They are able to take away our freedom, investigate our private lives, monitor our actions and use the information they find out against us if necessary. These powers must be carefully controlled to avoid abuses by the state and its public services against individual members of the public. During a democracy they must always be checks and balances on power in order to ensure that no one single agency or service has power over the public that cannot be challenged. Commonly speaking the public services operate with the consent and cooperation of the public and are respected and respectful. Despite the fact even in a country like the UK with highly trained and knowledgeable officers, a breach of human rights may still occur.
They believe that spreading these ideas to other countries will benefit not only the nation that is being helped, but also that it will have a positive effect on the world as a whole. Modern democracies view the spread of peace and liberty as their primary policy goal. However, it remains to be determined whether this is the case or if states are acting in their own interests. There has to be underlying reasons why countries such as the United States would want to promote their values to nations abroad. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the “true” intentions of democracies, and whether they pose a positive or negative influence on others by discussing in depth the ways that these interests, good or bad, are obtained and whether these states truly do what they claim to promote.
I have produced an introduction and some paragraphs for this question which should be helpful in providing you with a guide to the correct approach in essay-type questions. In particular, note the importance of linking the arguments to the wording of the questions and maintaining an objective approach, with supporting evidence. To what extent is the UK a genuine democracy? In assessing whether or not the UK is a genuine democracy, it is important, at the outset, to consider what is meant by democracy and the criteria which need to be met in order to regard a country as being genuinely democratic. Democracy may be defined as a political system in which people exercise power over the decisions which affect their lives.
Some would argue a more effective and moral use of power would be that of soft power. Soft power, in relation to a government, is the ability of one country to get other countries to see the world the way it does, and to want what it does. Countries have gone along with the United States throughout history because of soft power. One example would be for actions we have taken, such as liberating Europe during WWII. We earned the respect and admiration of the world for this.
If a Bill of Rights were to be created, there would be an agreement of all terms and their meanings whilst in the drafting stages. This would allow outdated laws to be worded in a more modern way which would inevitably lead to fewer loopholes or misinterpretations that are evident in today’s law. There would be a clear statement of what can be expected from the government in power at any time, giving citizens protection from abuse of power. At the moment in the UK, a government could win an election and then create, amend or abolish any legislation it desired quite easily in comparison to the system in the USA. This is due to their system
Sometimes this can conflict with their party’s policy, but there are many occasions when such MPs can protect their constituents and take it up further with the party, and any other government bodies. It is a key part of the democratic system that each individual feels that there is an elected representative who will listen to their problems, and try to resolve them. Also to some extent both Houses of Parliament are expected to act as representatives of society as a whole, as the MPs/Peers express their concerns to them and they have to make final decisions. The second main feature of the UKs democratic system is direct democracy, more precisely referendums: to some extent Britain is becoming more of a consultative democracy which is a limited kind of direct democracy, but the true meaning is where the citizens themselves make critical decisions, the device used for this is a referendum: this is an occasion when citizens, either all or just in a specific region, are asked to determine a question of public importance. A referendum is
that all sections of society are catered for. Pluralists argue that PSB is impartial and objective, and balances out any potential bias in the private sector. Pluralists note that the power of media owners is also restricted by state, or government, controls, e.g. in some societies, owners are not allowed to own too much media or different types of media. Many
Interest Groups as defined by SprakNotes (2010) are “organization’s of people who share a common interest and work together to protect and promote that interest by influencing the government”. They also vary greatly in size, aims and tactics but generally have either Economic or Noneconomic goals. This aside they both share the same core ideas and reasons for their existence and these are to make sure the “government remains responsive to the communities in which they serve” (Acker, V. Et al 2013). In knowing this, the purpose of this essay is to critically analyze the affects Interest Groups have on the society in which they operate and brings to attention the main positive and negative roles caused through their application such as the theory of Pluralism and its flaws, Hyperpluralism, and other roles in which they benefit or disadvantage society in general. This essay will argue that there is no one side when looking at the effects of interest groups and that the society in which they operate will continually feel both the positive and negative results of their activities.
They complement and add to electoral democracy in two main ways: first, by providing an important mechanism by which citizens can influence government between elections; and second by enabling opinions to be weighed as well as counted. Pressure groups improve the quality of government. Consultation with affected groups is the rational way to make decisions in a free society. It makes government more efficient by enhancing the quality of the decision making process - the information and advice provided by groups helps to improve the quality of government policy and
This speaks to success of democracy at this level. Board members are there to represent the community and represent their wants and needs. However, when these wants and needs are neglected, the community will turn on the decision makers. Though this may bring bad media to a school board, city council, senator, or president, it adds weight and credibility to democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which people interact, it does not require perfected success.