The government have to govern to the national interest rather than smaller sections of the community with a particularly large voice, in that sense these views can often be outnumbered by national beliefs yet a louder voice allows them to be implemented against the majority which can only be considered a disadvantage as it allows for sometimes unpopular and extreme beliefs to be taken into consideration when the ‘national interest’ would not wish them to be. In defence we can say that they act on behalf of minority interests such as racial minorities and how they're treated, it cannot be argued they do not deserve equal rights and so groups like the Civil Rights Movement in America was a benefit to democracy
It doesn’t account for changing times, and changes in the behavior and the thinking of the majority and the minority over time. There is a need for a minority veto over the majority because without it the majority would have an easy time tyrannizing the minority. A case would be if the majority was trying to pass a law that would directly infringe on the rights of the minority but because they are the minority they could do nothing to stop it unless they have a veto that could stop the law from coming into place. The methods of developing Democratic theory are maximization, which is to set a specific set of goals which are to be maximized through democratic processes, and government. The second method is the descriptive method which takes a class of phenomena, or democratic states, and first by examining the defining characteristics that they have in common, and, second, the necessary conditions in which those characteristics occur.
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. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
local council or European Union). Insider pressure groups (such as the BMA, or Police Federation), or pressure groups with regular contact within decision making bodies, are more likely to be able to directly influence policy. Insider pressure groups are often consulted on legislation in their 'area'. They therefore have a chance to influence legislation and 'steer' it in a direction supported by the group. Outsider pressure groups (such as the ALF and CND) are unlikely to be able to take advantage of this influence of legislation since there are generally not involved within legislative procedures.
What they mean by this is that the decisions made, may not be as well thought through as members of the public are less likely to have an understanding of the issue than elected politicians, also by seeking a majority vote referendums may undermine the minority who are generally well protected within representative democracy’s, and finally the use of referendums on some issues may cause doubt to surface amongst the public as to whether the government are fit to govern, because they don’t know what decision to make. On the other hand, an argument used by the ‘Yes camp’ is that referendums encourage political participation and act as an educational device, their reasoning for this is that it forces the government in power to explain their policies
Whereas if the representatives were to vote on their behalf it may be based on their views and interest, having referendums prevents the government from making unpopular decisions. This will improve the UK’s democratic system as the views of the citizens are clearer and representative of citizens who are affected by the decision being made. However others argue that the general public is not educated enough to make these big decisions therefore it would lead to the wrong decisions being made which
The ideas on reform presented in “Civil Disobedience,” though, are often more abstract than what the average person- an average person being one of good conscience and sense, not too radical- would be willing to act upon. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” effectively argues the aforesaid ideals on governmental reform, but provides an unrealistic model of governmental amendment for the average person to follow. Thoreau begins his argument by stating that he believes “That government is best which governs least” and that he would like to see this “acted upon more rapidly and systematically” (1). He uses this idea as the basis for the remaining segments of his argument, going further to say he believes "That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (1) Thoreau uses this motto in order to convey the point that people should not require an overriding body, but rather, should be able to subsist with little or no assistance. Thoreau believes that government will be unnecessary when all citizens are fully responsible, but in the
Political Correctness hasn’t gone far enough Today im here to talk to you about whether or not political correctness has gone far enough. There are a number of reasons why political correctness hasn’t gone far enough and it is because political correctness protects people that are from a different race, people who are seen different by society, such as disabled people and people’s religious beliefs. Political correctness breaks the barrier of putting people in different categories and instead people become one and they can respect each other’s differences without controversy. Firstly, I would like to argue the fact that people do not have the right to question and judge the identity others have created for themselves. Andrew Bolt, a writer to the Herald Sun writes, ‘Her father was Swiss, and her mother only part aboriginal.
Political communication and political rhetoric enable citizens to administer an imperfect world. As stated in lecture, politics is important because we live in a world with scarce resources. Though rhetoric may not be intrinsic in every political system, democratic or not, it helps the political process move smoothly and efficiently. Additionally, even if one does not agree that political rhetoric is helpful, it is important to recognize that it exists and understand it, so as not to become a victim or apathetic citizen. It is helpful to ask, “Where would we be and what would we do without political communication?” First, it is important for politics to remain future directed and open to possibilities.
I also believe that some of the laws are not always fair and that they are giving advantages towards the government. It is sometimes hard not break certain laws, especially if your breaking a law to benefit yourself for a “more important reason.” I personally think it’s right to break the law as long as you have a certified reason to be doing so. Say someone that you care about is in the hospital and they are not doing so well. I think