Does the Uk Have ‘Elective Dictatorship’?

Overall I think reforms since 1997 have made the UK slightly more democratic but not to a huge extent.

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

The executive branch has the ability to check the other branches as well as it

Parliamentary sovereignty is the key stone in the British Constitution. If judges were to make law then they would be contradicting this doctrine. The legislative supremacy disqualifies the courts power to review the validity of legislation, refer to British Railway Board v Pickin . The objective of judges is to not make law but simply declare what the law had always been. Acts of Parliament are the highest form of authority and the courts hands are tied by it. But through the doctrine of precedent, the judicial function of declaring and applying the law has a ‘quasi-legislative effect’.

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

However, not all cabinet ministers are that willing to give up their positions. In recent years, parliament has witnessed the rise of ‘career politicians'. People that have aligned their education and career purely in the pursuit of becoming a member of parliament and eventually a cabinet minister. After a lifetime of working towards the positions in which they now find themselves, they would probably think twice before challenging party policy and jeopardising their career. There is certainly a strong incentive for cabinet ministers to conform to policies recommended by the Prime Minister. The benefits to the Prime Minister of having a supportive cabinet have already been highlighted. A 14.4% rise in people studying politics at university this year is an indication that the occurrence of ‘career politicians' is set to become more common in the future.

Other forms of government is Anarchy (everyone or no one) , Monarchy and Dictatorship ( ruled by one, king or queen). Two forms of government is Dictatorship and Democracy. We have direct democracy where individuals vote directly. Dictatorship is the ruling of one. Although there are different sorts of dictatorship, we have communism which is the government structure that only meets the basic needs of its population. The Monarchy dictatorship is the subcategory, where the people in power have the power by birth right and are inherited. These two types of government are totally opposite of each other and they both have their advantages and

The dispersion of power in the UK varies greatly, each country having a different seat on the level-pegging of power over one another - in particular, policy areas, due to the various referendums, including ones already mentioned. This is called an asymmetrical devolution system.

Who Holds Power in the United Kingdom Today To approach this question it is essential to consider both the definitions of power and the various different domains within which they work. As power is central to the understanding of politics, it evokes fierce controversy over its meaning. Academics have argued that politics strives to resolve conflict by producing consensus over the issues in question. In contrast, the practice of politics may also be seen solely as a means of execising power, be it through particular coercive forces or a legitimate authoratitive body. Political activity is omnipresent, existing on both micro level (as seen in the relationship between teacher and student) and on a

Allowing citizens to choose whether or not they vote, a practice restricted in certain democracies like Australia, can diminish the percentage of people who vote based on pure passion. Also, it is to be noted that citizens vote based on self-interest, and because governments aim to please the majority of their citizens, having everyone vote is a helpful tool in determining what would benefit the majority of people.

I will advance the thesis, if an enlightened despot seized power in the UK, and governed it justly, then the despot would have legitimate authority. By saying the despot’s authority would be legitimate, I mean that, even though the despot abruptly seized power without the explicit consent of the citizens, which would then result in a loss of autonomy and negative liberty, the authority is governing the society justly, so a small amount of their rights must be sacrificed for a better society. I have three reasons for asserting the legitimate authority of the despot; first, the tacit and hypothetical consent theories; second, instrumentalism; and third, positive liberty. As mentioned above, my thesis stating the legitimacy of

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

Elections are one of the most important aspects of modern democracy. Because, it gives the power to the people so they can choose their leaders, who makes the decisions on their behalf. As a result, the people can express their viewpoints through elections. Even though function remains the same, the process of an election differs around the world. The United Kingdom’s election process is called First-Past-the-Post, in which the candidate with the most votes wins, whether or not they had a majority of the votes. However, there has been some disagreements over whether or not this system is democratic. Due to how it functions in the society. In this essay, we will be taking a closer look at how the system works, the advantages and the disadvantages

Within Britain any law can be changed by the Governing party and this highlights the instability of our current, partially codified constitution which is not entrenched in law. It has long been debated as to whether Britain actually has an elected dictatorship as there is no ultimate document of overall authority which defines the powers between executive, legislature and judiciary(www.parliament.uk, 2014). Once a political party have been elected we as citizens have to trust that they will abide by their promises given in manifestos and continue to listen to the general public’s wants and needs.

In both 1997 and 2001 the labour party said it was not going to raise taxes, but after being voted in they introduced new types of taxes, stealth taxes. Also in both manifestos they have promised to ban fox hunting. Although there has been much discussion on this topic no ban has yet been but in place after 7 years in office. There are people in Britain who have a large amount of power over the population as a whole, being able to make decisions that affect everyone who are not elected into their position.