The Pros And Cons Of Defection Vs. Dissent

To overthrow is to take over the government, either certain characters in the government or even the whole governmental system. To achieve this, there are two major methods. The first is to use violence against the government. To attack the police would be considered as an act of rebellion and an attempt to take over the government. The other method is take over by political means such as voting against a person. To campaign against certain person, in some cases, can be considered as an overthrowing, but most campaigns are just an expression of ideas that oppose the idea of the government, not necessarily an overthrowing of the government itself. Just as how to correct a teacher would be to reform the teacher of a certain thought or method,

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

I need to fight against things that i would actually want and fight for things that my party wants, like the mandatory conscription i am against this but my party wants it so i have been helping fight for it. Legislators also can be disciplined, some types of discipline are, denying them chances to travel, forcing them to leave from the party, or, in some rare but extreme cases refusing to allow them to run with the party's banner in the next election. It has been shown that “party discipline has governed members' legislative voting for decades, defections from loyal party voting have occurred in all legislative parties in democratic countries.” (add citation!!!) the quote is talking how legislator do sometime go against their parties but that knowing that they will be discipling them stops some of legislators from going against their parties.

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

However, a major aspect of democracy is majority rule. This majority vote can be influenced by predominate structures that only provide one forced option. Additionally, majority rule can prevent the deliberation with the minority group. As Crick defines politics, there must be deliberation and compromise with all parties (21). The minority in result of democracy can lose its voice. Crick states, “The late Ernest Bevin once told a Trade Union Conference that it was not democratic for a minority to continue to question the decisions of a majority- and he received equally sincere and astonishing reply that democracy meant that he could say what he liked, when he liked, how he liked” (57). Therefore, majority rule in democracy eliminates the process of compromise with both the majority and minority. A process that is needed in

After all, a central aspect of the proportional representation argument is that the government should be formatted in a manner that allows for the fair representation of the political opinion of Canadians. However, Kam points out how legislation is passed in an effort to represent the will of the majority of Canadians. But, he also argues that there is no such thing as a true majority, as there is no single policy that voters prefer to all others. In turn, he claims that “manufactured majorities” created as a result of the SMP system are not necessarily a bad thing, as they give parliament the stability needed to pass legislation. In comparison, he points out how the MMP system would give power to a number of smaller parties, and that these parties would impair parliament’s ability to pass policy.

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

10: Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, consider why direct action could be said to undermine UK democracy.

Specifically, it should be noted that under a single party rule, or under a stalemate of political disagreement where neither party would be able to advance their agenda, particular groups represented in the minority or counterculture would be treated at a disadvantage to the current culture or political system in demand. To develop a clear understanding of whether or not a lack of bipartisanship in Congress has an immediate effect on the minority which did not support the majority’s election and rise to power, it must be made evident that various social and judicial reforms do take place in order to support the empowerment of a single party despite the condition of its

- One of the issues is the fact that Senator’s are appointed by the Prime Minister. In other words, senators are appointed to the Senate for being loyal to the Prime Minister’s party which is seen as undemocratic and gives the Senate an illegitimate image.

America’s Prescient Dissenters embraces Senator Fulbright and Dr. Bacevich’s impassioned and educated objections to the Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) respectively, and it champions their public disagreement with the presidential administrations of their time. Furthermore, America’s Prescient Dissenters reinforces the notion that Dissent and political discourse are founding principles of our great democracy, but also suggests that history forgets those like Fulbright and Bacevich. Fulbright argued that “consensus was equivalent to complacency” (LeVien 10), but as a nation, our greatest crowning achievements occur when we overcome partisanship and focus on results and collaboration achieved through “passionate, frank, and thorough

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.

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.

If party imbalance disorganizes dominant party minority party is pulverized. Minority doesn't fight. Young people gain dominant party, and second party goes national.

Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and