Do political parties help or hinder democracy in the UK Political parties can be seen to help and hinder democracy in the UK, however in my opinion I feel that they help democracy more than hinder it, as political parties give the electorate a varied range of choice along with many other democracy enhancing factors. One of the main reasons as to why I believe political parties help democracy is because they provide the general public with a diverse choice of ideologies that can gain power, ranging from the conservative party to the monster raving loony party. The electorate can vote for a candidate in a party that they feel shares their beliefs. However, some people may argue that the three main parties (conservative, liberal democrat and labour) have all moved very central and now share similar ideologies detracting from the idea of “choice”. To this I would say that the parties may have centralised slightly, but their core values still exist, which is what most people are interested in.
Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbolm suggest a pluralist view of democracy suggesting that pressure groups are beneficial to democracy. They enable political participation in national and local politics providing a role for individuals in the system. The work of pressure groups monitors the government and holds it to account and as a result can leak and expose information. As pressure groups aim to influence public policies either by direct action or lobbying and raising awareness of an issue as groups compete to influence policies and the government may take advice from them. Furthermore pressures groups are essential to democracy as they give the opportunity for minorities such as ethnic groups and genders to express distinctive points of view, encouraging people to become involved with decision making and public life forming a link between the government and the people.
Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment. If the UK’s constitution became codified then there would be a risk of judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to enforce the constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. If it became codified then it would be reflective of the values and preferences of senior judges not of the general public who the rules mainly affect. The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public.
Referendums offer the general public a choice, they are not only good for helping the public feel more involved but they are good for deciding important decisions such as changes to the constitution. Referendums help the politicians to know what the public wants and they help the public to voice their opinions on major issues. Referendums also stop the government from having so much power, and therefore maintains a democratic system as there is less chance of having a dictatorship. If there is an issue which divides parties’ on key issues which affect the public the public can have their say. If this is “a government of the people” then there should have been a referendum on tuition fees as this was a controversial subject that affected a lot of people.
Opposition argues that legislation that gets passed can be too one sided or bias. Francis Lee cites teamsmanship as one of the big negatives of polarization. Teamsmanship is a theory that polarization causes parties to view the legislative process as a battle to win roll votes against the opposite party. Lee believes that teamsanship will ultimately lead to the lost of merit in polices. Teamsmanship is not a produce of polarization.
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society. That the current system is democratic and encourages public participation in politics is a particular strength of primaries. Adjoined to this is that it places no restrictions on who can stand, however, despite its benefits many people have criticised the system and are pressing for its reform. Emphasising the huge costs, frontloading and regionalisation of primaries, critics state that for all its claims to be democratic it prohibits the candidates from competing on an equal level. Equally the low levels of turnout in primaries suggest that many people are not interested in the primaries and raises questions over the legitimacy of any winner.
The power amid the two often leans toward one side, being monopolized and abused. My notion on oppression is that the mentality of one is manipulated by the unbalance of power in this subjugation. In certain cases oppression is necessary to keep peace; like the government and the people. If the government fails to oppress the public with the power of law, chaos would rain
Nadelman wrote an excerpt indicating his own opinion about the current drug legislation. He gives three reasons for why we need a change in legislation. The first is because “the current drug policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail, because they are flawed.” (Not failed done a fantastic job by not allowing more of the population to be hooked.. Give support from WILSON “HAVE WE LOST in methodology Prgrf) The second reason focuses on the costs of the drug control efforts, and the third addresses the idea that repealing drug laws would not lead to a dramatic rise in drug abuse. Nadelman says the price of drugs if they remained illegal would be greater than if they were not. The drugs would also be more potent and less contaminated.
Nadelman wrote an excerpt indicating his own opinion about the current drug legislation. He gives three reasons for why we need a change in legislation. The first is because “the current drug policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail, because they are flawed.” (Not failed done a fantastic job by not allowing more of the population to be hooked.. Give support from WILSON “HAVE WE LOST in methodology Prgrf) The second reason focuses on the costs of the drug control efforts, and the third addresses the idea that repealing drug laws would not lead to a dramatic rise in drug abuse. Nadelman says the price of drugs if they remained illegal would be greater than if they were not. The drugs would also be more potent and less contaminated.