Dear all,
You have now completed the first section of the syllabus. This covers the following areas:
Democracy - Direct, indirect & representitive
Accountability
Legitimacy
Participation
Referendums
(If you are unsure of any of the above, please make sure you read your textbook and look at articles on the blog....and most importantly, ask questions!!!
Your homework for this week is to complete one of the following 25 mark questions (you choose which you would like to work on):
How and why has the UK democratic system been criticised?
To what extent does democracy in the UK suffer from a ‘participation crisis’?
To what extent is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK?
Are referendums more effective than elections in promoting democracy in the UK?
To what extent has the UK political system become more democratic in recent
years?
Do referendums strengthen or weaken the power of government?
How effectively does representative democracy operate in the UK?
To what extent would the wider use of referendums improve democracy in the
UK?
You will complete this by commenting on this post (please remember to write the question first!!). This way, all the other students can view your essay and comment as well. Peer assessment as well as teacher assessment will help you understand the issues as well as improving your exam technique.
If you have a problem commenting, please let me know.
Deadline: Thursday 3rd October
Luke Jewell - How and why has the UK democratic system been criticised?
ReplyDeleteThe Westminster style of government in the UK is a model that many other democracies base their parliaments on, it has proven to be highly effective and maintaining stability and Britain has enjoyed peaceful transitions of power consistently, even in cases of hung parliament. However the UK democratic system has also come under a barrage of criticism for being poorly representative and undemocratic in many places, this is mainly due to that it is outdated and although it was reformed to a degree under Blair’s government in 1997 it is in urgent need of a radical reform, shown most by the so called ‘participation crisis’ it is undergoing.
Many of the criticisms of the system stem from the voting system used to elect representatives to the house of commons - First Past the Post or FPTP. For although there are regular free and fair elections the system itself goes against many key principles of democracy. Firstly it results in under representing many people including ethnic minorities but most crucially women, the percentage of women in the house of commons is 22% compared to 51% of the whole population. Because of this some argue that it fails to represent the nation as a whole and thus its decisions are not legitimate. FPTP also means that more extreme parties are not properly represented in parliament, for although the majority of people may disagree with the policies and beliefs of parties such as UKIP or the BNP, they are supported by some of the British public and so must have a voice in its elected parliament. UKIP is now the second biggest party in terms of membership and public opinion polls however it still has no seats in the house of commons as they have so far failed to gain a majority in a single constituency, although it has come second and third in many, showing that it has wide support and the failure of the system to represent these people is widely criticised.
Furthermore the participation crisis and low turnouts at elections may be partly attributed to this system. Because of how FPTP operates the votes of many people in constituencies that are considered to be ‘safe seats’ (meaning one party has had a large majority in that seat for a number of consecutive terms) fail to count or mean anything, this results in people not bothering to vote. It also leads to disillusionment among much of the public who have lost faith in the system because they believe it fails to represent them and a system that does not have the faith of the public risks losing its legitimacy and thus authority. The system also leads to partisan dealignment in which the main parties all start to move to the center ground meaning there are no significant differences between the major parties and they then only cater to the center swing voters and fail to represent their core voters.
It is also not just the system that MPs are elected through that has come under criticism, the lack of power of recall is a flaw in the democratic system that needs urgently to be righted, it means that the people in a constituency have no mechanism of removing their MP even if he has committed a minor crime or has failed to act in their best interests or according to his own conscience. This is also indicative of a wider problem with the way MPs operate and are elected, on occasion some are made to vote along party lines on issues as opposed to voting according to their conscience or the best interests of their constituents, and it bears the questions whether people vote for their mp because of him personally or because of the party he represents. It also raises concerns about the power of Prime ministers and whether as a leader with so much power and influence he should be voted in personally instead of by members of his party. Certain prime ministers such as Thatcher have effectively ruled as if they were Presidents and discarded the cabinet style of governing that was intended in the original system.
And it is not just the Prime Minister who is not voted into the position by the people. The UK’s democratic system has been harshly criticised for failing to be democratic in many places. Whilst most other countries such as the US have an elected head of state the UK retains a monarch, and although the Queen does have little to no power in the government (apart from a few reserve powers which she would be unlikely to ever use) it goes against the principles of a democratic system that the countries head of state is born into power and not chosen by any of the people. However it should also be remembered that the Royal family does enjoy wide public support and many would choose to keep it where the given the option.
ReplyDeleteThe second main non democratic institution in the UK is the House of Lords, this is the upper house of parliament and votes on legislation and bills. The liberal democrats pushed to reform it however due to a conservative rebellion this potential reform failed. Following Tony Blairs reform of it in which most hereditary peers were removed and replaced with appointed lords. This removed some or the archaic aspects of the house however it still remains a completely undemocratic legislative body and with an important role in lawmaking this has been criticised widely however neither of the main parties see reforming it to be a main priority.
This type of reform of the way the UK is governed seems to always be difficult but should not really be due to another criticism of the UK’s system, being that it does not have a codified constitution as many of its european counterparts and the Americans do. A codified constitution would entrench into law the basic rights of people and the limit the powers of the government. In its current form the UK’s ‘constitution’ is made up of previously passed bills, pieces of legislation and rulings from the new supreme court. However none of these are binding on future parliaments and can be easily overturned, this means that if the ruling party has a large majority in the commons it can effectively rule as an elected dictatorship for 5 years passing any bills it chooses if its mps vote largely along party lines. This can be somewhat seen in the government of Blair and Thatcher where at certain points their majorities were so large that they had unreasonable levels of power.
One of the way such governments have curbed their own power is by holding referendums, this shows clearly that there is public support for their policies and shows that they are attempting to consult with the people and not act in dictatorial ways. This stance was adopted by Blair who held a number of referendums over devolution and implementing elected mayors in cities and towns. However the results of these referendums are not binding like they are in US states and there is no set way of triggering one nor minimum levels for them counting like there is also in the states. It also compromises the authority and legitimacy of parliament by possibly undermining its role as the elected decision maker and as such the implementation of this style of referendums can be criticised.
In conclusion the UKs democratic system appears to be outdated with many undemocratic aspects and institutions and a voting system that is thoroughly unrepresentative and archaic. When the falling levels of participation and the lack of a constitution - that has resulted in constitutional flaws- are also taken into account it is easy to see how it has been criticised. Especially when taken into account that reforming some or many aspects of the system has come to so close to happening a number of times but has failed either due to a lack of will on the parties behalf, the house of Lords reform, or a failure to properly educate and invigorate the public such as in the case of the AV referendum. The criticism is further justified by the fact that in the many countries that the UKs system has been copied in or modelled upon these flaws have been rectified.
Excellent essay Luke. You are already using the language required to score highly at this level and your knowledge of the relevant systems is strong. You use examples where appropriate and have a conclusion which is unbiased and objective, a crucial skill in Politics essays. 23/25 - I have docked you 2 marks as I cannot see how you could complete this in 25 minutes. Your aim for the next 25 marker is to try to be concise in your answer.
DeleteDo Referendums strengthen or weaken the power of the government?
ReplyDeleteReferendums weaken the government as it makes them look like they don’t know what to do., and so they have to ask us. Although it makes the government look good as it approaches an audience that isnt usually interested in politics.
Holding a referendum strengthens the goverenment’s position by showing a majority for, or against, the issue of the question.
Referendums enhance democracy and strengthen public opinions by giving voters greater opportunities for involvement. Referendums are a first best form of democracy for which representative democracy (the second best form) attempts to substitute. Referendums can settle issues simply while still including the audience. Referendums enhance citizen engagement, promote voter education and voters are able to make reasoned judgments. Referendums are usually popular with voters. Referendums compliment representative democracy. Referendums are a tactical device.
Referendums in the UK "are only going to happen when the Government of the day wants it or when it would be too embarrassing (because of past promises) to get out of it. Normally they will have a referendum because they think they are going to win it and they will not have it if they are not going to win it. They will just dodge the issue. It is a matter of straight politics. Referendums are dominated by elite groups. Referendums weaken the government because they tend to be dominated by elite groups, politicians, the media and wealthy individuals rather than ordinary individuals.
The use of referendums transfer power from the government to the people because the electorate is able to make decisions itself, thus weakening the governmental power in order to empower people; although the government still has the ability to exert influence on the conduct of a referendum- by wording the question in a certain way.
Although referendums do initially weaken the power of the government, they can also strengthen it too. Only governments are able to decide which issues to be put into referendums, and when.
It is arguable, therefore, that governments will only hold a referendum if they are fairly sure that the outcome will be what they want it to be. Although power is technically placed in the hands of the electorate, the fact that governments tend to only hold a referendum if they are fairly sure of winning suggests that referendums are just another way for politicians to get what they want. The only way politicians can obtain power from the government is if they use some sort of endorsement on a certain policy or issue, this usually makes them successful and unchallenged.
It would be more accurate to say that using a referendum strengthens the position of government by showing a majority for or against the issue. On the other hand, if called too regularly, and for every ‘important’ issue then they can significantly weaken governmental power and undermine the role of MPs. In my final opinion I believe that referendums do relief the government of power but the government has control over referendums so they do have some power and can choose whether or not to supply power to the public by controlling the issues on the referendum, what im trying to say is that yes government does lose power due to referendums but that doesn’t mean they have no power at all, they control the referendum so they decide whether or not the public should have power. The government will always have power and they won’t lose it due to referendums they will still have a strong hold of power.
-chris
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDo Referendums strengthen or weaken the power of the government?
ReplyDeleteReferendums weaken the government as it makes them look like they don’t know what to do., and so they have to ask us. Although it makes the government look good as it approaches an audience that isnt usually interested in politics.
Holding a referendum strengthens the goverenment’s position by showing a majority for, or against, the issue of the question.
Referendums enhance democracy and strengthen public opinions by giving voters greater opportunities for involvement. Referendums are a first best form of democracy for which representative democracy (the second best form) attempts to substitute. Referendums can settle issues simply while still including the audience. Referendums enhance citizen engagement, promote voter education and voters are able to make reasoned judgments. Referendums are usually popular with voters. Referendums compliment representative democracy. Referendums are a tactical device.
Referendums in the UK "are only going to happen when the Government of the day wants it or when it would be too embarrassing (because of past promises) to get out of it. Normally they will have a referendum because they think they are going to win it and they will not have it if they are not going to win it. They will just dodge the issue. It is a matter of straight politics. Referendums are dominated by elite groups. Referendums weaken the government because they tend to be dominated by elite groups, politicians, the media and wealthy individuals rather than ordinary individuals.
The use of referendums transfer power from the government to the people because the electorate is able to make decisions itself, thus weakening the governmental power in order to empower people; although the government still has the ability to exert influence on the conduct of a referendum- by wording the question in a certain way.
Although referendums do initially weaken the power of the government, they can also strengthen it too. Only governments are able to decide which issues to be put into referendums, and when.
It is arguable, therefore, that governments will only hold a referendum if they are fairly sure that the outcome will be what they want it to be. Although power is technically placed in the hands of the electorate, the fact that governments tend to only hold a referendum if they are fairly sure of winning suggests that referendums are just another way for politicians to get what they want. The only way politicians can obtain power from the government is if they use some sort of endorsement on a certain policy or issue, this usually makes them successful and unchallenged.
It would be more accurate to say that using a referendum strengthens the position of government by showing a majority for or against the issue. On the other hand, if called too regularly, and for every ‘important’ issue then they can significantly weaken governmental power and undermine the role of MPs. In my final opinion I believe that referendums do take away power from the government, but the government has control over referendums so they do have some power and can choose whether or not to supply power to the public by controlling the issues on the referendum, what I’m trying to say is that yes government does lose power due to referendums but that doesn’t mean they have no power at all, they control the referendum so they decide whether or not the public should have power. The government will always have power and they won’t lose it due to referendums they will still have a strong hold of power.
-Chris :)
Chris- You have some good points arguing for and against the issue, although I'm not entirely sure about the paragraph about the elite dominating referendums although I do see where you were going with it. You also considered the long and short term effects on the power of government which was good. However you need to include more examples, like when you discuss leaders backing out of referendums you could have discussed how labour kind of backed out of its pledge for a referendum on a new EU constitution when they realised the public was not on their side. Overall I would say this essay was a C grade
DeleteI agree with Luke. You make several valid points, but your essay must have a beginning, middle and end. Start with an introduction the piece, then bring in 4 or 5 valid arguments - a discussion about both sides of the argument, then finish with a conclusion. This should discuss which in your opinion is the most significant point you have made.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRahim
ReplyDeleteAre referendums more effective than elections in promoting democracy in the UK?
Democracy- a political government system coming from Ancient Greece where the power is given to the people
Referendums a form of direct democracy popular vote where the people are asked to determine an important political or constitutional issue directly. Election- a form of direct democracy process of choosing a politician or a representative of the winning party .
To a certain extent referendums do promote a democracy in a more effective way than the elections as this is the direct democracy and people can directly influence decisions , so they are more likely to participate as they know that the choice is up to them . The power is given to the people in order to solve cases based on the moral grounds e.g. whether there should be abortion/death penalty etc. and these important decisions promote the democracy , in other words power to the people. However, elections is all about choosing a single person , a politician who could act on his own behalf , selfishly and maybe even against people and the worst is that he has all the power for the next few years before next MP / Prime Minister is chosen e.g. Nick Clegg who promised the university fees to be paid and yet his electoral manifesto remained unfulfilled which also evidently points out the weakness and lack of power from the people as they couldn’t do anything about it.
In return however referendums are able to cause a destabilization in the government due to the choice made by people who can be made irrational because e.g. the issue can be complex but chosen on the grounds of morality and not of the rational logic people as government may ignore the results just because the results may be very irrational, which won’t promote the democracy and discourage the referendums from the further solution of complex issues. In this case people are not considered as powerful. On the other hand elections are more reliable as the politician chosen can actually be better off deciding about the issues which will actually promote the democracy, as it encourages people to vote and it encourages to give power to the people as well.
DeleteReferendums can also produce a public apathy which will actually decrease the participation and the democracy, as people wouldn’t prefer voting everyday on simple issues, reaching the point where they won’t even solve the complex issue just because they won’t take it seriously. On the elections however people are voting only once and then for the next few years MP/ political members acts and represents them , promoting their opinions , to put it differently democracy , as people are powerful , meaning in this context, influencing decisions. One could argue though that not always the politician represents and acts in the way people want, e.g. David Cameron attempting to win a vote for Syria which was morally unacceptable for people, plus they were unable to do anything as the vote was in the party, which shows people’s weakness here.
In conclusion, referendums may not always be accepted but also not representing all the people as e.g. ethnical minorities are ignored so arguably the democracy is not improved, however in elections everyone’s vote can count towards a certain person. Again, people may not be powerful as not all are represented due to limited votes per party/ politician. To summarize, in my opinion the best way to improve democracy out of the two options will be to hold elections as they are more likely to represent people and won’t require as much money as e.g. referendums which can argue over small insignificant cases, even though it may depend on how often elections are held , otherwise it may cause public apathy. Elections are also more democratically contributing as people will always have the power to vote him out whereas e.g. at referendums people wont have any power at impacting decisions if the government disagrees and even though it may cause protests and pressure groups , the government is the central body whereas elections choose a legitimate politician/member under people’s vote.
A good effort Rahim. I would give this a solid B grade. Positives include an introduction, a middle part and a conclusion - essential for top marks. You also try and evaluate the points you make..all good. However, try to ensure that each point is backed up with an example (you do this for some points but not all) and offer alternatives to the current electoral system we use, as this could make elections even more democratic.
DeleteDo referendums strengthen or weaken the power of government?
ReplyDeleteReferendums are popular votes where the people are asked to determine important political or constituitional issues directly.
Firstly, referendums strengthen teh government as they prevent governments from making unpopular decisions when a 'no' vote is delivered for example the Scottish independence referendum on Thursday 18 September, 2014 in which exclusively Scottish people will be asked the question: Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or No. If the answer is 'no' the Scottish people will not be able to blame the Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Similarly, referendums strengthen the government as there are occasions when the government and the parties in general are likely to fail to resolve an issue effectively for example the referendum held in 2011 for a change in the voting system from First Past The Post to the Alternative Vote; Nick Clegg supported the Alternative Voting system yet was in a difficult position as his party was in a coalition with the Conservatives who were against this idea so, a referendum was held for the General Public to decide; stopping the government from looking unprofessional.
On the other hand, referendums can weaken the government as though the British government only hold referendums when the answer is likely to be in their favour there is no guarantee this will occur especially due to the fact that the media have a big impact on the results of referendums and can plant bias within the general public's minds, weakening the government.
Additionally, Britain is a represntative democracy of which the foundations are based upon elected politicians acting on behalf of the people through a system of regular and periodic elections to ensure politcians can be removed from office and made accountable; referendums are performed by the general public defying the supposed representative UK democracy thus, weakening the government and the UK's representative democracy.
In conclusion, referendums are toxic for a representative democracy like that of the UK as they decrease the accountability of representatives as they don't have to make certain decisions and aren't trusted to make the decisions themselves in turn this weakens the UK's government.
Clear and concise points. Easy to understand all the issues you are raising. You look at both sides of the argument in good detail, including up to date examples to support your points.
DeleteYou link back the the question a lot which ensures you are directly answering the question rather than going off on tangents.
Perhaps you could make your introduction a bit more detailed rather than just providing the definition of a referendum.
Overall it was really well written :)
Peer Asessment of Aara : The points are very well laid out and u have strong points for and against referendums.I also liked the concluding paragraph
DeleteThe only criticism i would give is that the media point is one sided and the government could also use it for their benefit
It was a very well written essay and was informative :)
Bushra
I broadly agree with the points made above. The essay is a solid B grade. It has an introduction and a conclusion - essential for top mark essays. I would suggest you try and use more examples where appropriate and also use the key words in this section - legitimacy, authority and power - define these and this will help move you to an A grade.
DeleteTo what extent is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK?
ReplyDeleteThe extent to which there is a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK can be argued to varying degrees of accuracy. A democratic deficit would be when a democratic institution, such as the UK Government or in the courts of the UK, breaks or falls short of its democratic principles in their principles. An example of democratic deficit in the UK is when In parts of London, Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham, thousands of would-be voters had to stand in line for hours only to be turned away as election volunteers locked the doors of polling stations before they had a chance to cast their ballots. However, the UK government as a whole fulfills most of its democratic principles as it allows freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press.
It can be argued that there is a democratic deficit in the Court system in the UK as judges aren’t elected by the people. It can be argued that unelected judges are making important decisions on social policies without any kind of democratic mandate, particularly in controversial human rights cases. It can also be argued that the electoral system in the UK has a democratic deficit as FPTP or First Past The Post eventually will always result in a two-party system, which arguably isn’t democratic as not everyone is represented. This problem also effects peoples vote as people are forced to vote otherwise as their vote won’t count for much if they vote for a party that won’t many votes in other areas of the country. It can be said that this is a democratic deficiency as it results in an unfair election.
However, even though voting system created an unequal two-party system, the Government did try to rectify this by putting forward a referendum to the public that asked whether they should change the voting system, the answer was no. Therefore the Government cannot be blamed for having a democratic deficit in this field as they tried to change but listened to their people, arguably being even more democratic in the process, thus reducing any democratic deficit that might exist. The UK also maintains the four pillars of democracy being the freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press, therefore lessening the extent as to which the UK has a democratic deficit.
Overall the extent to which the UK has a democratic deficit is rather lessened to fact that the Government tries as hard as it can to try and reduce this, namely by attempting to get rid of a flawed and arguably undemocratic voting system, maintaining the four pillars of democracy and pointing out that judges aren’t voting in. However it can be argued that there is a democratic deficit as the judges still aren’t voted in and the voting system in the UK is democratically flawed.
there are good points that are made but a few more with some more evaluation and using some more specific examples from today and maybe compare other countries systems of democracy to strengthen your argument
Deleteyour friend Garrett
You are clearly a student with ability Sam. Your writing style is very good for a student at AS level. I particularly like your point about the judges. However, as 'your friend' Garrett argues, there is a lot more relevant material you could have discussed. Participation, house of lords, EU and West Lothian question on top of FPTP. Also, try to use key words such as legitimacy and authority. High C grade.
DeleteDo referendums strengthen or weaken the power of government?
ReplyDeleteReferendums are a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision. It is the most direct form of democracy as it is asked directly to the people.
It can be argued that referendums would weaken the power of the government as it may make them look as though they are incompetent and need the help of the public in decision making, particularly if referendums are held regularly.
However, referendums are usually called on ethical issues or issues that will largely affect most people in a country, and because of this, the parties may gain power as the people would respect that decisions haven't been passed without their consent. In 1988 a referendum was held in Australia. 'A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government.' The outcome of the proposed question was a 'no'. If this was passed without the consent of the people, it would have weakened their support and therefore weakened their power as it was a decision the people of Australia did not want.
In many cases governments call for referendums to remain powerful and to be seen as legitimate, knowing what the outcome would be, regardless. This is clear with the referendum to be held in 2014 whereby the people will be asked 'should scotland be an independent country?'. It can be said that George Salmond is aware that the outcome will be a resounding 'no', but has battled to put forward the question to gain more power from his people as he can argue that he has 'tried' and did it for the people of Scotland. Even if the outcome is 'yes', George Salmond could still gain power as the people would be grateful that their opinions matter and they are listened to by the government.
As the proposed question is decided by the government and also, when it is held, It can be said that referendums are just a way of governments getting what they want without their decisions being questioned, as it was not them who voted 'yes' or 'no', it was instead the people. Governments also hold the final decision, too. This means that they still have total power, as regardless of the outcome, the final decision is made by the government.
Overall, if called too regularly, and for every ‘important’ issue then referendums can significantly weaken the governments power and undermine the role of MPs. But in most cases, referendums do strengthen the power of the government as it shows that they care for the people and want the people to decide on important matters.
B/C grade Ollie. You start well with a solid introduction. However, try and use the key words from this section of the course, such as legitimacy, authority as well as power itself. I doubt whether referendums make govts look incompetent. Having said that, you do make some very good points and as a first long essay this is a positive start.
DeleteRubes:
ReplyDeleteAre referendums more effective than elections in promoting democracy in the UK?
A referendum is a popular vote where the people are asked to determine an important political or constitutional issue directly, in the last few years referendums have become increasingly popular in the UK.
Referendums promote democracy, yet a form they promote Direct Democracy which means power to the people this is a kind of democracy where the people make all political decisions in parliament, this is done through referendums being held whenever a decision is needed to be made. They promote democracy as the government is serving the interests of the people as they are being directly asked the question.
Yet referendums don’t promote representative democracy, which is where MP’s represent the public in parliament and they are elected to make decisions on behalf of the people. As is goes against the fact that parliament are there to make the decisions not the people as parliament as better educated on political matters then the public.
There have been multiple referendums since the first one in 1975 in UK, which was to ask the whole of the UK if Britain should stay in the European Community. Referendums would be a good source of promoting democracy yet referendums don’t usually get great turnouts for example in London there was the referendum ‘Are you in favour of the government’s proposals for a Greater London Authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?’ the turnout for this referendum was 34.1% of London. This referendum is a perfect example that referendums don’t promote democracy, as the turnout for them is very low. This can be because people don’t always understand the question; also with the London referendum it was almost two questions in one, people might have believed it couldn’t be answered with a simple Yes or No answer.
Also another reason why referendums don’t always promote democracy is because it is the government who decide if they want the public to participate in a referendum. Also the government would not hold a referendum if they didn’t think they would get the answer they didn’t want, for example Tony Blair did not hold a referendum, when he wanted to go into Iraq as the answer from the public would have likely been no. Also it is the government who decide how to word a referendum, therefor they can make it hard to understand so some members of the UK would not participate in the referendum as they simply don’t understand what they are being asked. Finally referendums are not legally binding which means even if the government got 90% vote yes 5% vote no they do not have to act upon and enforce what they were asking or changing, this could make the public believe that there vote is irrelevant in the governments opinion and not go to the referendum.
Elections promote democracy in the UK as elections give the people multiple opportunities to participate in politics. As anyone is able to run for MP of their local area, this is promoting democracy as it gives people the opportunity to voice their views and run for MP. Elections also promote democracy, as the elected MPs are held accountable for their actions. For example if a MP promises to remove tuition fees then votes for them to remain like Nick Clegg did the public can just vote him out in the next election.
In conclusion I believe that elections are a better source a promoting democracy then referendums in the UK, yet we have to consider the fact that referendums have only began in the UK in 1975, while general elections have been running for hundreds of years therefor they might just not be as effective at this current time as they are relatively new to the UK. But at the current time in the UK I believe that elections are a better form of promoting democracy, as there is more participation among the people compared to referendums.
Ruby's work peer-assessed by Comrade Rahim
DeleteWWW: Good use of real life examples and statistics to support your point
Good introduction and definition of democracy and clear judgement.
EBI : it would be better to add some points on elections, and there are not as many arguments as on referendums. Add more up to date examples on elections as well
Overall, this essay would probably deserve B-A grade as it is well written and supported with multiple examples and you just need to elaborate a little on the elections( In my opinion , it would show the examiner that you can distinguish between them )
A solid B grade Ruby. Your answer as far as referendums are concerned is a good one. You use examples and have a conclusion - essential for top grade. To improve your grade you should also discuss what democracy actually is. ie it should include participation, legitimacy and authority issues.
DeleteGarrett
ReplyDeleteHow effectively does representative democracy operate in the UK?
Within the UK, representative democracy works fairly well in the sense that we do have a leader that is elected to represent the people. There is also the ability for many parties to run for what they stand for. However there are aspects of the current government such as the coalition which would suggest that representative democracy does not operate well in the UK as well as the idea of referendums being used show aspects of direct democracy, and a voting system which could be said not to represent the people, which could suggest that there is in fact an inefficacy
In the UK there is a leader which is voted in by the people in a fair election to make educated decisions, in matters the general public would not understand as they are not as politically educated. This shows how the systems is effective as with a more educated view there can be a wider pool of solutions, and the ability to make decisions for the right reasons even if they may not be the most popular. Arguably this happened when Margret thatcher had to close the mines to combat the inflation. Although many disagreed within the public it did indeed drop inflation so could arguably have been the right decision. From 2010 though it could be considered that representative democracy was no longer effective due to the coalition. It is not a true representation of what the people wanted as neither had a majority vote. This coalition could also have a massive effect on liberal democrat’s decisions as the conservatives could be seen as more influential, and this could be seen within the Nick Clegg’s decision to rise university fees even though he originally said they would not. This could however be connected to the idea of making what could be considered the right conscious decision, as things may have changed or there was an inability to do what was promised. This could also been seen as a loss of legitimacy which would argue against the effectiveness as people have voted him in, but he is not bound to make the decisions that he promised.
Within the UK there is the ability for any party to stand for an election. This shows the variety of ideas that go on within politics. Some could say that within the UK there is a 2 party system meaning that there is only ever chance for 2 parties to ever gain power. This could be said for the UK as there is only usually 2 parties that are mainly elected (labour and conservative), but within recent years we have seen a coalition with a 3rd party which has never been elected. This gives a greater of ideas within parliament making the decisions move effective, however time is taken to form coalitions and this is also same for policies, so it could be seen less effective as the decision process takes longer, but again this is arguably a good thing as it means there is not a dominating power that can essentially do what it wants such as David Cameron wanting to invade Syria. He went on to lose the vote within parliament, however this would never have happened to someone such as Tony Blair and his want to invade Iraq. This could suggest that the effectiveness of representative democracy has in fact become more effective. Although it could be considered as a 2 party system it doesn’t mean that even the little parties have an influence within politics. Rising parties such as UKIP could be considered as more of a conservative meaning that the more left leaning ‘conservative party’ is now reconsidering their policies as many of their voters are converting to this alternative party. This has made the conservatives reconsider policies such as immigration. As long as a party wins in a constituency they will still gain a seat in parliament, opening up more ideas in parliament making it more effective. This can be seen particularly with the green party as they only have a few seats but they have influenced the ideas of the main parties in terms of their emission policies.
C grade Garrett. There are some good points such as lack of representation, but you do not address issues such as legitimacy, authority and power. Also, we do not elect our leader, we elect MP's - the leader is picked by the party. This could be a legitimate point. Also, the question is about democracy, so you should talk about what a good representative democracy is about.
DeleteKareem
ReplyDeleteQuestion - Do referendums strengthen or weaken the power of government?
The government has suffered heavily due to the use of more referendums in the UK in recent years. The first and arguably most prominent issue is that holding a referendum undermines the representative democracy as power is given directly to the people and this questions whether or not the current members of Parliament are truly competent to handle political issues. However, referendums have only been held on subject matter that affects the population on a wide level, such as the 1998 referendum on whether or not there should be a mayor of London.
The decision to have a mayor of London could not have happened as the government is not legally bound to fully accept the results of a referendum so this may be a reason as to why the government's power is strengthened because if the results go against what is believed to be best for the country in question, then the results do not matter necessarily and the referendum is treated just like an opinion poll on a larger and more serious scale. But in that case, why not use an opinion poll on a wide scale? Why should there be a function of government which is to measure public interest when there are many other external tools that do the same? Government power is severely weakened by referendums in this sense as they are performing an arguably useless task which has many cheaper alternatives.
The use of referendums also diminishes the power of government due to how there is no actual government rules that dictate how, why and when referendums are run and what this means is that a government is making decisions based around an unorganized mechanic and the issues with this are two-fold. For one, they represent direct democracy in a representative democratic system such as the UK. And secondly, they remove power from the government and put it in the hands of the people which undermines the power of government.
In conclusion, I believe that referendums, although useful, when used in an indirect democratic system such as the UK have too many flaws to be an accurate representatio of government power as too much power is given to the people.
Garrett 2
ReplyDeleteThe increasing use of referendums since 1997 could damage the idea of how effective the representative democracy is in England as it could be seen as undermining the government’s powers however there is one important factor in that they do not have to follow what the result says. Referendums are also costly and time consuming. The money need to pay for the referendums come out of the tax payers money to ask them a question which ultimately is why the prime minister is elected, to answering those questions. The idea of a referendum is also a truly direct democracy ideas which defeats the purpose of having a representative democracy. They can also be used just to win party support, such as the Scottish referendum as David Cameron ultimately knew the result. This idea of a non-representative democracy can also been seen in the House of Lords due to the idea that most of the positions are inherited and not voted for. This undermines the idea of electing someone to represent what the people, however this system of having an upper class make the representative in the UK more efficient as it allows and impartial way of thinking as there is no one siding party. Compare this to the recent government shutdown in America as there was an inability to agree on a budget due to the upper house being predominantly republican and disagreeing with Obamas views. This would not happen in England due to an unbiased opinion. A main argument that could coincide with the idea of an inefficient representative democracy is the voting system that is used. Within Britain to elect the prime minister there is the use of the first past the post. This means that you win constituencies. This could be seen as ineffective representation as most of the time there is never a majority vote in favour of a single party. It could be said then that the winning party does not represent the majority of the people. A more representative democracy could be seen in places such as Germany which recently saw Angela Merkel getting a massive amount of votes but the majority still felt that she shouldn’t be the leader, so a coalition was formed to make sure there is a majority vote, which is showing that representative democracy is operating but you could argue that in this system it is not operating effectively as forming coalitions can take time. The British government could be seen as an effective democracy but not necessarily a representative one.
In conclusion the overall effectiveness of representative democracy in the UK is healthy, as it shows many of the main points such as the elections, and their mandate and legitimacy. It also shows the idea that everyone does have a say and anyone has the ability to oppose the government such as voting them out, but there are areas which could be seen as not effective such as the current voting system used and other aspects that could be seen as non-representative, however it is done so that the government can work more effectively meaning that the overall effectiveness of representative democracy in the UK is healthy.
Jay
ReplyDeleteAre referendums more effective than elections in promoting democracy in the UK?
Referendums are a form of direct democracy, which involves the government putting forward a question to the general public with a yes or no answer. They are normally asked when public opinion is largely important to an issue, for instance when there are serious divisions between the people’s representatives, MP’s, or when the issue in question is ethical or requires public opinion, e.g. bringing back the death sentence or Scotland leaving the UK.
In many cases elections are basic forms of democracy with the people in the UK voting for a representative, MP to put forward their ideas, beliefs and opinions in parliament. This is a case of representative democracy and could be said not a true form of democracy as it is not direct from the people. There has been a large decrease in recent years of the number of people voting in general elections with only 60% of the voting population taking part. This could have a large impact on deciding how useful general elections are at displaying the opinions of the public and will definitely alter the state of democracy in the UK and raises questions to how useful democracy is if a large share of the population doesn't vote. Referendums however are a good way of gaining public support and opinion on a subject and can lead to a more wide variety of people voting as people will feel the need to make their opinions heard on an important matter such as leaving the European Union.
Referendums are a purer form of direct democracy with the people being able to have a direct say in the decisions of the government; however the government doesn't have to take any action on the results of an election, although this is highly unlikely and the results mostly will be taken into account. Referendums will try to get people involved more in politics with them possibly occurring more than once every five years unlike general elections. This should increase public knowledge on subjects with them having more ability to vote and become involved with parliamentary decisions. However this won’t work if people don’t vote in them, with only a small majority of people voting, therefore referendums might not be a true form of democracy as not all of the population is taking part.
In conclusion referendums will increase public participation in democracy more so than elections as people are having more of a say in government policies and know that their vote counts. Unlike in elections when many feel detached from parties and may not vote as they don’t understand their policies. This will cause a fall in voting and make people will not take part in voting whereas with referendums they will have more of a say. Referendums are a pure form of direct democracy and therefore more effective at promoting democracy in the UK than an election once every five years.
Low B grade answer Jay - lots of general points about referendums and elections. However, the essay is lacking examples and must also use the key terms learnt in this section of the course. Key terms such as legitimacy, democracy, power, participation & authority
DeleteHow and why has the UK democratic system been criticized?
ReplyDeleteMikaeel:
Democracy is giving power to the people. Democracy is seen as one of the ultimate goals that modern civilizations try to create, or keep. Democracy as a system of governance is supposed to allow representation and inclusiveness of as many people and views as possible to put into a functioning society. Importantly, democracy supposedly checks unaccountable power and manipulation by the few at the expense of the many, because fundamentally democracy is seen as a form power by the people, for the people. This is often implemented through elected representatives, which therefore requires free and fair elections, in order to achieve legitimacy.
However, even in established democracies, such as the UK’s democratic system there are influences that threaten various democratic foundations. A democratic system’s freedom also allows it to bring those with fixed interests to use the democratic process as a way to attain power and influence, even if they do not hold democratic principles. This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. There may be various ways to address this, but in reality once power is attained by those who are not genuinely support democracy, it is rarely i given up.
Figures show that the voter turnout for the UK general elections have been going down each general election. This is how the citizens are criticizing the democratic system in the UK, by not voting. There are many criticism that bring about the voters doubt making each newly elected government less legitimate than the before. Many reasons have brought the decrease in voters turn out. These reasons can be identified as following; many of the Lords with in the House of Lords have inherited their lordships .Although the number has been reduced due to the changes in the House of Lords. But however the rest of the lords are also not elected but personally selected and appointed a Lord. The public feel the lords should not play a role in the parliament as they are not elected and if they are not elected they are certainly not a part of democracy within the UK government.
The present system of voting, FPTP is a failure in maintaining democracy. Thousands of votes are wasted as the majority has the advantage in the present system of FPTP and the minority party's hardly ever win seats in parliament in comparison to the received number of votes. A Liberal Democracy makes sure the rights minorities are to be balanced against the majority rule. This is not possible when the minority parties have not been allowed to have any seats in parliament according to first past the post. For example in the 2005 General Election; Scottish National Party won 6 seats, with votes 412,267 which only 1.6% total votes casted. The UK Independent Party won no seats however polled 603,398 votes, 2.4% total votes. This shows the votes being wasted and also provides evidence as to how undemocratic the current UK democratic system is.When we look at the recent statistics of the 2010 General Election in UK we can see that the Scottish National Party won the same number of seats and polled almost the same amount of votes as the previous election. In comparison the UK Independent Party still won no seats but gained a significant increase of 300,000 votes. This shows us the struggle of the minority in the UK, but unfortunately the system does not allow the minority to be heard showing that diversity which must exists in a liberal democracy does not exist forcing the citizens to be fed up of the system.
In conclusion UK democratic system has many flaws like the formation of the House of Lords and the voting system which arguably is not legitimate as it is does not truly represent the votes each party has received. The House of Lords can also be called not legitimate as many of the lords have not been voted in; instead they have inherited their power.
Excellent opening paragraph Mikaeel -good definition. You also use good examples highlighting issues. However, there is a lot of 'Why' but not much 'How'. You need to discuss the rise of pressure groups, more on fall of participation and the questioning on MP's legitimacy.
DeleteB/C grade btw
DeleteAre referendums more effective than elections in promoting democracy in the UK?
ReplyDeleteDelton
Referendums promote direct democracy as they are a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision. Elections promote representative democracy as the people vote for someone to represent them and make decisions for them.
Referendums greatly promote democracy because the government asks the people for their opinion. Democracy (demos kratos) originates from ancient Greece meaning people power or power to the people. Referendums give power to the people as it gives them a voice and they have a vote in what they want.
However, they are not binding as it is not the law for the government to go the way of the people's vote. Also, referendums are not truly democratic because not everyone votes. This could be due to lack of availability, complex questions etc. But if the turnout is not 100 % it is not truly democratic because not everyone has had their say.
The government of the United Kingdom has held 11 referendums since 1973. The next one is being held on september 18th and the voters will answer the yes or no question 'Should Scotland be an independent country?'
This shows good direct democracy as the government are asking the public what they would want to do. However, it also shows faults as the government may already know the answer. The government don't have to allow a referendum and they will most likely only agree if they know they are going to win. The losing side tend to only want the referendums so they can show their supporters know they tried.
Elections promote representative democracy. In the United Kingdom, we have 650 seats in the house of commons. Each seat is taken by an MP from each of the 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom. These MP's are voted in by the people living in the area of their constituency. So for example, a person living in Colchester would vote for an MP and the one with the most votes will become MP (Sir Bob Russell). Each MP will be part of a party such as Labour, Conservative or The Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Each MP will get a seat in the house of commons and the party with the most seats will elect someone as their party leader and they will become prime minister. They are legitimate because we voted them in and they represent us.
However, Nick Clegg is an example of why representative democracy and elections can be bad. He said he would attempt to abolish tuition fees if voted but when he was voted he did not do this. But even though we elected him in, we can vote him out so this is why it is good as we can say what we want even though we are represented by others.
Thus in conclusion, i believe that referendums are more effective in promoting direct democracy which has pros and cons however elections promote representative democracy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA good effort Delton, you use lots of examples and attempt a conclusion, so well done. However, you must try and use the key words for this section of the course. Words such a s legitimacy, participation, authority, power etc B/C Grade
DeleteTo what extent does democracy in the UK suffer from a ‘participation crisis’?
ReplyDeleteQasim Khan
The term 'democracy' came from Athens in Greece. The word 'demo' means power, and 'kratia' meaning people - as a whole the term means power to the people. A democracy allows the citizens of a nation the right to influence ideologies, and decisions on how to improve the nation, making it a better place for them to live. This can be done through representative democracy, which is where a Member of Parliament will represent your constituency in the HoC's, and also share the views on specific topics. Ultimately, the MP is likely to be a lot more educated than the people because he/she work within the political industry, and therefore are much more likely to know exactly what will benefit the country; rather than allowing the people to make the decisions. However, the other form of democracy is direct, and this is where the people make the decisions. This is usually done through referendums, which are a yes or no question, which the public vote on.
The democracy in the UK suffers from a participation crisis to some extent. This is because during things such as the general election not many people decide to vote. Therefore the party that is elected into power fails to represent the whole of the UK, in which undermines democracy. For example; in the 2010 general election, the turnout was 65%, which shows us that there is an immediate problem with the UK's democratic system, as 35% of the nation haven't had an input, and therefore the government will not be representing the views of the majority of the people.
In addition to that, minority groups will find it difficult to put their ideologies across to the people, or to even influence government decision. This means that supporters of groups such as the EDL are not being represented, and therefore will always find it difficult to come into power. Most of the people realise that being part of minority group makes things difficult in the attempt of gaining some power, and therefore their voters are most likely to either not vote, or tactical vote, so that they vote for their second favourite party, to stop another from gaining power. Either way, this minority of the population will fail to be represented, in which democracy is being undermined.
To some extent, less people are joining political parties because of the so called "two-party system", and the fact that the two parties have become more centralised. Becoming more centralised means that the parties have moved away from their original ideologies in order to gain votes in the general election. This means they have become more similar and some people don't believe that its worth joining them because they both do the same thing. The two-party system makes it difficult to join any other party because even if you do, it's highly unlikely that your party will ever gain power. On the other hand, being in a different political party may allow you to help influence government decisions, and some of the ideologies the party has may relate to either the Conservatives or Lib Dems. A party who has influenced government, is the Green Party, who's main aim is to be more eco-friendly.
ReplyDeleteSome pressure groups show that they are still able to influence government decisions. They can do this through various ways, such as; the Muslim Council of Britain are in more contact with the government, and have been given grants by them to help support their cause. Pressure groups find it easier to grab awareness of people, because they are more likely to support single issues which people believe in. This is why people may avoid voting for parties; instead they may join a pressure group which may benefit them. This gives us evidence that democracy isn't suffering because some minority groups people are still getting their ideologies across.
The government also hold referendums more regularly than before, so that the people can help make decisions. For example, in 2011, there was a referendum on whether the people wanted to change the voting system for FPTP, to AV. This gave them the opportunity to make a decision, and have an impact on what they agreed to. As well as that, the referendum in 2014, regarding whether Scotland will leave the United Kingdom or become an independent state, gives the people the opportunity to make a decision, on what they believe will benefit their nation.
The government do this to keep the political system as democratic as possible; and to show the people that they are interested in their views. The MP's represent their constituencies to a certain extent, and give the people the opportunity to meet once a week in their surgeries. This allows the constituents to discuss all of the issues they have, and what their political views are on certain issues. For example; the MP of Kingston Upon Thames is Edward Davies, and if any of the constituents had a political issue or anything else that concerned them, they would be able to meet with the MP, and discuss their ideologies. He is then required to put these points across in parliament, to help make a change for his people.
Overall, I believe that the democracy has suffered due to a participation crisis because parties have become more similar within their ideologies, and also people are not that interested, or even educated enough. This means that people are not being represented, however it isn't entirely their fault. I believe that school's should make it compulsory for students to learn politics, as it will help people in understanding politics, meaning that there is a better chance of participation in politics because the people will know what they're talking about, and some topics may be in their interest.
Low B - Qasim. You make many good points and strengthen them with relevant examples. However, you must remember to use the key words from this section of the course. Words such as legitimacy, participation, authority and power.
DeleteTo what extent has the UK political system become more democratic in recent years?
ReplyDeleteBushra Aumir
The democratic system of the government is based on the separation of powers in the state, which means that the powers of government are separated functionally between branches of government, which include the parliament, judiciary, and executives. Democracy basically means power to the people. In the democratic system people are participating in the decision making process without considering their race, colour or physical ability. They are able to decide through their representatives. Each individual has his vote and these votes are effective and able to change decisions.
The political system in the UK has become significantly more representative and therefore, more democratic in recent years with the increasing use of referendums, e-petitions and as a result of devolution over the last 15-20 years
Since 1997 in the UK there has been a more frequent use of referendums. Referendums are where there is an issue that is decided by the people directly. They normally consist of a yes and no answer. An example of this is the 2011 referendum on whether the AV system should be introduced to the UK. This referendum gave people a choice on how the voting system should take place in future years for electing members of parliament. This gave the individual more power not only over how the country should be run, but also on how the constituency is run by the politicians. This referendum also caused people to become more politically educated as they would research into other voting systems, as a result becoming more politically involved as they are deciding on how the UK should be run. Another example is the referendum on devolution in Scotland. This also caused people to become more politically involved which is the aim of democracy as an overall view of the people could be gathered on whether Scotland should stay as a part of the UK.
Referendums are thought of as a good way of including elements of direct democracy in a representative system. However some critics of referendums argue that its frequent use in recent years has actually detracted from the democratic process. They argue that the questions used can be worded to influence voters; no matter how carefully they are phrased they will always have an element of bias to them. Also they argue referendums are expensive and disrupt the government. Others argue that because referendums are held at a time of the ruling party's choice, they have the biggest influence on the outcome of the vote. If these criticisms are true then obviously the use of referendums are actually degrading from the democratic process.
E- petitions also have become more common recently, causing people to put their views on specific issues more often. If a petition gains 100 thousand votes or more it may be debated in the House of Commons giving the view a chance to be enforced. However, many e-petitions are only talked about in the House of Commons, and then no reform is made as a result. For example, in September 2012, there was talk about a limit on the Uk’s population, however government rejected the idea put forward through an e-petition. This still causes people to become more educated about current issues in politics due to their participation, which also caused their views to be more important to politicians.
Excellent introductory paragraphs Bushra - this is important as it sets the tone for the rest of the essay. However, the question is to what extent, so for every point in favour of democracy, there are points that suggest otherwise - participation crisis, House of lords EU, to name but three. Also remember to include the key words for this section - democracy, legitimacy, power & authority. B Grade
DeleteFurthermore the introduction of devolution has strengthened UKs political system more democratic by giving a stronger and more independent political voice to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Previously, they had been represented primarily through Parliament, where English MPs always outnumbered them and their political views were not brought under consideration a lot. Devolution gives people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a chance to voice their opinion and contribute to the decision making process. However, the devolution process has not completely worked to give them an independent voice, as they remain subordinate to the Parliament.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of PR electoral system which is a concept in voting systems used to elect an assembly or council. PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system, if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly that party will win 30% of seats. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single-member districts. This has therefore helped smaller parties gain seats in the parliament, which means there can be a greater representation of views in the House of Commons. For example the Respect coalition party which is a left wing party and is a relatively small party that promotes Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism have managed to gain a seat in the house of commons in the last election and therefore represent different perspectives of different people. However, Westminster elections continue to be based on a majoritarian electoral system.
In Conclusion referendums seem to add an element of direct democracy in the UK political system and increases the legitimacy of the decision being made, however in order for them to do so they must be careful and the questions framed must be unbiased. Overall, the increase in the use of PR electoral system, devolution, e-petitions and referendums has caused the UK to become more democratic to as more people’s opinions are being taken under consideration when important decisions are being made. People are also becoming more aware of important issues, thereby involving them more in the democratic process.
Peer Asessment of Bushra:
DeleteWWW: Excellent use and incorporation of up-to-date examples,
Strong introduction and conclusion.
Many arguements for and against.
EBI: Slightly confused as to whether the E-petition point is for the U.K being more democractic or not? Sorry maybe thats just me -_-
Overall, your answer was a pleasure to read and very professionally written!
Aara (:
Sorry bushra, I missed the second part - excellent work, comprehensive and relevant. A grade stuff...still, remember all the key words, they will ensure your essays remain relevant to the question asked.
DeleteDo referendums strengthen or weaken the power of government?
ReplyDeleteA referendum is a vote where the people are asked to express their view on a particular issue of public policy. Referendums give the public a way of directly influencing government policy. Although the government is not required to accept the results of a referendum. Referendums are therefore a device of direct democracy, but they are typically used to enhance representative democracy. Referendums can moderately weaken the power of government although the government has all power of referendums and it is highly unlikely that they would put their authority at risk.
Firstly it can be said that referendums strengthen the power of government because if a referendum is successful and agrees with what a majority of the government wanted it can weaken other obstacles to the implementation of a policy and strengthen the position of the government; in turn making them more powerful. For example if pressure groups were standing in the way of a certain policy and the government wasn’t able to ignore their demands they could carry out a referendum, and if the electorate agreed with the government the pressure groups would have no choice but to retreat, securing the power of the government. Secondly the government is not required to agree with the public, this in itself is power. Another good example of this was the Scottish devolution referendum in 1997. Labour ensured that Conservative opposition to devolution was abolished. If the two parties had continued arguing over the issue, the government would seem weak to the public and their power would be affected. By using a referendum they avoided this situation and kept their power intact. In addition referendums give the government more democratic legitimacy, which subsequently gives the government more power, because the public put more of their trust into the government and believe they are being represented well, this ensures government authority. Furthermore the government decide the issues that will be put to referendums, they decide the date of referendums and they decide the question that will be asked as well as the way it will be worded. It can also be said that in a way they are able to sway the public to support their preferred outcome, by using sources such as the media. Seeing as they are in power of the referendum system, they would not hold a referendum in which their power would be weakened.
On the other hand it can be said that referendums to an extent weaken the power of government as they represent direct democracy in a representative democratic system. The people in a representative democracy are meant to be putting their faith into the government that they have elected, the government should be powerful enough to make every decision without having to seek public support. The system of representative democracy is challenged by referendums, it shows that the system is flawed and consequently this decreases the power of the government as well as the system they are running. Referendums weaken the government because they are handing the power back to the people who they are meant to be representing.
Overall I believe that referendums do, to an extent, weaken the power of government in a representative democracy like the UK because it shows their system is flawed. But there are advantages of referendums to the government. Referendums help the government keep their legitimacy and allow them to diminish obstacles that come in their way, which strengthens their influence.
Zainab Sadiq
VI-4
Nice introduction, sets out the essay well - However, after that you only really focus on one point - the referendum itself and not points such as their impact on legitimacy, authority, representation and participation.
Delete