliament, we categorically refer to the lower houses, okay, across the advanced industrialized countries, whenever we refer to the Parliament, we generally refer to, of course, the legislature itself, but the House of Commons in this context, all right. So the Parliament, the British Parliament houses two chambers, one of which is hereditary, it's a hereditary institution, the House of Lords, in that respect, I don't want to say undemocratic or non-democratic, but when we refer to parliamentary democracy, we mean the House of Commons, okay, and the legislature houses the crown two, okay. House of Commons, the lower house, has three major functions, at least in theory, okay. It passes laws, it authorizes taxation, remember the motto, no taxation without representation. From the 17th century onwards, taxation is one of the most important functions of what the Parliament does, right, and it also reviews public administration and also government policy, okay. The real functions, however, in time have been changing, in the sense that its legislative function is being overshadowed with the executives, with the cabinets overpowering the legislature. So when you look at the relationship between the legislature and the executive, yes, you would think that it is the legislature who makes, or which makes laws, but in effect, and also in time, effectively, it is the executive which really dominates the legislature in terms of, in terms of setting the legislative agenda. The Parliament does not generally, the Parliament does not generally take initiative and make, makes laws, but what happens is, it is the governments that work with the Parliament, and in time, we see the domination of the Parliament by the executive, okay. So the real function, when you look at the real function of the House of Commons in this context, it's basically giving assent to what the, what the government wishes to do because of, because of the strengthening of the executive in time. When I refer to strengthening of the executive, I also mean, I also refer to two separate, but also analytically separate, but in a way, intricately related trends. There is the strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis the Parliament, so that's one level of executives getting stronger and stronger, and secondly, we see the emergence of core executives composed of the Prime Minister's office, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Home Minister, Minister of Home Affairs, Ministry, Ministry for Home Affairs. All of these, I mean, these guys have also been dominating the executive too. They've also been dominating the cabinet too, so there is some kind of a dual process of strengthening of the executive. Once again, the executive is increasingly dominating the legislature, so the balance of power shifts increasingly in favor of the executive, and secondly, the balance of power within the cabinet, it gravitates towards the Prime Minister and the few ministers and their private advisors. So, and this also means that given the fact that in the majority of governments, I mean, an overwhelming majority of governments, we do not see coalitions. We see Labour Party or Conservative Party alternating since 1945, except for the last, I mean, except for 2010 elections, or the Parliament that was formed after 2010 election. We see a single party composing or comprising of the executive, and therefore ruling in a way or reining over the Parliament. Think of it like this. If a party gets, think of this as the legislature, if a party gets a vote of confidence, here is the cabinet. If the cabinet, which are basically, I mean, its members of which are composed of party members here, and the leader of the party is the Prime Minister, they get 52% of the votes or 52% of the seats, I'm sorry, in the Parliament. So the vote of confidence is guaranteed, and whatever they put on the agenda, we know in advance, unless there are backbenchers, which I shall be talking about later, unless we have backbenchers who dissent from the cabinet, then the bill will become law. Is that clear? Right? Because the party who forms the executive, who forms the cabinet, will automatically gain the votes, 50% plus one of the votes. So that's going to be in a way guaranteed in this kind of a system. And this happens very often, or almost always the case, in the British system. Clear? So this is one way in which in the parliamentary system, we witness domination of the Parliament by the executive. So when you look at the relationship between the executive and the legislature, it's not a balanced relationship. And this imbalance is increasing over time. Contrast that with, I'm sorry, consensus systems or consociational systems, in which there are multiple parties forming a coalition, some of which may dissent, may object to what the cabinet wishes to do. So that's a huge, that's a very important contrast between consensus systems and majoritarian systems. Clear? Okay. The upper house, which is, by the way, the House of Commons is composed of around 650 seats members. The House of Lords is about 74750 members. And they are unelected members. They are hereditary peers, the dukes, the earls, the marquee, and also barons and others. There are law lords who have been there as members of the House of Lords. There are life peers, most of which have traditionally been appointed by the prime minister himself or herself, and about 20 to 25 archbishops representing the Church of England. The House of Lords, interestingly, serves as a final court of appeal when it comes to civil cases and also when it comes to criminal cases. It is in this sense there is a kind of fusion of powers in the legislature. Remember, we talked about the Westminster model and we mentioned, I talked, I said, I really explained to you that this is a system also of fusion of powers as opposed to separation of powers. In the separation of powers model, we have the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, all separate. Judiciary is the independent, but you see the House of Lords also acting, so serving as a final court of appeal. That's also interesting. What the House of Lords does is, in fact, revision. So the most important function of the House of Lords, the upper house, is making revisions on the letter of the legislation. We make a distinction, or jurists make a distinction between the spirit of the legislation or law and the letter of law. They don't tinker with the spirit of the law, so-called, but they clean up the text so that it really conforms to the case law. It conforms to the tradition. It conforms to the constitution. They also provide expertise in drafting legislation. They can suggest in that respect amendments to the House of Commons. Let's clean it up this way, or would you consider it that way? And what's important here is that they cannot block any legislation. They can delay the legislation, the passage of the legislation, but they do not have the right to block the legislation. They cannot say, okay, we reject what passed in the House of Commons. We don't like that, so we don't want it. They can't do that. They don't do that. So that's about it in terms of who does what. When we refer to other elements in the legislature, we have parliamentary committees which examine specific policies. They also monitor ministries, different departments, within the executive. So there is some control by the parliament over the executive. Mind you, bureaucracy is part of the executive. So in that respect, the legislature has certain functions. They're allowed, as a set of privileges, in order to buy or through monitoring, overseeing what the executive arm of the cabinet does. They can hold hearings. They can take testimony. They can question civil servants. Again, that also implies that the legislature oversees what the executive does, and they can issue reports on policies and stuff. There is also the institution of backbench dissent. Backbenchers, when you look at the British parliament, you see there are benches, okay? Here is the speaker's desk, or his microphone, and there are backbenchers generally, are those members of parliament who sit on the upper benches who do not constitute the rank and file, the higher ranking officials in the party. So members of the governing party which do not hold offices, and there are also members of the opposition. So especially rank and file members of the party, political party in opposition. This dissent, I mean, when you look at the backbenchers, they've generally been differential, respectful. But in time, this has been changing. You see in the parliament, or you hear in the parliament, a lot of noise at the background. If you watch British parliament in session, by the way, just note my parlance. Whenever I say British parliament, I refer to the lower house with the green seats, not the red seats, okay? Just I wish I could show you the British parliament in session. Just please log on to the website of the British parliament and watch how they debate issues. Anyway, generally they've been quite differential, quite respectful. But in time, this difference has been changing. 1993, I remember on an issue about the EU, backbenchers revolted against the major government. Major was the prime minister of the conservative party that was in power by then. Backbenchers voted against their own prime minister. They really weakened the conservative party in time. And therefore, and then we see Tony Blair coming to power. In 2003, I also remember instances of when Blair was the prime minister, there were backbenchers about, I think, one-third of the MPs, labor MPs, defected and voted against use of military force in Iraq. So it was such a divisive issue that there was so much backbench dissent. Even the members of the governing party voted against their own government bill, voted against government's policy. So we do not see a categoric party discipline in this case, which we see in other countries such as France. There is strong party discipline. You can also imagine that there is a high degree of party discipline in this country. But in the British case, there is in a way the institution of backbench dissent, which is part and parcel of the system. It exists. It is allowed as long as in general it is deferential. It is respected. And it overturns decisions. There have been incidents that dissent really got or dissenders really got what they wanted. They can veto what their prime minister proposed in the parliament. Then comes the party system and the political parties. So we've completed our discussion on the legislature. This is what the legislature looks like, bicameral system. And now what about the parties? So this is going to be the order of which we shall be discussing other cases. So we first in representation participation, we will look at the parliament under representation and participation. Then we'll talk about the party system and the political parties. The British system has traditionally been known as in terms of a party system, a two party system. When we look at the party systems in comparative terms, we can talk about two party systems. We can talk about dominant party systems. We can talk about multi-party systems. In two party systems, obviously, we talk about two main parties which attract a lot of attention in elections. They get generally more than 30% each, generally. And these two parties generally make up most of the seats in the parliament. In a predominant or a dominant party system in advanced industrialized countries, we see a party emerging to have won more than 50% of the seats. And there may be other parties in the system. In a multi-party system, we have many parties. There is almost always alternation. So no one, you know, no one really holds power all the time. And the seats are divided and therefore power, legislative power, is divided, is dispersed. The British system, the British party system, has always been known traditionally as a two-party system. This is what we know about Britain in general, but things have been changing. Although the system is generally or traditionally referred to as a two-party system, there have been some changes. Yes, when you look at the earlier periods, post-World War II period, there have been labor governments and conservative governments. It sounds like there is alternation all the time. But from the mid-1970s, but especially 1980s onwards, we have other parties towards the center, increasing their influence. So there is some kind of a concentration at the center or towards the center. And since the 2000s, we see the emergence of a third party, the Liberal Democratic Party, who wins consecutively high number of seats so that the system becomes more like a two-and-a-half party system. So we have two main parties, two major parties, and we have a smaller party on the side. So that's why it's called a two-and-a-half party system. Yes, this case is generally referred to or traditionally referred to as a two-party system, but it is changing. So please note this change. From 2010 onwards, we have a coalition of the Liberal Democrats, the smaller party, and one of the larger parties, conservatives, forming a government, which was the first coalition as such since 1945, which is also important to remember. But until then, we see one party dominating the parliament and then alternating the other party coming to power. And there was alternation between conservatives and labor parties. Labor Party, it was founded by unions and socialists. When you look at the basis of political power, its traditional basis of political power, mostly manual workers. When you look at the post-World War II era, in general, you would be three times likely to vote labor had you been a worker, had you been part of the working class. And two-thirds of the working class was traditionally voting labor for decades. 1970s, about mid-1970s, there has been some disillusionment with the party. And then some disillusionment, I meant some kind of disillusionment with the social democratic ideology, with the welfare state, after which we see alternation from labor to conservatives, the conservative revolution in 1979. So labor has been moderating its ideology and expanding its base, basis of political support. There have been divisions in the 1970s, which I'll talk about in a moment. And some of these divisions have been about whether to be part of the EU or not, or whether we should remain as old labor, or whether we could renew ourselves and expand our basis of political support. So these were the questions of the time. But there has been agreement, some kind of cohesion since the 1980s. The party emerged as a left of center, moderate left of center, but still a center party, or a party that really sits at the center of the political spectrum from the 1990s onwards. Blair modernized the party, it revamped the party, it modernized its appeal beyond its traditional core values, and the party emerged as new labor. So there is some kind of a reinvention or revamping of the party under Blair. So it was a process of in a way rebranding the party, late 1990s. Ed Miliband, 2010 onwards, one of the Miliband brothers, Miliband wanted to reorient the party towards its more traditional focus. Let's go back to our origins. Let's rebrand our party again or go back to our old brand of old labor. So there is some kind of a pendulum swinging back and forth between new labor, but also coming back to traditional old labor party. The second party that I'd like to talk about in Britain is the conservative party, obviously. It dates back to the 18th century, one of the longest surviving parties in Europe, in advanced industrialized countries. Its pragmatic approach, its flexibility really explains its strength and its also durability in time. It built the roots of the modern welfare state in the 19th century, late 19th century. There have been divisions, 1970s, divisions within the party over the role of the party, over Britain's role in the EU. So there have been 1980s were years, highly divisive years in terms of whether we should remain within the EU, whether we should lead the EU, whether we should in fact get rid of the EU. So Britain had an ambivalent position under Margaret Thatcher especially. She said, I remember, Britain will never, ever be part of EMU, Economic and Monitor Union. So we won't give up the Queen's face on our banknote. We don't want the euro. So we want to retain our old conservative values, our own national identity and all that. So there has been much discussion. Cameron, when he became the party's chief, tried to moderate the party, tried to expand its basis of political support, revamped the party to include not only its traditional core but also new parts or other parts of the electorate. Yes, its values have also been changing. Security is very important in the eyes of Cameron and others, but at the same time, poverty became an issue, which you would think that it would be part and parcel of a traditional labor stronghold agenda. And also climate change, surprisingly. Cameron has also been advocating policies mitigating climate change. So these are, as you can see, these are policies in which the conservative party, the traditional conservative party, is changing. It wishes to expand its basis of political support. It wishes to target a group at the center of the political spectrum with the changing societies, changing political parties. So there has been a groping towards the center in both political parties. Then comes the Liberal Democrats, which have been challenging labor and conservative governments through the 1970s. Liberals and social Democrats came together. Liberals had been there since the 1970s. It was the only contender. Faction out of labor, Labor Party, joined the Liberals and they formed the Liberal Democrats, Democratic Party in 1987. And it emerged as a left of center critic of the ruling government. So when you look at the spectrum here, you see towards your right conservative party, Labor Party towards the center and also towards the left of the Labor Party, you see the Liberal Democrats. Then we see a very interesting phenomenon, United Kingdom Independence Party, which run at the EP elections, European Parliamentary elections. It's a right-wing populist party. It does have an anti-immigrant rhetoric. It proposes corporate as well as inheritance tax cuts. Obviously, independence meant highly Eurosceptic, skeptical about or of the European Union came on top within Britain in the 2014 EP elections. It actually got about just a little bit less than one third of all votes in Britain. So UKIP, United Kingdom Independence Party, does not run at the domestic level, but I wanted to show you that United Kingdom there emerged a party which runs for EP seats, European Parliamentary seats. And this was very interesting. Let me talk to you about the electoral system. Remember we talked about the fact that we observe two ideal typical electoral systems. One is the first past the post system and the other is the proportional system. Did I give an example? I must have given you an example. Yes, I did. So you know what we mean by the first past the post system or the single-member plurality system? If there are 650 seats in the British Parliament, how many districts are there in Britain? If we know that Britain is a case of single-member plurality system and we know that in the House of Commons there are 650 seats, 650 MPs, 650 districts. Clear? So Britain is divided into 650 districts and for each of these 650 seats, there is competition among the parties. Is that clear? Do we all know what I'm talking about? So Britain is divided into 650 districts and for one of these districts, I'm very good at drawing, I know, party A, party B, party C, party D, party E. These are the competitors or MP or prospective MP party or candidate A, candidate B, candidate C of party A, candidate of party B, candidate of party C and what happens here is that let's say that we have, and what have you. So who wins here? Candidate C or candidate of party C. So this guy goes to the parliament or this lady goes to the parliament. So that's why it's called the first past the post system or single-member plurality system or winner takes all system. Winner took all. One of the 650 districts goes to the parliament directly. What this system does is that these systems in general amass power to the large parties and they generally reduce the influence of small parties. How? What do you think? How? Why? Why would a system as such amass more power, give more power or give more influence to the large parties and it becomes very difficult for smaller or candidates of smaller parties to win in the elections. Anything you'd like to add? That's also important. If you're a big party, you're more wealthy. That means your wealth would translate into power especially in this kind of system. More seats mean confidential votes. I didn't get that. Confidence. They can win the vote of confidence. That's also true. So if you are a candidate of one of the large parties, you know that your party will be campaigning for you and you will be campaigning for the large party. It becomes quite easy or it becomes easier to campaign. Then it is likely that especially in a system as such, you will win at the end of the day or by the end of the day. The system as such really exaggerates the power, the influence of a large party because you have your party behind you. You can lean on your party. You can rely on your party. If you are a candidate of a small party, yes, there's no national threshold, so that's a plus. You can get elected because of an absence of a national threshold. You can get elected, but at the same time it becomes very difficult for you to run the campaign because you don't, I mean, voters will not get to hear about the party itself even if you are, you may be a strong candidate. So these kinds of systems which are more or less first-past-the-post systems or winner-takes-all systems or single-member plurality systems, they in general categorically increase the influence of large parties and reduce the influence of smaller parties. What happened in the elections, 1945 till 2010? We see alternation in power. What does alternation mean? What does alternate mean? Very good. So alternation means change in the party that forms the government. Clear? We'll talk about this also in France, which is also very important there. But alternation means change in the ruling party. The ruling party changes. When you look at the number of seats in the parliament, you see that it's really zigzagging. Conservatives rising at a plateau for two terms, then falling, then rising, falling, rising, rising, falling, falling, rising, rising, rising, labor top falling, rising, late 1960s, falling quite stable but falling 1970s, late 1970s and thatcher years early 1980s, then increasingly rising, Tony Blair wins a second term, then secular decline and declining throughout. So you see whomever gets the highest number of votes will form the government in a two, even in a two and a half party system. This means that there is alternation since 1945. I mean many, many, many consecutive instances of alternation. That's important to remember. We see instances of alternation as you can see. It's been up until 2010, up until 2010, we have one party itself exclusively forming the government and holding all executive power, amassing all executive power. From 2010 till 2015, we had the conservative party winning most of the votes but still its seats were not enough to form a government. I have a question here. Please, very nice. House of Lords, sure. What the house does is that it refines legislation. It cannot block legislation, that's what you need to remember. Yes, each piece of legislation is read three times in the House of Commons. It's also read three times in the House of Lords. But what the House of Lords do is that it cleans up the letter of the legislation. It doesn't tinker with the spirit of the legislation. It refines the legislation, puts it into standard language. Yes, it cannot block legislation, as I said, but what it can do is to delay the legislation. Its amendments are generally minimal. It can advise against sometimes parts of the articles and may say, may tell the House of Commons to revise and resubmit. So revise and pass and then we'll clean it up and then we'll pass it as is. So it's mostly a revision rule. Cannot block legislation. Can delay legislation? This doesn't happen very often. Any other questions? Okay. Anything about the electoral system? Do we all understand what it means when it takes all versus proportional? If this had been a proportional representation system instead of a winner takes all system, and if there would be three seats to be filled for this district, these guys, I mean, this district will be sending three MPs to fill these three seats in the parliament. Who would they be? A, B, C. But because we have single member plurality system, we have the winner takes all system or outcome. So we have the 21% candidate or the candidate who gets the highest number of votes will be going to the parliament. Okay. Electoral outcomes. May 2010 elections, which was a shock to the system. It resulted in what's called the Hang Parliament. The Conservative party obtained 306 seats, but it wasn't enough to form the government because 650 divided by 2, 325 plus 1 for absolute majority to win confidence. 326 seats are needed. And falls short of 326 seats, simple majority that is. We've got Labour almost 260 seats and Lib Dems 57 seats. Interestingly, we had the rightmost and the leftmost in the political spectrum of parties forming a coalition which makes up or made up 363 seats, which, which passed the threshold of 326. So the leftmost and the rightmost in the political spectrum of these two parties, I mean big parties, formed the coalition. The most recent election in 2015. Conservatives had 330 seats under Cameron. Labour, 230 something. Scottish National Party emerges as more than 50 seats, almost 60 seats. Liberal Democrats plunge to eight seats. So 326 seats needed for majority. 330 seats obtained by the Conservatives. Therefore Cameron formed the government. He had promised a referendum and the referendum resulted in a nay, in a no. Then he felt obliged to resign and we have a new Prime Minister. His name is Theresa May. Okay. Okay, you want the numbers? Sure. Conservatives, 330 seats. Labour, 232 seats. Scottish National Party 56. It's a regional national, well national party. Liberal Democrats, eight seats. Conservatives had a, you know, not a paper thin majority, so called, but quite a slim majority and formed, they formed the government. Then comes political culture. Massive economic dislocations. Oil induced shock, 1972, 73, 78, 79. So many, many, many economic changes. Political strife. Governments could not last. They couldn't deliver. They couldn't cater to the needs. Social dislocations, unemployment, skyrocketing. 1979, Margaret Thatcher wins the votes and she becomes the Prime Minister. First lady Prime Minister in British history, which is sometimes referred to, I mean, her doings, her ideology, her policies can be summed up as the conservative revolution that starts in Britain, then gets disseminated worldwide. I mean, right after Thatcher, then comes the power from Reagan, Republican Party candidate, 1980. Weakening of class bonds, especially after the 1970s, the turmoil, everyone was protesting against both governments, alternating governments of the time. And the national identity was increasingly complicated with or after the decolonization period, 1950s, 1960s. Immigrants coming to Britain. Race became an issue. Ethnicity became an issue. The British have always seen themselves as multicultural society. But the identity of Britishness have been increasingly questioned since the 1980s, 1990s. Protest movements include anti-GMO, anti-globalization, high fuel prices of the 1990s, and especially early 2000s, war in Iraq. This was a massive, massive movement. Millions took to the streets in London and elsewhere. I mean, there was, every weekend, there was some protests going on, especially around 2003, 2002, 2003. So many, many, many movements have been emphasizing issues, have been taking up to the streets. Protest have been increasingly visible. Anti-terror movements also came to the fore. And then all of these meant that we have an increasing level of political mobilization, political protests, taking up to the streets, increasing. So we have not like the 60s and the 70s, but a more sensitive society or sensitive social groups really protesting and also really, you know, voicing their dissent over especially government policy. War in Iraq, GMOs, globalization. So all of these were very important issues of the 1990s and 2000s. And the most recent referendum was also very interesting. Brexit before and after the vote. So for the in-class assignment, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to see a TED talk, which will be announced soon. And next week you will be writing the in-class assignment. Let me briefly summarize how we do the in-class assignments. We will give you three in-class assignments in total. You have the option of taking two of these. In fact, you cannot write three of them. Okay? So you'll be writing two of these. That's the nice thing. That's an upside of the in-class assignment. But there's a downside to it too. If you miss, if you don't take the first one, but fall sick and cannot write the second, you will have missed the opportunity of a makeup because of the fact, because we do not give, there's no possibility of makeups for the in-class assignments. Okay? So if I were you, I would, you know, I would try to make sure that I take that 5% credit into my pocket. So how we do it, we generally ask you to watch a documentary or a TED talk or read something about contemporary politics. And then we'll ask you a discussion question in class. And you'll be writing your ideas, your insights on what you've learned, what makes you think, or what really those things made you think, and discuss those in about three to four paragraphs. Okay? So one side of an A4 paper. And in terms of your prep, you can bring in an A4 sheet. You can take notes on it. You cannot plagiarize. You cannot copy from your friends. If I were you, I would take notes from the material that we would like you to follow. And then also blend in your lecture notes. And think about, you know, how can this guy ask a question about, or what kind of a question there will be for this assignment. So we'll do the assignment sometime next week. I'll announce it through airs, through stars. Normally I give about 24 hours for prep. This, I mean, it'll depend on the mood of the class and also on my pace this time. Okay, going back to our stuff. Current challenges. I'll cover one major challenge here in the in-class assignment. So I don't want to discuss that. I hope you'll enjoy the talk. But Northern Ireland had always been a problem. 1920s partitioning of the island of Ireland. We see or we witness Protestants and Catholics or Catholic Republicans, Republicans who wish to retain the crown and Protestants wish to secede. There's a clash among these societies, these groups. Irish Republican army gets formed and it engages in activity against the British government. It began disarming in 2001 under Blair government and in time, strengthening of radical parties in Northern Ireland, especially in 2001, we see an incident. But in 2007, there was a power sharing agreement between the UK government, the British government and the Northern Ireland parliament. So there is some devolution, devolution of power away from the central government towards Northern Ireland in particular. Independent Scotland, Scotland wish to obtain increasingly, they increasingly wish to obtain powers, especially legislative functions. But in the referendum, there was 55% of the voters said no. So they remain within the UK, so we don't have an independent Scotland by the end of the day. Constitutional reform had been on the agenda since the late 1990s, especially early 2000s. What to do with the House of Lords, what to do with the crown, the role of monarchy and hereditary institutions, and also devolution, decentralization, power devolving from the centre to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. So what to do with it? Shall we constitutionalize it? Shall we change our legal structure? That was one of the issues that made it to the top of the agenda in the 2000s, especially limits of multiculturalism. The bomb attacks, 7-7, July 2007. Minorities parliamentary representation has always been weak, restrictive immigration law, increased scrutiny of Muslims. This led Britons to question their identity. We had the idea of British multiculturalism. Is it a myth? Is it a reality? So what do we make of British multiculturalism? So these were making to the headlines in the 2000s and we still see its repercussions also in the Brexit issue, as you shall be seeing or you shall be watching, which also brings us to the existentialist so-called issue, Britain's status, Britain's role in the EU. This issue emerged as a new cleavage as UKIP became a major player, not only in the EU, but also domestically, and this process led to the Brexit vote. But 48 points, something said no to Brexit. 51 points, something said leave. 48 points, something said remain. 51 points something and 48 points something. So can we govern by referenda? If half of the country wishes something, what about the rest? So that becomes an issue in understanding not only contemporary British politics, but also democracy as majoritarianism. Remember we talked about Leipart's models, majoritarian versus consensus or consociational forms or models of democracy? Can we rule or do we rule by majoritarianism and is that necessarily democratic? Or do we understand democracy as majoritarianism, as was the case in the Brexit vote? Is that democracy? So these are the questions that make it to the top agenda in the most recent period. This concludes my discussion on the case study on Britain. Mind you, whenever we talk about, whenever we discuss a case like Britain as we shall be doing the case of France, I really wish you, I really wish, I really want you to think about other cases and compare these cases across different countries, different sectors, different types of policymaking, different organizations of state, different representation and participation modes. So whenever you're working on this case, keep all those at the back of your mind and try to compare as much as you can. Any questions? What I want you to do by the end or throughout this course is that you compare what you learn from this case with what you will be learning or what you have learned for other cases. So keep what democracy means, what are the forms and models of democracy at the back of your mind? And this kind of electoral system produces what kind of outcomes. What other types of electoral systems would produce what kind of outcomes? What does this mean for inequality? What does this mean for power sharing? Not only in Britain, but also for other countries. So that's what I want to do in this course. So that you educate yourself or we educate ourselves, we can compare our societies with other societies and arrive at intelligent and discriminating judgments about the world around us. Okay, I'll see you next week because the Friday's lecture is canceled because of the Republic holiday. Thank you very much. See you next time.