An independent judiciary maintains the rule of law as a means to prevent the authoritarian tendencies of political actors and the executive branch. The absence of judicial review procedures and the manipulation of the legal system present dangers to the rule of law. Overall, the historical nature of this thesis allows it to serve as a reference for future studies in the fields of (a) governance theory, (b) process of democratization, and (c) government in Turkey. This is all even truer in light of the significant number of legal changes since 2007. Maintaining the trust of the public is essential for the functioning of democracy and the judiciary.
Ideology and the role of the judiciary are frequently in tension. In Six Great Inventions in the Art of the Government, Samuel Finer praises Judicial Review as one of the practices that established and shaped the modern state. He sees the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret a case to protect American citizens as foundation of an effective government. Nonetheless, Judicial Review is more applicable as a doctrine than as an unchanging invention. Theodore Lowi’s piece Bend Sinister: How the Constitution Saved the Republic and Lost Itself would inherently disagree with Finer.
Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional. Essentially, judicial restraint works to preserve the laws already in place and refrain from making significant changes to public policies. But much like judicial activism, judicial restraint isn’t perfect; the major flaw of judicial restraint is that it does
Following the theory of separation of powers, organs of a modern government legislature, executive and judiciary are entrusted with three different functions viz. policy making, policy implementation and policy adjudication respectively. One question that arises before the judiciary after every judgement is to whether to put any new guidelines and norms for the executive and legislature for further protection and up to what extend. When judiciary lays down the guidelines, they move a step closer in getting involved in the public administration. It has over the period of time changed from a mere spectator to a proactive player.
Democracy is a system of government, people choose political leaders through elections which are held on a regular basis. Every citizen over a certain age is allowed the vote ; regardless of gender and social status. Socrates argued not everyone should be allowed to vote “ Democracy should not include every member of society due to lack of education”. Democracy “is the government of the people, by the people,for the people”.The elections are conducted free and fairly on regular basis, it relies on citizen participation, it is a platform to voice opinions and debate without violence. Political participation in democracy must be peaceful, respect the law and tolerant towards individual views.
The United States has an important type of government called democracy. “Democracy is the idea that is ruled by a government chosen by election where most of the populace are enfranchised. The key distinction between a democracy and the other forms of constitutional government is usually taken to be that the right to vote is not limited by a person’s wealth or race (the main qualification for enfranchisement is usually having reached a certain age) A democratic government is, therefore, one supported by a majority of the populace”. There are many other types of government with different systems that can function just as great or even much better. There is constitutional monarchy, technocracy, meritocracy but best of all is Geniocracy.
Democracy is a system of government in which every citizen in the country can vote to elect its government officials. Rober Dahl argues that an ideal democracy is consisted of two factors: political participation and political contestation (Dahl, 1991) . Political participation demonstrates that all the citizens who are eligible to vote have to have a right to vote to reflect their political requests to the real politics. The election have to be a transparent and accountable one. Also, after the election, power have to be given to the successful candidates.
Secondly, democracy makes sure that not only one person, gets all the power, unlike in a monarchy. (That would be too high of a concentration of power). Lastly, democracy lets you choose representatives, to speak for your state/community. On paper, monarchy seems like a good idea. The people are carefree, with the people that have knowledge, making decisions.
In the article Why Jury Trials are Important to a Democratic Society it says “Most countries do not have jury trials. It is one of the things that make us unique as a country, and something we should be proud of.” We should accept this right to participate in jury trials because it is in our constitution and many people fought for this right. Also from the article Why Jury Trials are Important to a Democratic Society it states “The founding fathers believed that the right to be tried by a jury of your peers was so important that it merited inclusion in the highest law of the land.” This shows that the people who
The irritation is often correct of powerful and rich people and government officials, the politicians and media editors and their columnists. In the law and the courts, those who are used to be obeyed and feared commonly find it intensely annoying that there is a source of power that they cannot buy or control. The essence of a modern democracy is yet observance of the rule of law, where the rule of law will not prevail without assuring the judges and the practicing lawyers and also the legal academics, which it’s a very high measure of independence of mind and action. Judges be free to interpret the laws independently, impartially and objectively without subject to any undue outside pressure from the police, the public opinion, the military, political, or any other interested body or person in order for justice to be performed. It is one of the judicial independence definitions.