Linz states that presidential system lies precisely in the feature of dual democratic legitimacies. If the powers are carefully defined and the method of election limits party system fragmentation, having two, rather than one, agent of the electorate can be beneficial. Voters can support one party or candidate at the legislative level but another for the head of government. There is a direct democracy which gives an opportunity to separately elected the executive allows for more direct democracy than in the parliamentary system. Additionally, separation of powers promotes a system of checks and balances to be created, allowing one to monitor the other.
The two models of democracy compared and contrasted between various governmental institutions is the Majoritarian Model and the Consensus Model. To start off, democracy can be defined as: “political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty… it clearly emphasized individual freedom and is in keeping with the ideology of liberalism.” (O’Neil 128) Although both forms of democracy are in truth democracy, the argument is whether or not one system is more democratic than the other. When it comes to how the country is governed and how its laws are implemented, which is to demonstrate a more democratic idea of how democracy should be enforced. Majoritarian basically refers to governing by the majority
Abraham Lincoln, a famous eloquent American president once quotes that “Those who deny freedom to others does not deserve it themselves” (L.Pierce) In perspective of this extremely truthful quote, I proceed to define the essential words in title as indicated by the Oxford English Dictionary that Democracy can be best define as the Government by the people that is, an arrangement of Government in which all the populace of the state or a country are involves in making decisions about its affairs ordinarily by voting to choose a representatives to a parliament assembly. In other words, it is a system where the choice and the mode of governance are dictated by individuals through a few set of persons elected by the individuals to speak or represent them. Incorporating this definition, the title which is a direct question can be revised as: Is Democracy the best form of Government? To begin with, in case I am to supply a direct response to the main Question, my honest answer would be insistent yes. This is not intended to sound true alone, but I would like to give fitting reasons why I think the correct answer to the Question is to the affirmative.
These political systems range from direct democracies to totalitarian regimes, such as military dictatorships. Common systems in the modern world include democratic republics, monarchies, and representative democracies. There are also primarily theoretical types of governments, like a strict meritocracy. One of the most often-talked about political system is a representative democracy. This is a system in which representatives are directly elected by the citizens, and these representatives then make political decisions for the people, with the assumption that their decisions will reflect the general will of the republic.
Therefore constitutional conventions flow from a variety of documents or common practice. If single party governments have been in power for so long, how will the constitutional norms apply to a different kind of government? This essay seeks to explore some the implications of a coalition government and how it differs from single party governments. As
There is a continuum from the liberal left, to the conservative right. The model also assumes that there is a president, and a unicameral legislature, that can all be compared on this continuum. Pivotal Politics takes into consideration, also, the status quo point, which says that we are all biased towards the way things are right now. Finally, the model holds that policymakers vote for policy that is closest to their preferences. On this continuum the model presents, there are points representing the president, the 2/3 veto pivot, and the 3/5 filibuster pivot.
Q2. Foucault had defined governmentality as the art of government. That means the idea of government is not only limited to the state politics, but it includes controlling techniques in wide range and controlling of population. Foucault had linked governmentality to other concepts such as knowledge power and bio politics. Foucault says that governmentality develops a new understanding of power.
The term parliamentary privilege is used in Constitutional writings to denote both these types of rights and immunities. Sir Thomas Erskine May has defined the expression Parliamentary privileges as follows: The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each house collectively is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each house of parliament individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Parliamentary Privileges Article 105 of Constitution of India defines parliamentary privileges of both Houses of Parliament and of their members and committees. Article 194, which is an exact reproduction of Article 105, deals with the State Legislatures and their members and committees. To enable Parliament to discharge functions properly the Constitution confers on each member of the Houses certain rights and immunities and also certain rights and immunities and powers on each house collectively.
Procedural fairness is the ability to review or question policies, regulations or law that is considered to be wrongly formulated or unfair, which then refers to the judicial review. The way that is set up in the UK is relatively broad and might be perceived as confusing at points. Firstly, unlike many other states the UK does not have a written constitution as such but rather refers to existing statutes and precedents as such, according to which the ultimate source of law is the Parliament, which means that in the course of a term many statutes and precedents can be amended or eliminated with or without replacing them. Secondly, the constitution establishes the powers of the state, according to which all issues regarding the law shall be addressed to the courts of the UK, which essentially boils down to the fact that administrative cases are heard by the same courts . Whether or not a highly centralized court system is a benefit will be discussed further below.
Finally, there may be government regulation in place which restricts the degrees of freedom of government, resulting in a situation where government as the regulator regulates itself as the service provider. In modern governance, government and its CEOs act on the demand side of the public household, facing a number of suppliers or as we will call them ‘players’ in the economy, looking for government contracts. The modern regulatory scheme requires that all players be treated in an equal manner, entailing that the players with the lowest cost should receive the contract, all other things being equal, e.g. service quality. Modern public governance, thus, involves four major parties: (1) government; (2) the CEOs ; (3) the players in the economy; (4) the citizens and the