As Hilaire Barnett stated in Constitutional & Administrative Law:
“The use of referendums raises the question of whether or not Parliament redefines itself to include the people – in a direct expression of their views – for the purpose of legislating.”
In matters of constitutional law the issues of whether the view of the people (referendums) should trump the view of parliament (parliamentary democracy) or vice versa has always been at the forefront in our political agendas. To determine an answer to this key question both referendums and parliamentary democracy need to be analysed in full. A referendum is an agreement by the majority of the electorate on issues of critical significance and is different from an election in many ways.
…show more content…
Most importantly the Government needs to have a clear picture on what they are trying to achieve and have fully thought through all the “what if” scenarios so they can inform the public exactly what all the risks are in the vote. An example of this would be the recent discussions about the sovereignty of Gibraltar which was never even mentioned in the referendum campaign. This is important as if a referendum is to trump parliamentary democracy then all key issues should be made aware to the public. Therefore, allowing the government to prevent any outcry that might arise after a referendum has taken place.
The very high cost of these referendums in both time and money is a major issue for any government. The recent referendum in 2016 on whether Britain should remain part of the EU was estimated to have cost around £140m. Unlock Democracy gave a particularly good definition regarding the process of referendums. Referendums are: “costly in terms of money, time and political attention and the use of such resources needs to be carefully considered” . This is not to say that restrictions are not in force. As Stephen Tierney
…show more content…
For example, it enhances the citizen’s engagement and promotes viewer education. Having a referendum allows the public to engage in making political decisions that will ultimately affect them individually together with the country. Dr Daniel A. Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Florida, confirmed this view stating that having referendums, which actively engage the public, will cause them to contribute and participate more in these matters. This is because: “they understand that their participation in the electoral process has real policy implications” . Further to this it improves the voters understanding of the issue and promotes education and involvement as there is a fundamental need to be well informed on the topic of discussion: “to focus on an issue in quite a concentrated way, thereby in turn causing the members of public to learn quite deeply about the topic” . A further strength of referendums is they can sometimes also settle an issue that has been continuously debated by parliament and never resolved. Peter Kellner, President, YouGov, stated that the referendum in 1975 on membership of the European Community settled the issue because: “the opponents of British membership accepted that verdict for a period and without the referendum it might have been re-opened.” Therefore, despite the recent debate on referendums, it does provide
...s, be more representative, leading to policies that better reflect the average voter and smaller parties that actually have some influence in parliament. Voter apathy would likely decrease with a system that increased the value of every vote and my research has also concluded that many of the myths concerning the negatives of PR systems are unsubstantiated or are unlikely to apply in Britain. There are numerous Proportionally Representative democracies and numerous PR voting systems that have been developed, so Britain could choose that which would best suit it’s populace. The problem will be having to convince a government that has got in under the current system that the system needs to be changed, but given that one of the parties in power is pushing for a change , we may, if we’re lucky, be voting for a more democratic Britain come the next general election.
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
How must these concerns be addressed? Many turn to compulsory voting for answers, believing in its necessity and insisting on the need for compulsion in order to increase the low turnout percentage. In fact, legislation such as Bill S-22 has received introduction into parliament in the past. Though failing to achieve approval when proposed in the 1st Session of the 38th Parliament, which ended in November of 2005 ("Bill S-22 (Historical)"), it strove to “make it compulsory for an elector to exercise the right to vote,” “make it an offence for an elector not to vote,” and “add the words ‘None of the candidates’ to a ballot in order to allow an elector to indicate that the elector does not wish to vote for any of the candidates nominated in his or her electoral district” ("Bill S-22, Summary").
The proposed plebiscite has drawn criticism from many quarters, and on various grounds. Two of the main arguments that have been raised are;
In order to let our members of parliament to have more power and saying, we will have to cut power from the party whip and the Prime Minister. In this way no one can force anyone to make a predetermined vote according to party lines rather than their personal conviction. In taking away the power from the PM and party whips will allow the riding representatives more freedom in which power is one
The current plurality voting system in Canada is regularly attacked for unfairly representing the popular vote and giving some parties a disproportionate amount of legislative power while leaving others with none. Opponents contend that other electoral systems would be far superior and provide a better democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is usually cited as the best alternative; the debate of proportional representation versus plurality often hinges on the balance between fairness and efficiency. Without attempting the political calculus to determine the rate at which fairness should be sacrificed for efficiency, this paper will address the very claim that PR is more fair than the plurality system. The proponents contend that PR is a more accurate representation of the electorate's vote, that no votes are wasted, and that the will of the people translates into government better than the plurality system; however, the experience of New Zealand challenges that assertion. This paper will establish that the current plurality system produces a government that is more effective, better represents the people, and is more transparent than the proposed alternatives, namely proportional representation.
Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has caused controversy in a Canadian scope. With many critics of the Canadian election system calling it archaic and non-modern, the idea of reforming the election system has been in discussion numerous times. In 2004 by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, created by the government of British Columbia, brought into question the current first past the post system. In an alternative state at which the Canadian election system is changed, a different set of questions is brought to the table. How can changes to the electoral system affect how the House of Commons is run and its respective procedures? In this essay, I will be discussing the possible effects of changing the Canadian electoral system on the House of Commons.
Due to the EU’s apparent unpopularity, Politicians can find it difficult to show any enthusiasm as it could prove to be a disadvantage in an election. Jones et al, (2006, p.803) believe that people’s opinion on the EU is very important, and one which politicians take notice of, they state “UK public opinion on European issues has to be taken account of. The difficulty is that many members of the public regard the EU as remote until some threat to the British life is perceived, such as the abolition of the pound if the government were to join EMU.”
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
We live in a very diverse society, observance of the rule of law is the best way that can guarantee that our basic human rights are preserved, successful government at home is operating and a fair progress on the international level is maintained. Basic principles of the rule of law go back to Dicey’s theory, which states that there should be an absolute supremacy of regular law, no one should be above the law and that the Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of land. There is no clear meaning of the rule of law; therefore it is essential that the government maintains the basic principles of the rule of law that were established by the philosophers who feared the concentration of power in one’s hands, on order to prevent tyranny. Rule of Law cannot exist without a transparent legal system, the main components of which are a clear set of laws that are freely and easily accessible to all, strong enforcement structures, and an independent judiciary to protect citizens against the arbitrary use of power by the state, individuals or any other organisation. Only if each branch has influence and retraining functions on each other, can the parliamentary machine function properly and give the effect of the rule of law without imposing any tyrannical or arbitrary power by a specific institution, which would infringe the main principles of the rule of law. The issue would arise if there would be very weak separation of powers with a strong concept of parliamentary sovereignty at the same time. The power of judicial review ensures that officials act within the scope of their legal powers and that individuals have an effective way of obtaining remedies if their rights were violated. Although UK is said to have an efficient system of...
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
“Voting is not only a right but also a civic responsibility” (Juneau). “When people do not vote, they do not help improve their government or their surroundings” (Juneau). Meaning that a citizen...
Pier Luigi Petrillo, Democracies under Pressures. Lobbies and Parliaments in a comparative public law, Giuffrè 2011
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
the people; esp : rule of the majority 2 : a government in which the supreme power is held by the