MPs play a central role in all democratic systems, but this is particularly true in the UK given its tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. With judges unable to strike down Acts of Parliament for unconstitutionality, MPs have a key role in constitutional protection. Like MPs elsewhere, they also have responsibilities for upholding the constitution and democracy in many other ways, most obviously through holding the government to account, and representing the public, but also, for example, through maintaining standards of political debate. Meg Russell and Lisa James summarise these various important roles.
Members of parliament are central political actors in all democratic systems. Legislatures are highly visible institutions, and MPs have key roles representing citizens, debating key policy matters, scrutinising the executive and approving major changes to the law. The legislature is at the heart of any functioning national democracy.
Hence MPs routinely have important roles within the constitution. But some of their wider roles and responsibilities in upholding and protecting the constitution are less often spoken about. In an age of populism and ‘democratic backsliding’ these deserve reflection. As sadly seen in various countries, MPs are important gatekeepers whose consent can facilitate the dismantling of democratic norms and institutions. But where they stand firm, they can be bulwarks against decline.
MPs have busy lives, and often face numerous competing pressures. This can make it difficult for them to lift their sights and keep their broad constitutional responsibilities in mind. With a new House of Commons elected at Westminster in 2024, containing many new MPs, now is a useful time to reflect on how such relationships work in the UK – where parliament, and therefore MPs, have an unusually high status in the constitution.
The unique nature of the UK constitution
While all parliaments are central, this is more true in the UK than in most other states. Not only is the UK a ‘parliamentary’ democracy, meaning that the government is accountable to parliament, it also has a long-established tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’, meaning that in principle parliament can make or unmake any law.
Nearly all countries have a codified constitution with the status of ‘higher law’, but this is famously not the case in the UK. Consequently judges cannot step in and overturn statutes of the Westminster Parliament on the basis of unconstitutionality, as they can in many other states. Put bluntly, if MPs take bad decisions, there is little that can be done to stop them. While the House of Lords can question policy, it does not in most cases have a blocking power. The media, pressure groups and public opinion are all important democratic constraints; but MPs are the final decision makers. This brings with it a huge and important responsibility.
While Westminster MPs do their jobs in many ways – some focusing locally and others nationally, some representing the governing party and others opposition parties, and some being frontbenchers and others backbenchers, this core constitutional responsibility is one that they all share.
Parliament and government
One of the most central relationships that parliament has is with the government. Indeed, in the public mind the two may sometimes get mixed up. Ministers sit in parliament, and are answerable to parliament. But obviously parliament goes far further, and represents numerous different interests beyond the government.
A core principle of the UK system, and other ‘parliamentary’ democracies, is that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. If it loses this, it can be forced from office. That helps explain why the work of government and parliament are so intertwined day-to-day. It is easy to assume, and is sometimes implied by the media, that in this close relationship between government and parliament, parliament is subservient to government. But the confidence vote means that parliament is actually the boss. It is important for MPs to remember this, particularly when bearing in mind their broader responsibility to protect the constitution.
Parliament and people
The other most obvious relationship is the one between parliament and the people. UK MPs have a close relationship with their constituents, thanks to our ‘first past the post’ electoral system. Many spend a great deal of time on constituency work, both through pursuing individual cases and representing the broader priorities of the constituency. This brings benefits to the UK system, by ensuring that different geographic communities, industries and other interests have a voice in parliament.
The tensions between MPs representing their constituents and their own conscience on policy matters have been recognised all the way back to Edmund Burke (1729-97). While representation is in itself an important constitutional responsibility, MPs must take care to weigh their short-term responsiveness to the public against their broader constitutional roles.
Parliament and other key institutions
Parliamentary sovereignty has important knock-on effects for relationships with other institutions.
One dimension of such knock-on effects relates to devolution. Technically, Westminster retains the power to legislate on any matter. However, an important convention (underpinned by legislation, in a non-binding way) indicates that it should not do so on matters within the policy competence of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without their explicit consent. Tension has arisen over these boundaries in recent years, and MPs need to recognise the sensitivities, and their role in protecting the stability of the devolution settlements.
A quite different dimension concerns the relationship between parliament and the courts. The courts do not have the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, but do have a role in interpreting legislation, and ensuring that the government acts within its legal powers. When disputes arise, it is important that MPs recognise their responsibility to uphold the rule of law, and not to undermine confidence in the justice system.
Parliament and political parties
Political parties are central to the operation of all modern parliaments, and Westminster is no exception. Most MPs are elected on a party ticket, and parties organise much of the important business of parliament. In practice, a great deal of the work that MPs do will be inside their parties. Nonetheless, a great deal of cross-party work also goes on, some of it visible (e.g. through select committees), and some through more informal connections behind the scenes.
MPs’ loyalty to political parties is natural, and much of the operation of the system assumes that parties are cohesive blocks. But when parties vote together this may depend as much on leaders listening to MPs as the other way around. When these internal communication channels break down, or where MPs feel that following the party whip would conflict with their conscience, rebellions may occur. This may sometimes extend to matters of constitutional principle, given MPs’ core responsibility to protect our democracy. In countries where ‘democratic backsliding’ has occurred, this has often been facilitated by MPs too readily agreeing to requests from leaders to dismantle checks on their own power.
In the UK system, the opposition has a very visible role, and various privileges in parliament. A vigilant opposition may be important to holding the government to account, and ensuring that policy is well thought through. This role deserves respect, but to be also carried out responsibly.
Parliament and the quality of political debate
Finally, parliament lies at the centre of national political debate. The words of MPs, both inside parliament and beyond – for example in the TV studios, or on social media – are key to shaping how members of the public think and talk about politics. This too brings major responsibilities.
Overly adversarial debate, personalised attacks and political ‘point-scoring’ may turn the public off politics. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, where it can be hard to know what to believe, MPs also need to be scrupulous in seeking to present reliable evidence, and correcting the record if they make a mistake.
A particular problem occurs if MPs are tempted to join the chorus of criticism targeted at Westminster itself. While there are many valid arguments for reform (and vehicles for it), suggesting that the system is ‘broken’ or corrupt is only likely to drive down trust. If parliamentarians are not at the forefront of defending and protecting the reputation of parliament, few others may be able to do so.
Conclusion
While some of the constitutional responsibilities of MPs – such as holding the government to account, or representing the public – are well known, others are less often discussed. Particularly given the UK’s principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Westminster MPs are even more in the frontline of protecting the constitution than those in other parliaments. MPs also determine to a large extent the quality of political debate, including how the public look at politics in general and the institution of parliament itself.
MPs are busy people, with many responsibilities – including to their parties, their constituents and the wider public. But it is important for them to be able to lift their sights, and always keep their wider constitutional responsibilities in mind.
The Constitution Unit has recently published MPs’ Role in the Constitution: A Practical Guide, which has been circulated to MPs. The document is freely available to download from our website. This work is part of our Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy project.
About the authors
Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Constitution Unit.
Lisa James is a Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit.
Featured image: HoC Benches & Red Lines in Chamber (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.