Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbolm suggest a pluralist view of democracy suggesting that pressure groups are beneficial to democracy. They enable political participation in national and local politics providing a role for individuals in the system. The work of pressure groups monitors the government and holds it to account and as a result can leak and expose information. As pressure groups aim to influence public policies either by direct action or lobbying and raising awareness of an issue as groups compete to influence policies and the government may take advice from them. Furthermore pressures groups are essential to democracy as they give the opportunity for minorities such as ethnic groups and genders to express distinctive points of view, encouraging people to become involved with decision making and public life forming a link between the government and the people.
They may consist of either one chamber called unicameral or two chambers which are known as bicameral. A bicameral assembly has many advantages; the second chamber can check the power of the first chamber and both chambers can effectively check the power of the executive to expose any failings of the government. Second chambers also act as a constitutional safeguard, delaying the passage of controversial legislation and allowing discussion and debate (Heywood, 2004, p.321). The second chamber can ensure that legislation is more thoroughly scrutinized, by relieving the burden of the first chamber and can rectify any mistakes and oversights. However, there also some drawbacks to the bicameral system because it can make the legislative process unnecessarily complex and difficult.
Governmental leaders use these findings to clarify national as well as global economic circumstances. Some key historically forecast data information maintain accessibility through various
Our politicians have a great influence over what the media reports as well. At times the role of the media and the influence of politicians collide. Who wins out in the end is a complicated matter and is a very hot topic at present. I will elaborate on this idea and conclude with my thoughts on the “conservatives” charge that the media in general has a very liberal bias. The word “media” can be described many different ways, in both a positive and negative light.
It is through laws that policies of government are laid down for implementation. It does however have many constitutional roles to fulfil such as the power of the purse, oversight, foreign policy and legislation. It can be argues that Congress does fulfil its constitutional roles as it may deliver effective over sighting, legislation, money bills, representation and foreign policy that may provide good checks and balances. However, most would argue that Congress may not carry its roles effectively thus leading to poor scrutiny (sometimes over scrutinising) which leads to ineffective fulfilment of constitutional roles. The principle organ of the US state is to legislate, represent and scrutinise the other, safely separated, branches of the government.
Some in favour of the UK's uncodified system would argue that the fact the constitution is not entrenched creates a much more flexible and adaptable constitution, which means it can evolve due to circumstances when they crop up. A prime example of this was in May 2010 in the election where there was no majority vote. Due to the economic crisis at the time it would have been horrific had there been a 'hung' parliament so thanks to the flexibility of the UK's constitution a draft procedure was made in case of such emergencies. As the constitution was not entrenched this was done quickly and easily which was required because of the seriousness of the situation. 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.
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers By Kwame Anthony Appiah In his two new books Kwame Anthony Appiah undertakes to combine a form of liberalism that aspires to universal validity with a full recognition and substantial acceptance of the important cultural and ethical diversity that characterizes our world. The Ethics of Identity is a philosopher's contribution to ethical theory; Cosmopolitanism is a more popular work of social and political reflection; but both are of wide interest--invitingly written and enlivened by personal history. Some of the issues Appiah addresses are familiar from contemporary public debates about multiculturalism, the relation of the state to religious pluralism, the effects of
Scholars have also shown that political polarization has implications for mediating institutions, namely the media, elections and political parties. As Mann and Ornstein argue, political polarization and the proliferation of media sources have “reinforce[d] tribal divisions, while enhancing a climate where facts are no longer driving the debate and deliberation, nor are they shared by the larger public.”[4] As other scholars have argued, the media often support and provoke the obstruction strategies used to disrupt the regular order of policy procedures. [4][65] Some scholars assert that the media are not disconnected from general public opinion and that media outlets work to remain unpolarized and nonideological in order to appeal to a larger
Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.