1. Government has been defined as “the institution created by a society to create and enforce public policies”. It has also been defined as “a group of people who have the power to make and enforce laws.” Which definitions better expresses what your understanding of government is? Explain your choice. If you find both definitions inadequate, write your own, and explain it.
In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making. Not only this, but some would say these clear answers to specific questions can in a sense be seen as "pure democracy". To put if differently, democracy is unmediated by representatives. People would declare referendums as a reminder that democratic authority finds its legitimacy in the consent of the people- the social contract. Hence, giving people the power to choose the answer to a decision can be seen as sticking to the social contract.
How do you think our rights were protected against tyranny by the Constitution? Tyranny is when one person is given all the power to control a country of a government in a dictator like manner. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways, which were federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government. The guard of federalism is shown one way in the Constitution when they set up the compound government to make sure that the federal government doesn’t get too much power.
In this paper I will critically evaluate the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and attempt to explain why we will always obey the social contract and why it is important that we continue to do so. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY Social contract theory is a branch of political philosophy which examines the foundations on which the legitimacy of political authority is built (Lessnoff 1990). The fundamental premise of social contract relied upon by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is that political authority, political legitimacy and political obligations are derived from the consent of those who create a government (the people), and those who operate it through some form of quasi-consent (majoritarianism) (Riley 1982). It requires a mutual transferring of right in which people relinquish their freedom by allowing others to make choices that will benefit society in general. This notion can be found in the literature of the theorists.
However, this reform of the judiciary had formed conflicts between the government ministers and the judiciary due to several reasons. These included the risk of citizens’ rights as a result of the increasing political role of the judiciary. Some even suggest that judicial power has become controversial due to its increasing political importance. However, the main reason for this conflict between the executive and judiciary can be said to be the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) and the Human Rights Act (2000). The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself.
I have produced an introduction and some paragraphs for this question which should be helpful in providing you with a guide to the correct approach in essay-type questions. In particular, note the importance of linking the arguments to the wording of the questions and maintaining an objective approach, with supporting evidence. To what extent is the UK a genuine democracy? In assessing whether or not the UK is a genuine democracy, it is important, at the outset, to consider what is meant by democracy and the criteria which need to be met in order to regard a country as being genuinely democratic. Democracy may be defined as a political system in which people exercise power over the decisions which affect their lives.
1This theory postulated a new political and social principle, which held that relations among individuals in a society, and between individuals and government, are governed by a social contract. Some if its chief proponents –John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau – have been widely published and discussed in the learned journals and the ideas of these philosophers. Certainly the ideas of Locke and his contemporaries strongly influenced the political and moral philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. And other architects of American government. The antecedents of the theory of social contract can be traced back to Aristotle, who distinguished between monarch and tyrant and upheld the right
They wanted to have a system that could be changed when necessary. Self-Government was and still is important because people want to be able to participate in their government and help create laws that are fair to everyone. The third and final basic principle of our constitution is Separation of Powers, also known as Checks and Balances. Checks and balances are a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one
A democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives (reference.com). By living under a democratic government we ensure that our rulers are elected by the people to serve the people. What is the meaning of democracy in the United States? Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests.
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract