The smooth and quick transfer of power in the UK speaks volumes about the great democratic tradition in that country. Election results came out during the day, and by the afternoon, outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak went to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation. By the time he stepped out, Labour leader Keir Starmer was appointed the Prime Minister by the King and within minutes, he addressed the nation at the historic entrance of 10 Downing Street.

The Prime minister paid tribute to his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, and acknowledged his contribution to Britain. Within hours, the Prime Minister announced his cabinet and the power transfer was completed without any pomp and show. Britain that way is an excellent example, unlike the United States, where the new President takes oath nearly two months after the results are out in November in great pomp and show that both forms of government are based on majoritarianism and revolve around the power elite of these countries.

The result might sound like music to many who might dance when hearing the word 'labour' as in most of the world, the term is almost deleted in the 'vocabulary' of political discourse. In the United States, there is no Labour. There is a fight between two elite parties dominated by corporate interests with little interest for the common person. The Labour Party has returned to power after 14 years and with a massive majority, but have the Conservatives been decimated in the UK? Has Labour anything to do with the politics of the left? What brought Labour to power in the UK?

The historical route of the Conservative Party does not indicate the growth of 'left-wing' political forces in Britain. This landslide to the Labour Party has more to do with the faulty electoral system the UK has been following, termed the First Past the Post System, which resulted in a huge gap between the vote share and the number of seats. FPTP can be useful if there are only two to three parties and a high voter turnout. In the absence of it, the mandate can always be haunting, though, at the end of the day, it does not matter how much the vote share is; the number of seats matters.

The fact is that out of 650 seats, the Labour Party has won 412 seats, almost 65% of seats, though the vote share was merely 34%. Its rival Conservative Party, with a 24% vote share, acquired 121 seats. Liberals got 71 seats with 12% votes. Another right-wing under the name Reformist Party, though, only got 4 seats but with a 14% vote share. Led by Nigel Farage, Reformists are being blamed for the Tory government's route.

Conservatives, Liberals and Reformists mostly hail from the same variety of political ideologies of the right-wing. Their combined vote share is much more substantial than that of Labour. The left-leaning groups are mostly independent and Green Party. Interestingly, Labour could only increase its vote share by about 2% from 2019 when it fought under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, who contested as an independent candidate and won from the Islington North constituency by over 7,000 votes, defeating the nearest Labour Party rival. Corbyn has been representing this constituency since 1983 and has won for a record 11 times.

Many people might be happy to see the return of a 'Labour' government after one and a half decades, but is it really so. Leave aside the 'vote share, and seats got' issue; the fact is most of the Western electoral system, particularly influenced by British and American models, is already captured by the right-wing capitalist forces. The quality of the 'Western democratic model' is in its propaganda and comparison with the Russian and Chinese systems, even though both countries are powerhouses and economic heavyweights today. Look at the rise of other influential groups in the UK, like Liberal Democrats and Reformists, both ideologically close to Conservatives. However, is 'Labour' truly dedicated to the left or the working classes.

The problem with the 'liberal democracies' in the world is their hypocrisy on human rights issues. If the Labour Party was truly dedicated to the idea as its name suggests, then how come powerful leaders like Jeremy Corbyn were thrown away from the party? Is it because he was considered more radical and a threat to the Empire and its elite. How is the current leadership of Labour different from the Conservatives? The brazen shamelessness of Keir Starmer in refusing to condemn the Israeli brutalities and assault on Gaza shocked all those who filled the Streets of the United Kingdom demanding a complete ceasefire in Gaza.

Keir was responsible for humiliating and ousting Jeremy Corbyn and other left-leaning leaders from the Labour Party. Most of these leaders fought independently, won handsomely, and defeated their nearest Labour rivals. The poll results suggest that the British electorate is swinging between different conservative forces, and Labour gained acceptability because it threw away radical left forces led by Jeremy Corbyn. So, essentially, the British political system is highly dominated and controlled by the Conservatives, who may not be in the Conservative Party but also Labour, Liberal, and Reformists.

The British model of the electoral system, or simply FPTP, does not reflect the people's real verdict. It is basically manipulative of the power elite and, therefore, most of the time, legitimises a minority government as a majority. All the colonies of the 'Empire' have this system, which is used by the power elite of those countries to use or misuse the contradiction among different groups. The difference between vote share and seats won is too high.

The Labour got nearly 34% of the total vote out of 60% of the votes that were polled during these elections. This simply means that 40% of people did not vote during the election. Now, in terms of seats, the party got 412 seats out of 650, which is nearly 64%. Under the Proportional Electorate System, Labour, with a 34% vote share, would have just got 221 seats, much below the majority mark. Conservatives with a 21% vote share would have got 156 instead of 121, which they currently have. Liberals, with a 12% vote share, got 71 seats, while Reformists, with a 14% vote share, got just 4 seats. Under the proportionate system, Liberals could have 78 and Reformists 91. Even a 4-seat Green Party with a 7% vote would have nearly 46 seats. How credible is the electoral system where the party gets 34% of votes, which means 66% of the polled votes were against you?

Interestingly, a party with a 14% vote share got just 4 seats, while that with a 12% vote shares 71 seats. Now, how can such a system be justified as 'democratic'. We all are in the same crisis, and the ruling parties and government rarely listen to people's voices. The amount of massive street protests that London witnessed in support of Palestine was always looked down upon by the power elite and the media. The governments these days speak through the power elite, and the opposition leader spoke the language of the prime minister when he openly supported the previous government's stand on Palestine.

Actually, western democracies are liberal to a large extent related to individual freedom, right to faith, criticism of the government and allowing protests in the streets, but at the same point in time, we need to understand why a leader like Jeremy Corbyn was ousted from Labour. Why he has been a persona non grata for the 'liberal' circles. A similar thing happened in the United States, where Bernie Sanders was despised by the ruling elite. The liberal democracies couldn't accept Julian Assange and felt he was the biggest threat. It needs to be understood why these democracies do not listen to the voices of protests in the streets.

Broadly, Western democracy will remain pro-capitalist and market-driven, and nothing much is expected to change on foreign policy matters, though the new Prime Minister has already rescinded the Rwanda policy for refugees, which is a great step in the right direction. The Tory government wanted to privatise the prestigious National Health Services but could not. The railway network is already in distress. Will the new government take initiatives to strengthen these services, or will it be the same government that was headed by Tony Blair?

The issue of minorities and immigrants is extremely important and resulted in the victory of four independent candidates who defeated Labour candidates. The party has to see whether it will follow Tony Blair's right tilt or really work differently, particularly on the issue of Palestine. The combined vote share of the right-wing parties is much higher than it. If it ignores the wider concern of minorities and immigrants, then it might lose the support of progressive forces and ethnic minorities. Britain might see the rise of radical left forces in the coming years. Unlike the United States, Britain still has space for minorities and immigrants in the political structure. Will Jeremy Corbyn and other leaders emerge more potent in the coming years, or the pressure of capitalism.

A democracy is successful when its institutions are robust. Britain has a powerful legacy in that regard. The election process is extremely simple, and voting opens at 7 a.m. and continues until 10 p.m. The parliament is still responsible, and debates there are worth watching. Prime Minister's Question Hour with the leader of the opposition is extremely fascinating, but then we can't have that in India. The New Parliament has 23 Muslim members (A big country like India has just 24), and over 60% of the members belong to ethnic minorities, reflecting Britain's diversity.

A criticism of the British system does not mean we are better than them. They have a robust system, and moreover, basic curtsies among the political class there remain far superior to ours. The swiftness with which the new government took charge within a day remains remarkable. Everything was done without any chest thumping or 'victory' speeches. Understanding the difference between 'right wing' or Conservatives in Britain, Europe, and India is also essential. The Conservatives or Right Wing are mostly against immigration policies of the government, but none of them have ventured inside the personal lives of people. Right-wing in India and its neighbours are basically religious fanatics who have issues with your personal choices, whether food, faith or marriage. There are no hate speeches, and diversity of representation is always a plus for political parties.

Britain's elections have big lessons for us and our political class. That elections in vibrant democracies today are on the ballot paper and not through EVMs is a reality. Secondly, we did not hear any complaints of electoral malfunctioning or fraud. The counting and declaration process was simple, and Prepoll surveys or Exit polls were not hyped. The prime minister did not take time to vacate his official bungalow and went to submit his resignation to the King when results were just coming in, and he conceded his defeat gracefully. The power transfer was so swift and meticulous that there was no time for confusion and uncertainty. Yes, the electoral system has issues of representation, and vibrant democracies find their own solution. Britain will certainly have to look into this issue, as it might become a major headache in the coming days.

Let us hope the new government will fulfil the people's aspirations, but expecting a different perspective on Ukraine and Israel will be next to impossible. Foreign policy matters in these countries are mostly static and fixed with the United States. A change in its Ukraine or Palestine policy will need Jeremy Corbyn at the helm, which does not seem a possibility in the near future.