This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. If a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change.
This can slow down the political process immensely, and as the government has a mandate to put through such legislation, pressure groups become undemocratic and start to undermine the democratic process. One last reason why pressure groups undermine democracy is the fact that they themselves may be undemocratic, and the leaders of these groups may not truly represent the views of their leaders. This undermines the whole point of pressure groups groups and thus can be seen as the 'politics of self-interest' and can present the public with overbiased and false information. Overall however, pressure groups are more likely to help the democratic process rather than hinder it, as they advance and improve political participation, and as participation is a vital part of democracy, pressure groups are an important part of the UK's democracy. While pressure groups may have unbalanced influence due to varying methods and funds, they are generally good at being a channel of representation between the people and the government, keeping the government in touch with the people.
This was to help keep someone from making the democracy into a monarchy for one example. Another would be that the Articles of Confederation allowed for a strong legislature for the states, but the executive branch was basically nonexistent or was without enough power to override laws that would be against basic human rights.
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
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.
Do you believe you can change the government for the better? Just wait until the next elections in the United States. There are political parties with ideas, who believe they can. Political parties are defined as an organized group of people with the same political aims and opinions, who seeks to change the public policy by having their candidates elected to the public office.The media ,Political Parties, Voters, and the Electoral Process are all connected, the next president of the United States will face a more difficult economic and fiscal situation than any President in recent memory. While some citizens would prefer that governmental leaders implement spending cuts while others would favor an increase in revenue, as a practical matter the country’s precarious financial situation cannot be addressed exclusively by just one of these options.
Things would run better with no competition for office. The program would have problems. The people of the state might not agree with the program. Philosophers may refuse to take up office because the life of a philosopher would be better than that of a ruler. It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it.
Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
First we will take a look at the positive outcomes for citizens and society as a whole if this type of program was set up. First citizens would have more say in the process of laws being decided and may actually help in the process since many government officials do not have the time or resources to go over every page in the laws they are reviewing or signing in. Also citizens would have more control over something they may completely disagree with, for example the recent decisions to insert more stimulus money towards the economy would more strongly be rejected by a citizen based vote than a Democratic majority based Congress. Also a system like this would bring our system closer to a federalist based system on which our founders wanted our society to be and would take away some control of our government branches and would give states even more say in crucial decision making processes. This would make it much more difficult for governments to grow and enact more control over its citizen's daily lives, issues and
I think American government does a fairly good job of compromising with the people. A negative aspect of American government in my opinion is how it makes people feel. I don’t know much about government at all, but I feel like it should bring people together, not put them on opposite sides of the fence. I know that people have different wants and needs with everything in life, including what they want out of a government. But I still feel like something could be done to combine the wants and needs of all people.