Bobbio offers the observation that politics is contradictory and paradoxical, since it often includes unavoidable broken promises. Postmodern political thinkers like Foucault put forth the idea that power among the hands of the state is both suspicious and dangerous. In discursive political theory, there must be an open communication of ideas and reason between citizens, but many critics, like Schumpeter and Sheldon Wolin, argue that open dialogue in modern democratic practices is vulnerable to fears and concerns of citizens. Inclusionary democracy prevents the tyranny of a few to withhold political rights to citizens and calls for acceptance of rights for various social and racial groups in order for equal representation in the political process. However, various groups have challenged the success of democracy to fully represent citizens’ rights because of its divisive nature.
Lobby Groups In this comparison between David B. Truman and V.O. Key, Jr.’s views on lobby groups they have different interpretations on role and interaction of these groups in government. In a democratic system there is bound to be resentment and desire for change because it is impossible to satisfy everybody. Truman and Key describe how those individuals try to be recognized while forming groups for “strength in numbers”. In the comparison of interest and pressure groups it is apparent that although they created resentment in the inner layers of government, they were necessary to the development and progress of the political system.
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, however others disagree. Supporters of referendums argue that there use in our political system will re-connect voters, after having participated in this process they will take more notice of real issues, rather than say a party leader’s personality therefore allowing them to become more involved. Also some argue that certain decisions such as whether to join the EU constitution are too important to be settled in parliament and that the electorate have a right to decide. Despite criticisms of its use, undoubtedly the use of referendums has become for frequent in the last 10 years.
The Effects of Pressure Groups on the Government A pressure group is an organised interest group, which seek to influence the formulation and the implementation of public policy. In both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, membership to political parties has decreased, meanwhile membership to pressure groups have increased. Pressure groups differ from political parties in that they do not seek to win political office; in addition, they concern themselves with sectional policy rather than a wide range, and therefore pressure groups aim to protect or advance a shared interest. The first amendment of the US constitution claims citizens have the “right of speech, petition and association”. Seeing as the constitution is sovereign, it plays an essential role in protecting the rights of organised interests.
Based on the recent developments in politics, the legislative design of the federal government has been shown to be seriously flawed; only by changing its structure can we guard against the partisanship which prevents our representatives and senators from serving the will of the citizens of the United States through compromise. We must guard against partisanship and promote comprise in our government by changing its structure; one of the ways this can be done is by preventing factions that influence the judgment of our representatives from forming. This is a very important issue to solve because the power that factions have on our politicians personally and politically makes them less likely to vote on important legislation. The two ways to do this are as follows: (1) remove its causes to keep them from forming and (2) Control its effects (Kernell, 2013, p. 77). In order to prevent future factions, such as the tea party movement, from forming, politicians from the party which it originated have to start working on developing their own position that will help curtail factions from forming and hurting its own pa... ... middle of paper ... ...tering certain areas of the legislative process, we can make the government productive and can make it start working for the people’s interests once again.
This raises questions regarding the candidacy of those being appointed to serve in the judiciary because such individuals might support the interests of the sitting government. For instance, they can utilize the abilities bestowed upon them by the Charter to change laws for the purpose of furthering the agenda of the government (Riddell, Hausegger, and Hennigar 69). Also, such appointments suggest that individuals serving in the judicial system might be less qualified than those who miss out on such selection due to their non-partisan stands. This might affect service delivery because competency is a crucial component of serving justice. Similarly, the tendency of some judges appointed in the judicial system of donating funds to political parties will undermine the independence of the courts leading to serving political interests even in matters of significant public concern (Riddell, Hausegger, and Hennigar 55).
The main focus area of this paper, as directed by the question, will concentrate on the advantages of Parliamentarism, but due to the ambiguous nature of the democratic process and the diverse political cleavage that can make up the electorate, arguments have raged over which democratic system is best suited for a sovereign nation to adopt (Schmitter and Lynn 1990). By definition, having an advantage puts one in a favourable or superior position over another. This, by definition, instructs this essay to espouse the benefits of Parliamentarism contrasted against Presidentialism. The paper will endeavour to explain the meaning and structure of Parliamentarism, which in turn will allow the essay to examine what advantages and disadvantages it holds juxtaposed against Presidentialism. This endeavour has echoes of being a straight forward task, but when you take into consideration the varied forms of Westminster styled parliaments fostered in sovereign countries like Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand among others.
Other sources of authority within the cabinet might pose a threat/challenge or moderate the Prime Minister’s authority (as seen with powerful ministers such Gordon Brown and Mo Mowlam). Similarly, the Civil Services’ influence in determining government is vast (due to permanence, neutrality, Unity anonymity). Moreover external factors/pressures can also constrain the Prime Minister’s powers such as the economic climate and the Government’s popularity etc. The dispersal of decision-making power to other key actors in the core executive (such as the Bank of England) has reduced the power concentrated in the Prime Minister’s hands.
Many would argue that it is an act against the privacy of the people a... ... middle of paper ... ...ernment parallels Brave New World by posing a danger being powerful, having power through knowledge, and emphasizing commodification. By comparing the World State in Brave New World and our modern society, we should be concerned that the ideals of democracy are not truly reflected when we are under watch by the government, are obscured from the truth, and healthcare insurance is being forced upon us. The government is posing a threat to our role in the government by being powerful. Comparing Brave New World to our own modern society is important because it raises question of how our society could be become if we continue to let the government control our live. As citizens who are eligible to vote, we should question our political leaders, think of the direction our country can take and take the opportunity to have our voice heard by participating in elections.
Conclusion Ultimately, due to the methodological deficiencies displayed above, the study’s results are everything else but robust and able to generalize about party influence during decision-making in the EC. Thus the convincing theoretical framework is not properly tested. For the future, as discussed above, the flawed method has to be substituted by more appropriate procedures, which can shed more light on the hypotheses stated by the authors. In doing so, the results will be more relevant for the research conducted on the EC. Works Cited Tallberg, Jonas/Johansson, Karl Magnus (2008): Party politics in the European Council.