Bullying and politics seem to go together. Gordon Brown should not feel isolated in his current situation of being fingered as a work-place bully – he is in good company in the Palace of Westminster. The stories about his rage towards colleagues have been around for a long time and those of us who enjoy the political blogoshpere have not been surprised by the latest revelations. Stories about his loyal lieutenants doing the same thing have also been commonplace over the years with many ministers who are on the outside of the Brown circle finding their work and even character trashed by anonymous sources in the media.

We also know that much the same thing happened during the Blair era. It is alleged that his spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, was the one who referred to Brown as being ‘psychologically flawed’. Other ministers suffered a similar fate, not least Mo Mowlam. Of course there has never been any suggestion that Blair has an uncontrollable temper or that he ever threw mobile phones at anyone, but bullying doesn’t have to be physical. The verbal attacks can be just as damaging. Thatcher too knew the dubious value of anonymous briefings calculated to undermine colleagues and apparently could be scathing in her putdowns of Cabinet members. Geoffrey Howe didn’t make that speech without reason. Add to this list the role of the whips and it seems that not only is bullying tolerated in the Palace, it is positively encouraged.

What could be the cause of such a dark shadow over our political system? The confrontational nature of our system, for one thing, does not help. Consensus is frowned upon and attempts at cooperation treated with suspicion (the latest example is the issue of long term care for the elderly). Even the architecture of both houses of parliament and the layout of the chambers suggest that verbal combat is the rule rather dialogue.

Another reason could well be the way political power is viewed and used. The goal always is to achieve an overall majority in the House of Commons. Our voting system ensures that this is almost always the result of any general election and is why proportional representation is rejected. Such majorities do nothing to foster cooperation across the floor – indeed they work against it. They also tend to give the prime minister full control over the government. Add to this the power given to him through the royal prerogative – whereby the prime minister exercises power on behalf of the monarch – and the power he/she wields is almost absolute. It is partly what took us into Iraq. While a lot of good has been done through this power, it is also the case that holding onto it is of great importance. This is often when bullying becomes a problem.

But it would be unfair to tarnish politicians alone with the bully-brush – just as it is unfair to tarnish Brown alone among politicians. For the church also has played the power game well over the centuries and cannot escape the accusation that she too has misused the authority given to her. Through her partnering with the state ever since the fourth century – what we call Christendom – the church has used power to dominate those who do not share her views. In the past, physical violence through torture and execution was a tool used to ensure this dominance. And while such practices are not used today, there are some who still seek to impose a minority view on the majority through the political system. Is this too not bullying?