Examine and Assess the Idea That the Authority of the State to Govern Is Always Contested

One final argument for direct democracy in the UK is that it increases the people’s political participation and engagement in current issues. When people are given the opportunity to have their say, they are more likely to get involved in the process, thus increasing the accuracy of the judgement. A successful and fully functional democracy relies on the involvement of the general public and the people it will be directly

There is an argument that the government has the power and right to change laws and represent people without necessarily having to be elected. This can also be known as ‘Democratic deficit’. An example of democratic deficit is the House of Lords. The members in the House of Lords aren’t elected but they get to make laws and represent the people. The members in House of Lords are usually given their seats hereditarily so many people found it unfair that they’re not elected into the Parliament but they can make decisions and laws

Democracy in the United Kingdom has changed a lot over the years however the definition has never changed. The right for people to choose and decide how a country is run. This essay will help decide whether the United Kingdom still follows that definition of being a true democracy and analysing how this has affected the people of the UK.

In this essay I will discuss Anscombe’s argument for the conclusion that the state’s authority is justified when it is performing tasks that are necessary and serve the people’s needs. I will then present an objection to the argument that the state’s authority can be justified. Lastly, I will demonstrate why this objection is not sufficient to reject Anscombe’s argument and conclusion.

To every political system there are many positives and negatives and one critique of compulsory voting systems is that informal and uninterested voting is increased. It has been advocated that compulsory voting brings a large amount of “uninterested voters” to the polls and in turn cast votes that are clearly inconsistent with their own political values compared to those who are more informed and motivated voluntary voters (Selb and Latchat, 2009). In this case the primary concern is when people are forced to vote they will either pick a candidate at random or spoil their ballot which consequently, does not make the outcome of the election representative of the people’s interests. If certain individuals are not interested in politics they should not be forced to contribute in one of the most salient political statements practiced in Canada (Selb and Latchat, 2009). They have the right to choose their level of political participation.

In our system of government we are privileged with the option to take part in the political process that runs the country. It is our right to vote that lets the people influence change in policy and set the guidelines that politicians must follow to be elected representatives. This precious ability, which is most coveted in most non-democratic countries, is taken for granted in our own.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

Government is an administration defined by the Constitution, but is also a constantly adjusting foundation by the efforts of its citizens. By Litherland (2014), government is defined as policies set in order to lead a body of people (p. 395). Over the span of time, the idea of government has been stretched, changed, and applied to various communities throughout both the nation and the world. Whether it was back in the eighteenth century, current, or in the very near future—government has existed and will continue to exist for its people and the nation it has built its foundation upon. With the use of multiple authors, those of: “Difference between Direct and Representative Democracy” (n.d.), “Federalism - Dividing Power between States and the

Many different forms of government have existed throughout civilization. Theocracy, dictatorships, democracy, and many others have all had periods of time where they reigned as the government of choice. Arguments could be made in favor of each form of government. The key to finding the most viable form of government is to consider this: which form of government provides the most stability for the state?

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

“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