This showed the UK constitution to be very beneficial, and furthermore the Queen and the Royal Prerogative did not have to be consulted, which would have been different in a codified system and made the process much slower than in an uncodified constitution. Some may disagree with what seems to be one of the reasons why the uncodified constitution is advantageous and turn it on its head and say that the easiness of changing the constitution creates instability and unlawful action. An example of this was the use of rubber bullets and water cannons on the rioters in London. If the London riots occurred under an entrenched constitution there would have been no chance of the police being allowed to act in such a way legally, but under an
To what extent would the wider use of referendums improve democracy in the UK? The wider use of referendums would improve democracy in the UK for a number of reasons. A democracy is all about public participation, if there was a wider use of referendums it would make the public more politically active, as direct questions would be asked to them on key issues which affect them. This would have a positive effect as there would be better turnouts in elections, as the public would feel more involved, and would feel that they had more of a say. 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.
Pressure groups activity in the UK presents a major threat to democracy. Evaluate the arguments in favour of this view (25 marks) Pressure groups aim to influence government policy without seeking election itself. The actions of pressure groups challenge and influence democracy as well as being beneficial to democracy in the UK as pressure groups challenge policies and put pressure on the government to change them. On the other hand pressure groups only represent a minority of people’s views and aren’t considered a major threat to democracy. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbolm suggest a pluralist view of democracy suggesting that pressure groups are beneficial to democracy.
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
The Constitution is an adequate democratic document, when the Constitution we have in place today is the subject of that sentence. By being adequate it is meant to serve its purpose, nothing more or less, in establishing a democratic form of government that is satisfactory to the people. The Constitution proves that statement true in the fact that we do not have citizens openly revolting in the street, calling out against it. However, in some streets there are voices starting to be heard, calling into question the democracy of the document. Some cause for concerns can be found in the first writing of the Constitution (the one that will soon be thoroughly discussed) and some lay in more recent Amendments.
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
Enlarging the EU would bring democratic institutions, protect human rights, and would end the divisions in Europe which would benefit the member stated who would be bringing peace to the region. The more countries that were involved within the EU, the more successful and significant it would be. It was not only the economy of others which would be an advantage to member states but also the links that other states had. Former communist states had links with Russia which the EU could use for diplomatic link as Russia would not join. The USA and Russia were in favour of the expansion because eastern states would be involved in western politics and their systems.
People attempt to argue that polarization promotes the creation of safe seats within the House of Representatives. People state that through polarization the stress is removed from officials that dominate their district races constantly. They say a level of comfort is created with officials knowing that the main opposition with often come from within their party. This allows both sides to put the incentive on the base, rather than trying to appeal to the center. The removal of the moderate is key for democracy to thrive.
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
There are pros and cons for public speaking, some cons are if people speak too much, it could jeopardize the security of our country. The establishment of free speech for all citizens is a successful political strategy for everyone; for people who disagree with those in power as well as those who agree. Allowing free speech adds to the marketplace of ideas, and keeps society involved in important issues. If there was not public speech there would be no media, or newspaper, people wouldn’t be informed about things that concern or help citizens. Some individuals are afraid to protest, because people don’t agree with the government, can become dangerous and get out of control, and they can even danger themselves as well as the safety, property, and lives of