With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed. This becomes an unsettling thought to many given that many of the rules within the constitution are what protect us as citizens and so the idea that this would be very easy to change or even get rid of the rights that protect us is very worrying to some. Liberals argue that if we introduced a codified constitution it would allow human rights to be entrenched thus heavily protecting us as citizens. However in the UK there is already a human rights act that offers some level of protection of these rights. Given that there is already some form of protection it would be fair to argue that the UK doesn’t currently need a constitution as there is and hasn’t been any real threat towards people’s rights.
Firstly on of the fundamental features of democracy is that it establishes and protects freedom. Democracy should ensure that no government can threaten freedom unless it is with the expressed consent of the people. This is certainly true of the United Kingdom as the European Commission of Human Rights Parliament remains sovereign. Also the UK signed up to the Social Chapter of the European Union which guarantees a variety of employment and other economic rights. However, Parliament is sovereign and civil rights and liberties have been put suspended but only in the interests of law and order or national security.
The United Kingdom’s s uncodified constitution relies heavily on established conventions and trust in order to prevent widespread corruption. To some extent this type of constitution historically has served the UK well. However, due to increasing disillusion with politicians and their ethics. Which some claim to be the result of more transparency and a higher level of education. UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest.
For Woodrow Wilson, only a democratic republic could be a genuine nation-state. Wilson also argued that the nation-state is capable of upholding peace and international order because nation-states would naturally respect the sovereignty of their neighbours. Furthermore, conflict would cause disorder within, so there is an inward motivation as well. This belief in the natural peacefulness of nation-states leads liberal nationalists to the belief that internationalism and nationalism are compatible concepts. Internationalism is the theory or practice of politics based on global cooperation.
Occupied with other matters, the British Empire wasn’t able to completely control the colonies and as a result they developed independent governments. While still only the wealthy could hold positions, the government was fairly democratic. In addition to the large voting percentage, many states formed assemblies that were similar to the House of Commons in England. These were effective because they better represented the people and put a check on the power of the Governor. Further advances in free speech rights also made their way into the colonies.
Despite these threats ultimate power remained in the hands of the Kaiser in 1914. Some would argue that this retention of power was a result of the moderate reform put in place in order to placate the parties in the government enough that they would not challenge the status quo. It cannot be denied that a small amount of moderate reform played a small role, there is evidence to suggest that other factors played a larger, more important role. The sense of nationalism and patriotism that gripped the country at the time as well as the disunity of the political parties meant that there was never any real threat to the Kaiser and his autocratic rule. Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser.
Additionally pressure groups can be defined as an insider or outside group; insider pressure groups will have well established relations with parliamentary officials and will be regularly consulted by government, outsider groups will have no specific connections within the political system and so try to influence decision makers though mobilising public opinion. Democracy is the description given to the political systems that are structured on the basis that the government should serve in the interests of the people, a democratic government is also expected to be fully accountable to its citizens. The UK lives in a pluralist system, which allows a wide range of ideologies to flourish as long as a group doesn’t break the law or threaten the security of the state or its people. Additionally a pluralist is expected to disperse its power and not concentrate it in a small number of hands. Pressure groups have had a positive effect on UK democracy.
How effective are back bench MP’s Backbench MP’s are critical for UK democracy. They are effective because they allow for high standard scrutiny of the government which holds them accountable for their actions to the people. They help in representing the electorate. However there are some circumstances in which MPs are less effective and have little control, for example the UK party system which is enforced by whips. Firstly, back bench MPs are effective because they are a good way of increasing legitimacy and representation in terms of their constituency as they have been voted in by their electorate and therefore should represent the views of those in their constituency.
There are many arguments as to why we should or shouldn’t have more referenda in the UK. Both arguments are fair and it is simply a matter of opinion. There are also many reasons as to why we should have more referenda in the UK. Referenda are a device of direct democracy, giving the public some decision-making of the country. This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party.
Most importantly, non-violence is not evil or a sin, so unlike violence, it is a better action as a person Many historically important people have succeeded in using non-violence. Ghandi used a specifically non-violent campaign to oust the Brits from India. Martin Luther King used a non-violent effort to bring change to the US in terms of civil rights .The Overthrow of Communism in Europe was largely a people-powered non-violent effort towards the government. As you can see, many people have used non-violence in the past, and it will still be a strategy used by peacemakers around the world. However, non-violence is not always effective on some people, such as Hitler.