Hence, giving people the power to choose the answer to a decision can be seen as sticking to the social contract. Other supporters can claim that important decisions effecting the constitution have to require extensive popular consent of the public. In using referendums it allows the executive to come across and strong and legitimate. For example in 1975, the government held a referendum to decide whether Britain should remain a member of the European Economic Community. In 1974 the Labour government had been divided but after the referendum was passed and the public elected to stay in the EEC it united the Labour government, thus, making the executive a strong one.
In addition, the elections are held at regular intervals, which ensures that the representatives are accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, there is a pluralistic system which means that the electorate have a choice of candidates and political parties, regarded as an essential element of a genuine democracy. For example, in the General Election of May, 2010, the UK electorate had the opportunity to vote for candidates from minority parties, such as the Greens and UKIP, as well as the major parties such as Labour, Conservative and
When voting in referendums, it is doubtful that most of the people voting have a complete idea on the decision they are making. Once the public has made a decision it is left to the legislators and government to chart out how the new law is to be implemented. Faced with these tough decisions, they might decide to amend the law or completely scrap it thereby overriding a decision made by the general
Electoral systems are systems of voting, in which people are given a choice and vote for what they want. Electoral systems are mainly judged on whether they are representative, and therefore democratic and fair, whether they form strong governments, so manifesto pledges can be delivered, and whether they retain the MP-constituency link, which is necessary for the redress of grievances, clear representation and accountability. The UK consistently used First Past The Post up until a Labour government was elected in 1997 with an ideology that included modernising the constitution. However, some argue that Labour did this for political gain, so they would maintain strength. Due to this, some alternatives to First Past The Post are already used in the UK; Party List is used in UK European parliamentary elections, Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used in local, regional and European elections in Northern Ireland and for local elections in Scotland, and Additional Member System (AMS) is used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly.
This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
As these recommendations have already been agreed upon by those in the cabinet who hold affected ministerial portfolios, the recommendations are usually agreed to by the full cabinet with little further discussion. Decision-making is central to a government. How those decisions are made is important especially if the whole issue of decision-making might be seen to compromise the accepted standards of politics. At this moment in time, people are questioning the decision-making process within this government, especially who has an input into those final decisions. A Cabinet decision-making process is when all in the Cabinet feel confident enough to make an input into an issue without fear of retribution if their views are at odds with the Prime Minister or other senior members in the Cabinet such as the Foreign Secretary, Chancellor or Home Secretary.
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.
At the time, the Framers focused merely on creating an effective government. The Framers did not pay a great deal of attention to the fact that in order to create an effective government, there has to be rules and boundaries that the government must follow. However, to create an effective government, the United States needed protect the freedom and rights of everyone. To do so, the United States needed to adopt a method that would create these rights. Many members of congress believed that individuals should have these rights regardless of having it formally written and didn’t want to create a Bill of Rights.
If the matters continue to be disregarded, the government would then face threats on their own accountability to the people and their right to rule. As mentioned earlier, this ironically may become a threat to the securitisation of human security issue as well. With regards to domestic pressure, if the human security threat raised is only faced by a minority group or a group with less power in the state yet it benefits the majority or a group with power — the state would then face the need to strike a balance between both
But casual speech will be to a immediate audience (the person the speaker is speaking to) and does not have to have a lasting effect. Due to the different audiences, different techniques are used in each type of speech. The spontaneity of casual speech means that many techniques such as fillers and false starts would be found. This is because the speech has not been prepared and the speaker hasn’t practised what they are going to say in advance, they would have to think about what they are going to say whilst saying it, resulting in the speaker saying ‘umm’ and ‘urr’ . On the other hand in a political speech you would not find these as they have prepared the speech and learnt it ahead of the speech they are giving.