Australian Constitution Essay

1813 Words4 Pages

On the one hand, constitutions are really necessary in the democratic states where although not perfectly, but to a big extent democratic principles such as equality, liberty, tolerance, the respect of human rights, providing the ability for the citizens to elect the government, etc. are applied. The first reason why having a set of exact rules that are respected by every citizen of the democratic state is that having a constitution maintains order and thus, helps all the citizens to live a peaceful and harmonious life. By maintaining order it is meant that if you as a citizen disobey the rules stated in the constitution, the state has a full right to punish you. For example, if it is stated that the right to live is protected by the law and …show more content…

The main reason why the actions of the politicians are restricted is because their policies among the citizens are limited by the constitution which must be followed by every elected politician. To illustrate this, in the book called “Five Things To know About The Australian Constitution” Helen Irving argues that Australian constitution brought a responsible approach by the government to the Australian citizens because ‘the government can only do what the Constitution permits’ . Due to this, it ‘shapes the way in which policies are put into effect by government’ and ‘determines what sorts of laws can be made’ . Therefore, the outcome of this is the restriction of power by the government what allows citizens to feel safer beyond the …show more content…

Returning back to the Stalin’s era, it should be remembered that propaganda’s machine was extremely powerful in the Soviet Union. As a result, other countries did not know that SSRS is a democratic country only theoretically. The first argument that illustrates how the first constitution of the Soviet Union did not care about the citizens is that all people who fully agreed to publish the constitution in 1936 were Stalin’s supporters . A ‘Constitutional Comission’ which was responsible for accepting or rejecting a new Stalin’s constitution was formed in 1935 and included ‘thirty one members’ who were fully ‘chaired by Stalin’ . Therefore, because Soviet people were not allowed to vote for their new constitution, it is obvious that Stalin cared not about human rights, but about the expansion of his own

Open Document