WHY DID BRITAIN BECOME MORE DEMOCRATIC?

WHY DID BRITAIN BECOME MORE DEMOCRATIC?

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries Britain underwent a sustained period of massive social, economic and political change, which impacted every aspect of life. In the early 1800s Britain was the most technologically advanced nation in the world but was politically backward. Britain was an oligarchy as only 4.71% of the adult population were enfranchised and this minority was invariably the landed social elite. Additionally, the British electoral system was susceptible to bribery and corruption and Britain was an agrarian society.
However, by the end of the 19th century, there had been massive urbanisation, the British population had skyrocketed, the nation’s wealth had been redistributed by the Industrial Revolution and a new “middle class” had been created.
The first set of factors leading to democratic reform it is necessary to address are the social changes occurring between 1832 and 1928.
Firstly, the population of Britain increased exponentially. In 1831, the population was 18 million and by 1918 this figure had exceeded 40 million. In addition, this larger population had become more urbanised. As Britain became increasingly industrial, the majority of work was in the cities and consequently there was a mass exodus of agricultural labourers to the major cities.
Not only was the population larger and more urbanised, it grew increasingly inter-connected. In 1848, there was a mere 7360 km of rail track in Britain and by 1914 this had become 28800 km. Few country towns were far from a station an cities were the focus of major lines. This new rail system connected Britain like never before. There were many connotations of this, reverberating through every aspect of life in Britain. News spread at previously unheard of speed and this increased class awareness and interest in politics nationwide.
This was augmented by the passing of the 1870 and 1872 Education Acts, which increased the number of children included in compulsory schooling and detailed how long they must stay in education. This resulted in an increase in the intelligence of the average British person. This, it could be argued resulted in an increase in their political interest and capability. Some historians have argued that this was a key factor in the middle class’ demand for the vote. It also helped to debunk the long held belief among the upper class that the working class were an inferior, uneducated rabble.
Similarly, during the period under discussion the social role and perception of women changed radically. In the 1800’s women’s education, wage rates and legal status were invariably inferior to that of men. Women were seen as their husband’s possessions and if they did not marry, their standard of living was likely to be very low. This society did not see women as worthy of the franchise. However, by the passing of the 1918 Representation of the people act - in which some women were enfranchised- this had changed.
One factor prompting this was the Suffragette campaign. The Suffragettes were a political pressure group seeking women’s suffrage. They were formed by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst who broke away from the moderate Suffragists to form her own, more radical, group. The Suffragette motto was “deeds not words”, their methods were ostentatiously unlawful and their campaign of civil disobedience frequently resulted in jail sentences. As the Suffragette campaign became increasingly violent in the early 20th century, public and political opposition to the cause of women’s suffrage stepped up.
However, this was balanced by the work of women during the First World War. While many men were abroad fighting, women filled their jobs an kept the home front running. There were many implications of this including; the perception of women changed. As they were seen to be carrying out men’s jobs they were perceived to be equally capable along side men. Additionally some historian have expressed the view that after the First World War the government felt obliged to give women the franchise as an acknowledgement of their work during wartime.
Another factor in women’s enfranchisement was the election of David Lloyd-George as Prime Minister during the Great War. It has been suggested that Lloyd-George was more ready to accept reform than his predecessor Herbert Asquith.
In keeping with the theme of World War One, it can be suggested that one factor in the enfranchisement of all men over 21 in 1918 was the government attempting to reward the soldiers who were returning home. A more cynical interpretation of this could be that the government felt that if these men were willing to fight and indeed die for their country then they should have a say in the country’s running.
Moreover, we must critically examine the economic factors prompting reform.
As aforementioned, the Industrial Revolution sent shockwaves through every aspect of British life. So much so that Thompson argues that: “ the Industrial revolution was the major factor in reform.” Britain was the first country in world to enter into this accelerated period of development and prosperity. Britain was in control of a massive empire. However, in spite of this dominance, Britain was politically backward. For example, in New Zealand, universal suffrage had been established while one third of men and no women in Britain had the vote. More significantly, by the 1900’s Germany had caught up with Britain economically and overtaken politically. It has been argued that reform was a product of this rivalry.
In addition, the industrial revolution had brought new wealth to many factory owners and businessmen. This new “middle class” bridged the gap between the landed elite and lowly working class. They were the cornerstone of British prosperity and industrial might. Consequently, they were seen as respectable and worthy of the franchise.
Similarly, towards the latter part of the 19th century, trade unionism had become increasingly prominent. This ideology had previously been seen as revolutionary as it prompted class awareness and galvanised the working class. It facilitated betted working conditions and induced reform.
From this unionism sprung the Labour movement and in 1906, the Labour Party. Cole argues that: ”the formation of the Labour Party was a major factor in reform.” By the formation of Labour, some working men had been given the vote and Labour offered them representation. This threatened the Tories and the Whigs and was a factor leading to their political pragmatism. They were forced to refine their policy and party structure and make an effort to appeal to the working class in order to compete with Labour.
Similarly, the lower classes increasingly saw socialism as a vehicle to improve their dreadful conditions. This worried the Tories and the Whigs and they felt they needed to appease the working man in order to turn him away from the socialist ideology. This undoubtedly encouraged political reform.
Political pragmatism did not only affect political parties, many politicians showed strong self-interest. By the 1860’s politicians supporting reform became public heroes. Some historians have argued that a major factor in reform was the rivalry between the Tories and the Whigs, and more specifically that between the parties leaders, Disraeli and Gladstone, the two most prominent politicians of the day. The Tories wanted to “dish the Whigs”. They believed that by enfranchising the working man they would secure his vote in future. Disraeli seize an opportunity for reform when the Liberal government collapsed over the issue of how much reform should be given and the Tories took power. It has been suggested by John Kerr that this was a key factor in the passing of the 1867 Reform Act.
It could be argued that political reform was caused by the cumulative effect of all the factors mentioned above. However, the Industrial Revolution can certainly be cited as a significant factor prompting reform as it had so many effects and changed the social and political structures in Britain so much that politics had no choice but to catch up .
However, it could also be argued that Cole was justified in his opinion that the formation of the Labour party was the most prevalent factor causing reform as the Whigs and the Tories were threatened into making changes.
It could also be said that the increased national communication and education and the consequential rise in class awareness, intelligence and political interest was a massive factor causing reform as British citizens were compelled to demand a say in their countries running.