In the British political system, a row of checks and balances and other constraints, both formal and informal, exist to prevent the emergence of concentrated and unconstrained political power. In particular, they are the state system of power separation, the role that the monarch plays in the process, and the historical constitutes of this phenomenon.
Speaking about significant constraints preventing the emergence of concentrated and unconstrained political power in the British political system, power separation in Britain should be addressed, first of all. Generally, in the United Kingdom, power is separated between Parliament representing a legislative branch of power; Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments & Civil Service representing executive power; and Courts exercising judiciary power. However, this power separation is only a theoretical one as, in practice, the phenomenon of “power fusion” can be observed in Britain. In this vein, the Chief Executive in the British state, which is the Prime Minister, also occupies his position in the Parliament either in the House of Lords as a peer or in the House of Commons as an elected member.
Similar occurrences can be observed in the case of judicial and legislative power fusion, as the members of Law Lords may also occupy their position in the House of Lords. This notable phenomenon in British power separation can be named one of the primary reasons for the absence of tyranny and power usurpation in this country. The power in Britain is accomplished collectively by numerous individuals able to participate in varied branches of power simultaneously. This provides a sound basis for a healthy dialogue among varied representatives of authority, thus establishing guarantees for a balanced outlook on oneself for every participator in the process of power exercising.
Further, tyrannical political power in Britain is prevented on the reason of formal monarchy existence. The monarch, although having few actual political powers in one’s access, makes one’s contribution to the balance in the country’s political system. The country can still be seen as ruled, so to say by both the Prime minister and the monarch. Thus, tyrannical developments are limited as both of the country’s rulers balance each other’s federal powers. In addition, monarchs have always enjoyed their popularity among ordinary people as the British state’s national symbol and its ancient historical traditions. Due to this, prime ministers who actually had more empowerment than monarchs had few means to usurp federal power in their hands.
Next, reasoning on the whole course of British history, it becomes evident that the phenomenon of tyranny cannot be traced back in it as such. This may be conditioned by the psychological peculiarities of British people along with their mentality. The people of the United Kingdom have been known for centuries as the primary promoters of democratic principles in the world’s society, which makes the development of tyrannical tendencies in the country impossible or very unlikely to arise. It seems that the example of the antilogous figure of Oliver Cromwell, who is sometimes addressed as a dictator and the consequences of his rule to the country, made their final contribution to the nation’s determination to avoid any tyrannical practices in the execution of power.
All in all, British political power separation along with the countries long-lasting traditions make a solid foundation for the strong positions of democracy in the country. Thus, all the tyrannical tendencies are suppressed.