英国保守主义研究

我们都知道，现在这个世界上几乎所有的国家在政治生活和经济上崇尚自由主义会发展得很好。不管他们叫它什么-也许有些人称其“民主”，但它实际上也许不是-各国都基于自己国家的意识形态来使用他们的名称。这种意识形态始于政治领域，但是现在更多地用在经济领域。我们不能否认，现在自由主义已经影响到我们政治和经济生活的每一个部分，我们必须很快意识到这一点。

自由主义是一种意识形态，关注个人的自由，个人的意志比集体的意志更重要。它确实影响了我们的经济生活，个人有权利发展他们的经济生活，因为他们有自由去做。与自由主义不同，保守主义认为不应该以个人意志，，因为这种意识形态认为人类生活中并不完美，因此他们需要在群体中控制。

We all acknowledge that now almost all countries in this world using liberalism in their political life and economic development as well. Whatever they call it-perhaps some call it as "democracy" yet it is not in the practical-they are using this ideology as based of their country yet they use the other name. [1] This ideology started from political area but now this ideology is used more in the economic ones. We cannot deny that now liberalism is reaching every part of political and economic life and we do have to realize it soon.

Liberalism is an ideology that focusing on individual's freedom, by then individual's will is more important in that general's will. And it does give an effect to economic life; individual holds a right to develop their economic life because they have a freedom to do it. Different with liberalism, conservatism sees that there shall not be any individual's will since this ideology holds a view that there is an imperfection in human life thus they should be controlled in general. Though this ideology seems to have more control in political life, and it also gives effects to economic life as well. [2] 

Liberalism well-known comes from United States of America. [3] America, as one of well-known and respected country-since it won World War-can influence so many countries in the world. Of course, this influence is not merely in the diplomatic term of physical term, it also reaches the term of ideology. This ideology, somehow, can reach ever part of political life in the other countries, especially the developing country where there is no any stable condition, yet.

Although it seems only affects the developing countries, in fact this ideology also affects other strong countries with a strong ideology as well. Perhaps it sounds non-sense at all since how comes a country with strong ideology could be affected with this ideology? Yes we cannot deny the fact. If we identify more and more a country in this era, we will find that liberalism is taking part in that country whether in small portion or in big portion.

Identifying how much this ideology takes part in our life will give us a clue how strong this ideology. While in some parts of this earth using this ideology as their system, in the other part of the world there is still a country which using another ideology that may contradictive with liberalism, that is conservatism. Yes it is surprisingly we know the fact that nowadays there is still a country which hold conservative view though now liberalism is being implemented in almost all countries, with an 'intangible' power of America that contains in it.

I took United Kingdom (next called as UK) as the objection of this research because UK is one of the most leading countries in the world in this century which holds conservatism. Examining how a conservative country takes a liberalisation in some of their sectors will give us a sight how liberalism starts to reach every part of political and economic life, in focusing on a conservative view where this ideology seems to be contradictive with liberalism.

UK is one of several countries in this world that still holds conservatism view. In this liberalization era, UK still holds their conservatism view in the political life especially in the governmental area. Some may say that their economic life is not conservatism as well. Yes it is true, they have privatized-a sign of liberalism-their telecommunication, electricity supply, and so on. [4] This privatisation was started in Margaret Thatcher's leadership. It is quite surprisingly that Thatcher implemented privatisation yet she was known from Conservative Party.

The fact gives us information that the privatisation in UK was begun in the early of 1980s. This privatisation was given in the response of a crisis in the late of 1970s which started in the telecommunication. Guardian.co.uk reported that "...the first Thatcher administration did successfully introduce a degree of privatisation in some large public sector companies... ". [5] Therefore we can conclude that the liberalisation in the beginning was successfully implemented in UK. The fact shows us that the privatisation was profitable to gives revenue. [6] 

When we see UK as a conservative country, perhaps we may think that it is impossible a strong country with its belief could be affected with liberalism. But yet the fact showed us that there was an 'experiment' of liberalism in the early 1980s. [7] Furthermore, like has been mentioned before, the liberalisation occurred in the time of Margaret Thatcher, a well-known figure from Conservative Party.

Surprisingly, this privatisation was named as experiment. This statement is stemmed from the fact that privatisation in UK was made without any plan ahead; a plan for future privatisation. [8] They just sold the share without any plan. Fortunately, the selling of the share turned out into good result. It was indicates by further privatisation in some sectors.

Although that there was a privatisation in UK, it has been said that some firms, in the past twenty years, which have been nationalize because they are considered as natural monopoly. [9] Natural monopoly is a condition where a firm is considered as a monopoly firm because there is efficiency in that firm or that firm is considered as the best firm for market.

Here writer would like to underline that it is a unique yet believable that a conservative country, such as UK, took a liberal movement. With this research paper, writer would like to try explaining how the liberalism took place in UK: political life and economical life since liberalism would be much easier to be identified by using economic statement.

It does not mean that there will not be any explanation about liberalisation from political side. Political side is important as economic side, or perhaps, it is more important that economic side. The reason why writer explained more about economic in this part is because we need data if we are talking about the economic rather than fact. Since the political side would more easily with we explain with the fact, which we will discuss later in the other part of this paper, along with the explanation why we can call those things 'liberalisation'.

Limitation and Research Question
While it is too broad to discuss about liberalism in UK, here writer would like to limit the research by creating a research question: "How was the beginning of liberalisation in UK?" The liberalisation itself can be defined in both in the political and economical term. In The economical term, writer would like to explain in time of begining of it i.e. in the late of 1970s. There would be a little explanation about liberlisation in cultural side a well. This research question will be answer in the next part of this research papers.

Objections of Research
Since this paper is not a full research, it will be based on the theory only. The information and the fact in this paper will be more taken from the news. Thus it will be a simple research with the objection:

Knowing how liberalism took part with in UK as a conservative country
Knowing how strong liberalisation so it could enter UK
Analyzing how liberalism entered UK

Benefit of Research
With this research paper, writer really hopes that this research paper could be benefit to all academic and institution and could broaden our knowledge as well; not only inside the institution, but also outside the institution. Furthermore:

It would broaden the maze of knowledge, especially in the International Relations

It would be useful and benefit to all who read this paper

It would add information how the liberalisation in UK

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conservatism
Conservatism is an ideology that was developed by an English, named Edmund Burke. In his book, Reflection on the Revolution of France, he stated a critical opinion of French Revolution, and the abstract principles of French that is now used as the motto of the country: liberty, equality, and fraternity. He was also known for his critic on J. J. Rousseau with his theory, social contract, said that the revolution was stemmed from liberalism that was applied by the revolutionist and turned out into radicalism.

In fact, this ideology is more than a theoretical ideology. Conservatism is practical ideology, not merely as an idea. Gilmour (1978), as quoted by Barrie Axford et al. (2002), urged that conservatism is not a theoretical ideology but a practical attitude which is a sceptical of full-blown ideological theories. [10] It can be understood since the stem of this ideology is scepticism of the power of ideas (Oakeshott: 1962, as quoted by Barrie Axford et al.: 2002). In brief, because this ideology came out from a disagreement of a idea-which is an abstract-conservatism came out the give a solution by being a practical ideology.

Since Edmund Burke wrote the book after French Revolution, conservatism is an ideology that was developed in the late eighteen century or in their era of French Revolution. [11] This ideology was a response for the change in the France because the revolution itself did not bring any significance change in that time. Furthermore, as like said before, he argued that abstract principles such as: liberty, equality, and fraternity can be applied to the society since his opinion that 'wisdom resided largely in experience, tradition, and history'. [12] 

Thus we can conclude that conservatism is and ideology that based on the tradition and history. Conservatism does not see that liberalism is the best ideology since it can turn out into radicalism which is not good at all. Michael G. Roskin (2000) said that conservatism is an ideology of keeping the system largely unchanged. [13] Though this ideology is not expect any change, the founder of this ideology, Edmund Burke wrote, as quoted by Michael G. Roskin (2000), "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation,". [14] It means that even though conservation does not expect any change; the change itself is a part of conservatism.

This can be explained that conservatism in his meaning was not a stagnant, unchanged condition that we may think. Conservatism was meant for conserved the institution and tradition that currently exist. Burke argued that those people have produced for a long time and faced a hundred trials and error. Therefore, they know how to do something in the best ways since they know the wrong way. They are who should be conserved. That is why when a country hold a conservative view, the authority is passed in a family or in other way, the country is using monarchy system. Change is important in this ideology, but gradually. And the change itself is a mean for adjusting, not a large change that could be turn out into liberalism.

Therefore, this ideology is not a strict ideology that sees a change as a bad news. This ideology wants a change, yet not big one and only for adjusting. I will say that conservatism is like a traditional food. For some people, the recipe of traditional food is never allowed to change; yes it is a kind of conservative view in everyday life. But when there is a need to change the recipe, because there is change is people taste, the recipe would be changed-whether the change is big one or the small one-according to the need in that time.

We may question: is that any kind of conservatism? The answer would be yes. According to Barrie Axford et al. (2002) describes in their book that there are several kind of conservatism; 'distinct styles of conservatism'. [15] Firstly, there is German conservatives that focus on metaphysical an often romantic character. This kind of conservatism also respects the actual or the real achievement of political life.

Secondly, there is French conservatism. This kind of conservatism was introduced by Joseph de Maistre (1965) and falls into religious area, since the fall of Adam from the Heaven indicated of human imperfection at all. Thus it can be a strong conservatism since it relates with a religion, connected with God.Thirdly, there is British conservatism. This conservatism reveals into a different range of styles i.e. liberal and one-nation of British conservatism. [16] One-nation of British conservatism was stemmed from the fact that the poor and unfortunate was the duty of social elite. This kind of conservatism sees that the nation should be united behind a benevolent hierarchy that accommodated interest of all.

The other kind of it is liberal tradition of conservatism. This view of conservatism may seem a little bit far away from conservatism. Perhaps the most well-known action of this conservatism is the privatisations that were settled out by Thatcher though Thatcher herself is from Conservative Party. Thatcher helped the agenda of New Right Belief in minimal government and free market throughout the world. [17] This is a problem for British Conservative Party, because the party could not develop a new, distinct of conservatism since this party accepted so much of what Thatcher have done in the past.

Though it seems a little bit confusing that there are two contradictive ideologies at a same country, we cannot deny the fact that those ideologies coexisted. Then how could it happen? Perhaps you may recall what Burke said in the early of this paper. Conservatism expects a change, yet change to conserve. And you may note it: it changes only for adjusting.

An information, now there is what we call as 'modern conservatism'. Modern conservatism is a development of classic Burke's conservatism. This modern conservatism holds Burke's tradition, especially in religion affair. But in the practical, modern conservatism is somehow like a blend of Adam Smith's classic liberalism and Edmund Burke's classic conservatism.

Conservatism consists of some elements that make it an ideology, or belief. These elements could be ways ofidentifying a country. These elements also could be our tools to analysis conservatism in a country. Yet these elements should not be our fixed determination whether a country hold conservative view or not, since here we do not take any account of individual who rules a country that may have an opposite belief of the country. Andrew Heywood (2000) in his book Politics wrote these elements: [18] 

Tradition
This is the centre value of conservatism, tradition s closely linked the good value of tradition and a respect of customs, institution, that have already tested and still stand throughout the time. Thus, those things should be conserved for the benefit of living and the next generation. Tradition should be promoting stability and security to people.

Pragmatism
Limitation of human rationally is the stem of this element. This element views that all action should be done in a fixed, circumstanced way to approach practical goals. Conservatives considered their belief as an approach of life rather than as an ideology.

Human imperfection
Human, after all, is broadly pessimistic. In this view, human beings are seen as dependant, limited, and security-seeking creatures, and need a stable and orderly community. To accommodate those needs, therefore there should be strong, stiff penalties for regulating and maintaining order.


Organicism
Conservatism sees that a society is not as human artefact rather it is an organic whole or living entity. Thus society is structured by natural necessity, and there are institutions or 'fabric of society' such as families, local communicates and soon in order to maintain the health and security.

Hierarchy
Gradation of social position and status are natural in an organic society. This is linked with the responsibilities of every person in an organic society. There should not be any conflict since society is bound by mutual obligation and duties.

Authority
Conservatives hold that in some degree authority comes from above. Although there is an idea that authority is seen as a talent nowadays authority is seen as something that comes from experience and training. The virtue of authority is a social cohesion, giving people a clear state who they are, and what is expected from them.

Property
Property is seen as something fundamental in conservatism because it will encourage people to respect the law and the respect the others' property. Property ownership provides a duty for its owner as well i.e. people are merely custodian of prosperity that has been down from one generation to another generation trough a family.

Liberalism
Liberalism is an ideology that was developed by John Locke in his book Two Treaties of Government. He argues that people can make an agreement with government because people mind is enough rational. Government exists to protect individual right. So he thought that government should serve its people and individual right instead of making people as its objections.

Locke began his thought with what he called as state of nature. State of nature is condition that prior to the time of creation of government. There was no any government, man and woman ere living in the society. Their life was not shaped by political life or even law. With this thought we can conclude that people are born with freedom, naturally. There is no any single institution that controls people or abuse individual right.

When an individual is born with equality, freedom, and reason naturally, it means that he or she is not an objection of any ruler. Individual is born without any obligation to be obedience to any neither ruler nor rulers. Each person has freedom in their life. And each person is equal one to another. This is one of element is state of nature i.e. human right and it is including right to life, liberty, and property. [19] 

Liberalism sees that individual is more important that government. Government is created in aim to serve citizens and to protect their right. This is the view of Locke with his state of nature where in the past time, there was no any single institution and so individual was born with freedom. The aim of creation of government is to protect individual's right, or freedom, that is brought with a birth of individual in the society.

Because individual is born with a rational, individual is capable of making his or her own. That is, there is no limitation to individual's right. Individual does not required giving his or her freedom or obedience to the others as he or she is capable to take care of them. People common sense, they can decide what is good or bad for them. Government does not make people rational; rather a rational of people that creates a government to protect their freedom.

Opposing with conservatism, where change is seen something limited, liberalism sees that change is something that should not be feared. It comes from the statement that "progress is possible in political affairs". [20] By then, change is something usual in liberalism especially in political term. So, we usually see that a country which holds liberalism will not use monarchy system; they will use a system that can be possible for changes.

Liberalism is opposing with absolutism; thus it sees that power of state should be limited. The aim creating government is to protect citizens' freedom so when a state or government has an unlimited power, it has possibility to abandoned citizens' freedom and right. The power of state should be use to protect freedom and right. Government or state does not have any authority or power to take their right or freedom, because again, government is created by people that want their freedom or right is protected with the present of this institution.

Economic inequality is seen as something usual is liberalism. Locke proclaims that even though individuals are born with natural equality, it does mean that individuals are also born with economic equality. [21] Individuals living in the society that will make their economic life dived into several groups; the poor and the unfortunate and the rich. Though this division does not lead into injustice, because with this division there will be progress n economic life; who will produce the goods and who will buy. People have a rational that is used for making fit where they should be.

The point that is stressed out by liberalism is economic freedom rather than economic equality. Economic freedom is more important that economic equality. Economic freedom will encourage people to choose their economic life based on the fact that they have rational mind. The have right to make decision to their economic choices. Thus it will encourage people to gaining more and more to make their wealth more abundance. People have right to choose their state of economic in the society and they have right to do anything in economical life.

When it comes to economic term, Adam Smith is also well-known as an elaborator in the development of liberalism. Smith developed Locke's thought in the liberalism that focusing on economic term. His is well known as well with his laissez-faire and his book Wealth of Nation. Because he focuses on economic part more than the political life, we will find that his thought and idea is more implemented in economic life. The most well-known elaborated liberalism will fall into this category i.e. economic.

Smith emphasised the importance of free market for ensuring the affectivity and efficiency of economic behaviour. [22] By letting out the government from the market, or in the other hand, it means that there is no any intervention from the government; market will be at the best system. Government is only at its minimal position. Government exists to protect individuals in so they can make their activities keep going, with the existence of law and regulation from government only for protecting them, not regulating their life.

This is what we call with 'classic liberalism'. Smith and Locke's idea is considered as classic liberalism. Liberalism does not take any governmental account to individual's life. Thought it must be understood that the classic liberalism is more focusing in Smith's idea, since the most popular liberalism nowadays comes from his idea about free market and laissez-faire. The other idea of Smith about classic liberalism is minimal government; there should not be any intervention of government.

Yet now what Americans call classic liberalism is 'conservatism'. [23] This statement comes from the fact that Americans now using 'modern liberalism'. Of course,in Europe they still call Americans as liberals or at least neo-liberal but yet Americans call classic liberalism as 'conservatism'. While classic liberalism urges that there should not be any government intervention in economic life, modern liberalism sees that government intervention is need, when there is a need an intervention of it.

This idea came from the fact that the classic liberalism that was founded by Adam Smith was not the best market system at all. There was a monopoly in the market. The competition in the market was not perfect. Class position was an inherited because of the condition of society was not good or perhaps at its worst. This happened because there was monopoly in the market thus a firm or company could have their price at the highest; since there was no any intervention of government.

True, that is what Adam Smith was feared. His idea was like market can regulate itself. People can get the best goods and service at the lowest price because the market is controlled by supply and demand. In his opinion, supply and demand determine the price of goods in the market better than government. There is 'invisible hand' that will regulate the market and correct the market itself when there is any mistake. Yet the fact showed us that this system is not best at all. Smith did not take human's mind into his account. [24] 

So, in this century what Americans call as liberalism is 'modern liberalism'. If classic liberalism does not require ay intervention from government in economic life, modern liberalism sees that we need government's intervention; it is a need of our economic life. Government, with its authority should protect people from unfair economic system. Government should regulate the companies, wages system, labour hour, and so on. Thus it is not a 'free-market' anymore because government is taking a part in the market.

Like any other ideologies, liberalism also consists of some elements. Perhaps, the most famous elements of this ideology are individualism, freedom, and reason, because basically liberalism is stemmed from those things. The other elements are much more like 'seasoning' in liberalism though they are also important. Andrew Heywood (2000) wrote these elements in his book, they are [25] :

Individualism
Individualism is the most important and the core of ideology. This element stresses out the importance individual before the society; Individuals have right t choose what is the best for he or she; they have right to make decision to their life. Individual is seen as something that more important in society.

Freedom
Freedom is another element core of liberalism. This element ensures that each individual is having freedom to choose their decision according to their wishes and desire. Liberals see that individuals should enjoy their freedom at the maximum state.

Reason
Liberals believe that the world has rational structure; and it can be uncovered through the exercise of human reason and by critical enquiry. It implies that individuals can make their own wise judgement for their own interest. It also encourages liberals to believe in the progress.

Equality
Since individuals are born equal; the have same right. Every individual has same right before the law and political equality-one person, one vote, one value. Thought later, individuals will create a different outcome, because it depends on the willingness to work. Therefore liberals support the principle of meritocracy i.e. reward and position should be distributed on the basis of ability.

Toleration
Liberals believe that toleration will guarantee individual liberty. Here, toleration is like willingness of people to allow others to think, speak; will ensure the liberty of individual because their liberty will be tolerated by each other.

Consent
Authority and social relationship should be always based on the consent or agreement. Therefore, government is consent between people and the ones who will govern. In this sense, authority comes from below that is authority always based on the legitimacy.

Constitutionalism
Although liberals believe that government should exist to protect their right, order, and stability, they are aware that government could be a tyranny against the individuals. Thus they believe in limited government by making a constitution that will crate check and balance among in the institution in the government.

Liberalisation

Liberalisation is a derivative from liberal, a root of liberalism. Liberalisation itself is a noun of liberalize or liberalise. According to Oxford Dictionary, liberalize means "make a law or a political or a religious system less strict." [26] So we can conclude that liberalisation is state or a process of making the system less strict; not rigid; more flexible to deal with.

Privatisation
According to Oxford Dictionary, privatisation is noun form of verb privatize. Privatize means "transfer a company from state to private ownership." [27] Thus a privation is the process or the condition of transferring the company to public ownership. Privatisation is a kind of liberalism because it is stress out the economic freedom; people can do anything in the term of economic such us buying so many shares even though it will make economic inequality. Their freedom is protected in liberalism.

CHAPTER III
DISCUSSION
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." - The Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1789

Political Liberalisation in United Kingdom
United Kingdom or UK is well-known country from several conservative countries in this world that may pperhaps being the most favourite object in the research of liberalisation. In this context we may begin to question: how could be UK being a liberal country? Maybe there will be some saying that it is impossible for strong conservative such as UK accept liberalism which almost clear that conservatism is opposing with liberalism.

This question is something normal since we all know that UK is a strong country. The point that writer wants to stress out here that even strong country such as UK did accept liberalism as a part of their political and more in the economic life. This is the fact that we cannot deny that liberalism is such a 'liberal' and universal ideology even we are accepting it while we are opposing it in the same time.

Perhaps as well-known conservative country, UK will be objected as a country that has absolute country. It is such a prejudice since country with conservatism usually is a monarchy country. Yes, it is true that UK is a monarchy country. Because of its monarchy, the government tends to have power over its entire people, no matter how much liberty they do have. But indeed, they had no liberty.

The have no liberty because as we all acknowledge that in the conservative country, human being is seen as something imperfection. Thus they gave their 'liberty' to their ruler, in this case, king or queen. Of course, they did not give everything they had; they just gave what according to them that should be governed by the country because of the reason, that is, human imperfection that lies within their mind.

Lord Acton, as quoted by Michael G. Roskin (2000) said that power tends to corrupt. [28] While people give their allegiance to their ruler, it means that they are willingly to do anything or perhaps being done by the ruler in any way. It is good when their ruler is a wise one, the one who understand his or her people, but it would be a different case if the ruler does not know the rule. Yes it is true that most of the conservative country, in the past time, tent to have a 'wrong' power in their government.

What writer means as 'wrong' power here is not something like they got their power in the wrong way. Rather they used the power in the wrong way without any rule. They tend to have power, absolute power, over their people. They suppress people in such way that their people did not have any freedom anymore. It is stemmed from the fact that in conservative view human as something, again, imperfect thus they should be rule by a government.

But before that, let me remind you the saying one philosopher regarding monarchy. Aristotle said that monarchy is a proper kind of government. [29] He argues that with monarchy system-with one person rules-all people will get benefit ofthe ruling. All people in that country will get benefit of their ruler, yet he did not take any account of a possibility that the ruler-without any other institution-would use the power for his or her own sake instead of his or her people.

Indeed, it can be understood that Aristotle's opinion seems such a wrong thing. His opinion regarding monarchy is about the outcome of the policy that the ruler made. Since the country is rules by one person, there would only one ruler thus all people would be treated equally, no matter who they were. He said that there is no equality in the process of decision making; rather there is equality in the outcome of it. The result of the decision making that would be equal.

He focused only on the interest of benefit; who will get the benefit of a ruling. Like as been mentioned before, he argued that there is not any matter who will set the ruler whether it will be made equally or not. It comes from the fact that the rule is set only by one person i.e. the king or the queen. The point that he underlined in his thought is that all people would be treated equally; public's interest would be served equally. Indeed, it is public's interest, not the most who has interest.

It will be only happened if only there is a wise king or queen that rules the country or the monarchy. Aristotle's onion would not be real unless there is a ruler who understand how to governs in a good manner. Then how if the ruler is not a wise one? Perhaps you have already known the answer: there would not be any justice or equality in the country. The ruler will only follow his or her desire without giving any attention to people around him or her and perhaps, his or her people.

The signing of Magna Charta in June 15th, 1215 by King John proved that monarchy is not always a proper or the best government at all. After all, the signing of this document indicated that the king was not wise; he followed his desire in doing something, without giving any freedom or liberty to the others. You may say that there was and there is a lot of monarchs who rule justly, but in this case, writer want to take UK as example because now we are focusing about liberalisation in UK, as a conservative country.

The document was signed by King John and his barons, near the Windsor Castle. [30] The document contains rules between King John as a subject and his subjects i.e. people of England and his barons. The signing of the document was a response from the king t the barons-who in that saw something wrong his government. In the other way, King John was abusing his absolute power and so people of England suffering because of him.

For the information, the document also contains a rule, which is there were twenty five barons who were given a responsibility that would make sure that Kin John did the Magna Charta in the right way i.e. he carried out what were stated in Magna Charta. So here is the quotation of Magna Charta regarding the pointed-twenty-five-barons:

52. If any one shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below as sureties for the peace. But with regard to all those things of which any one was, by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgment of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: We shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them. (as quoted from a website. [31] )

The appointment of twenty barons would be as the ones who ere responsible to its document and to watch King John, would be know as check and balance in these days. Even though we know that term check and balance was not known until Montesquieu talked about his theory regarding separation of power that will create such check and balance between government machinery. [32] Those barons, at the disposal of document, would be making sure that King John would not abuse his power anymore.

Later, the position of twenty-five baron was modernized by two houses that control the government. Two houses that act as check and balance for the government. They are House of Commons and House of Lords. These two houses have right over government to decide a policy that would be made by the Prime Minister. Indeed, the queen or the king does not run the government fully anymore as the past time. Their jobs in the past time now are done by the Prime Minister. If there is a proposal that should be handed over to the houses, then the leader-Prime Minister in this case-could not abuse the power she or he has. Furthermore, the true ruler i.e. the queen or the king does not have any absolute power anymore.

In this modern era in the UK, the position of the queen or the king is not so strong like it was. Yes, people of UK still regard them as their leader due to the conservatism they hold (hierarchy is one of elements in conservatism). Yet now they are merely seen as a figure, not a political figure like before. The power that they had in the ppast has been given to the parliamentary. Then now people other than the true ruler can make a decision. And actually, the true power now remains so much in the Prime Minister and the parliamentary.

The function of political executive, in this case political executive in the UK-king or queen-is merely as 'popular political leadership' and 'ceremonial duties'. [33] This indicates that now the position they have now is not as much as before the constitution made i.e. Magna Charta. Indeed, it changed gradually not fro instance, since the House of Commons only created after struggle in the nineteenth and twentieth century. [34] Before that time, only House of Lords existed and thus the power only remains in the house. But after such discussion happened in the UK, finally they create an elected member's house that now popularly known as House of Commons.

The signing f the document is a in of constitution that would control King John with his government. Writer means that the king did not have absolute power anymore. True, his power still remained but not as absolute as before. Also the appointment of twenty five barons as check and balance machinery would give us a glimpse, an understanding, that liberalism was existed in the conservative country since 12th century.

The indication of liberalism that has been existed since 12th century comes from the fact of Magna Charta. Since it is a document hat controls he government, then it is kind of constitution. Meanwhile we know that constitutionalism is one elements of liberalism, yet theory, again, was found out later.

Indeed John Locke and his theory were not introduced, yet. But from the fact we have already known, that there were liberalism in UK. Yes, it was started at the time of King John. This kind of liberalism is such a nature state and later john lock talked about. The barons and people of England realised that they had a right, a natural right such liberty, yet they did not used the right since they gave their 'freedom' and 'liberty' to the ruler, who unfortunately, abused his power which made his people realised the right he had.

Such political ideology was not known as liberalism. Yes, it s true that it was kind of 'liberalisation' in the political life in UK. The ruler whether it is a king or the queen sine later did not have any absolute power like before. There is constitution that controls their power so he or she would not abuse his power anymore; would not use the power accord to his her desire. It means that his or he people had their right; have their freedom. Furthermore, there were twenty five barons who were given such liberty and freedom thus they could watch out the governance of the government of their ruler.

Privatisation: Liberalisation in Economical Life
We have already known that the liberalisation in political life was started since the time King John, in 12th century. Perhaps it is wise to say that the economical liberalisation was not started until the time of Margaret Thatcher, because liberalisation in economical side will be hardly to be identified before there was a privatisation. Privatisation in a country would be bringing such indication that the country is using liberalism in their economical side.

If we have freedom of speech in the 'political' side, the privatisation would be liberalism in economic side. It implies to the act that people can raise their money so much as he or she wants, because by being privatized, a firm and a company could be bought by one person which means that the person will raise money as long as or he or she wants, without seeing any economic equality-one principle of liberalism.

The privatisation was a response for a crisis in the late of 1970s. It is a note for us, indeed, that the privatisation was for economic development. The privatisation was intended to make the economic development better after or being in the crisis which happened at that time. Privatisation was the only way to getting back a good economic development because there would be more people who understand the matter involved in the problem, not only the government, though their voice is determined by how many shares they have.

This privatisation was not started until the time of Margaret Thatcher as the prime minister. Thatcher herself admitted that the privatisation was a 'fundamental' development for British economic. She dais in he memoirs, as quoted by David Saal (2002):

'Privatizationa

本文编号：37848