Politics Edexcel > Democracy and participation > Flashcards
Democracy and participation Flashcards
Define Legitimacy
Legitimacy is the belief that the government does things in terms of policy and law-making that are acceptable to the citizens of that state.
Define a Direct Democracy
With direct democracy, the people take decisions themselves (e.g. show of hands at a public meeting) or referendums.
Define a Representative democracy
Representative Democracy (also called indirect democracy) – is where citizens choose others to represent them, making important decisions on their behalf.
Define a Pluralist Democracy
Pluralist democracy is a form of democracy where governments make decisions as a consequence of the interaction between groups and organisations who have different ideas and contrasting arguments.
Define a Democratic deficit
A democratic deficit occurs when supposedly democratic organisations or institutions, such as governments, do not fulfil the principles of democracy in how they operate.
Define a Participation Crisis
A situation where a large proportion of the population do not engage with the political process, for example by not voting in elections. Declining membership of political parties is another potential indicator of a participation crisis
Define Franchise/suffrage and give examples
the ability and right of someone to vote in an election.
e.g., extend the franchise to 16-year-olds to vote
e.g., extend the franchise for women/suffragettes to vote in 1897
Define a Think Tank and give examples
Think tanks are public policy research organisations that seek to influence government such as public policy and public debate rather than directly campaign policy changes
e.g., right wing - The centre for social justice
e.g., left wing - Fabian Society
e.g., neutral- reform
e.g., liberal- economic policy institute
Define Lobbyists and give examples
A lobbyist aims to influence the government, MPs and peers to act in their clients’ interests, particularly when legislation is undertaken consideration
e.g., insider pressure group- British Medical Association
e.g., outside pressure group- Greenpeace
What are the features of a direct democracy
- In a direct democracy, the will of the people is directly translated into public policy
- A direct example of a direct democracy is a referendum
- Usually, a yes or no answer
-usually, the result of a referendum is not binding
-held on issues of significant constitutional change or electoral reform - New Labour from 1997 were committed to holding referendums
- The people of Scotland and Wales were asked their views upon the transfer of power away from Westminster
-Under the coalition government, a nationwide referendum was held on electoral reform for Westminster - The two coalition parties campaigned a different agenda
Outline arguments reforming the UK political system
Compulsory voting: governments could claim greater legitimacy, people would feel more educated about politics, and it works in places like Australia. However, it could encourage non-serious voting and be considered a violation of individual freedom.
Lowering the voting age: voting at 16 would match other aspects of freedom at this age and may help to educate young people about politics. However, most 16-year-olds are still in full-time education and don’t appreciate factors like housing and the economy.
Greater use of referenda: this could give government decisions more legitimacy as citizens could vote on important issues. However, it could divide the public’s views, as seen after the 2016 European Union referendum.
Outline arguments that the UK’s current system is not democratic
Unfair voting system: some people feel unrepresented by the first-past-the-post voting system, as an imbalance is produced between votes cast and seats gained.
House of Lords: the second chamber of parliament is full of members who weren’t elected there. Whilst a range of professions are represented, it is seen by many as undemocratic as the electorate does not choose the Lords.
Protection of citizens’ rights: The 1998 Human Rights Act provides inadequate protection of citizens’ rights as governments have been known to ‘derogate’ from the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, due to the uncodified constitution in the UK, our rights are not entrenched and can be changed by a simple Act of Parliament.
What are the features of a Representative democracy?
- a representative democracy requires an election of some kind
- people in the Uk can elect a wide number of representatives from local to big
- Those elected to public office are held accountable for their decisions at the time of the next election
- Elected representatives know more politics than the average voter
- politicians may act in a manner which suits their own interests and ignore the wishes of the public
Similarities between Representative Democracy and Direct democracy
- Whilst there are clear differences, both are illustrations of people power
- During the campaign on the Uk’s membership of the EU, the Leave campaign were accused of having breached official spending limits
Define Lobbyists
Activities devoted to informing politicians of the views of various interest groups, and persuading them to draft legislation or to vote in accordance with these views.
Define democratic deficit
A perceived deficiency (lack of something) in the way a particular democratic body works, especially in terms of accountability and control over policy-making.
This criticism highlights a significant issue with the UK democracy, even though it was initially directed at the EU. A democratic deficit may arise when there are insufficient voting opportunities or when voting fails to yield proportional outcomes. The term could be employed to critique our democracy if one perceives that governments hold excessive power.
Define constitution
A constitution is a set of rules that outlines how a system of government runs. Most constitutions are codified, meaning they are primarily written down in a single document. However, others, like Britain’s, are uncodified and composed of several sources.
Define the rule of law
The rule of law is a complex idea, but at its most fundamental level, it means a society in which everyone is treated equally and is subject to the established rules of the state.
The existence of political parties and the acceptance of pluralism
Political parties did not emerge by design in most liberal democracies. For example, the US Constitution of 1787 does
not mention political parties. However, political parties have emerged to represent the various groups and issues found in a state. The acceptance of a variety of views is known as pluralism.
The expectation of the protection of rights
All liberal democracies place a value on civil liberties and the rights of citizens. Some of these ideas had long-predated
democracy. Most famously, the Magna Carta (1215) established the right of habeas corpus – not to be detained without
a lawful reason. Over time, civil liberties developed into a conception of universal human rights that must be protected
everywhere and for everyone. In 1998, the Human Rights Act codified human rights into British law
Universal of comprehensive suffrage and free and fair elections
Universal suffrage was achieved in Britain in 1928 with the Representation of the People Act (1928). Universal suffrage
(that every adult can vote) is now central to liberal democracy. The notion that elections should be free and fair is also essential to liberal democracy.
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is central to liberal democracies. The US Bill of Rights of 1791 places freedom of expression
as its first protected right. This right applies to criticism of the government and is a crucial difference between liberal
democracies and totalitarian regimes.
Outline what is meant by a Limited government
The notion that the government should be limited is central to liberal democracy. These limits are achieved in many
ways, for instance, through imposing a separation of powers and checks and balances. It is fundamentally achieved in Britain because the government only retains its position with the support of Parliament and can be removed at any time through a ‘motion of no confidence’. Without these tenets, a state which may consider itself or claim to be a liberal democracy may instead be described as
an illiberal democracy.
What are the different types of democracy
There are two different categories of democracy, both of which may operate within the constitution of a liberal
democracy. These are direct democracy and representative democracy
How does direct democracy work
Direct democracy involves giving power over decisions directly to citizens. There are several ways in which power may be exercised:
The use of referendums.
The use of petitions.
The use of recall elections.
The use of initiatives.
The use of citizen’s juries
How does direct democracy work in Switzerland
Switzerland has a long history of direct democracy since being first introduced in 1848. Some examples include:
Constitutional amendments – Any change to the Swiss Constitution must be put to a referendum. The
amendment must also receive a double majority, meaning at least 50.01% of all voters and of all Cantons (regions).
Initiatives – Citizens can attempt to launch an initiative to change the constitution. Any initiative that received 100,000 signatures within 18 months can be put to a national referendum.
Legislative referendums – When parliament passes a new law citizens can request a referendum on it. If 50,000
signatures are collected within 100 days, then a referendum will be held on its introduction.
What elements of direct democracy exist in the UK?
Direct democracy has traditionally been limited in its use in the UK. However, its use has grown in recent years through the development of e-petitions, the Recall of MPs Act (2015), the experiments with citizen’s juries and the increasing use of referenda. Even though these mechanisms have seen increasing use of elements of direct democracy, this does not mean that it has become necessarily significant.
How significant has e-petitions been in the Uk?
There has been a long history of petitions in the UK. Indeed, the Bill of Rights (1689) even enshrined the right to
petition the government.
Give some examples of rejected e-petitions
Stop mobile phone networks from profiteering through annual price increases – ‘We can’t accept your
petition because the UK Government and Parliament aren’t responsible for the issue you raise. This is a contractual
decision for customers and providers.’
Speaker (or Deputy) to mandate the Prime Minister answers questions during PMQs – ‘We can’t accept
your petition because the UK Government and Parliament as a whole aren’t responsible for the issue you raise. Order in the Commons is the responsibility of the Speaker personally, and the Prime Minister is responsible for
answers to questions.’
End compulsory homework in schools – ‘Decisions about whether to discipline students for not completing
homework are a matter for individual schools, not the UK Government or Parliament.
Give examples of significant e-petitions
Call on rules to be set for the EU Referendum requiring a threshold of 60% for winning side – 4,150,262
signature.
Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom – 1,863,708 signatures.
Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU – 6,103,056 signatures.
End child food poverty – no child should be going hungry – 1,113,889 signatures.
Evaluate the view that we should introduce more direct democracy in the Uk
Direct democracy is a pure form of democracy where the electorate are actively more involved in decision making via the use of referendums rather than through a representative. The UK is a representative democracy as each constituency votes for an MP to represent them in parliament, the Uk does have referendums but these aren’t as often as somewhere like Switzerland. This essay will argue this through the themes of Voter turnout, Accountability and improving democracy. This essay will argue that we should introduce more direct democracy in the Uk to further legitimise decision making in the country and provide better representation to key issues
On the theme of Voter turnout one can argue that continuous consultation through introducing more direct democracy would lead to an improved voter turnout as people feel their opinions are more valued if they are asked directly. The Brexit Referendum, for example, in 2016, supports this as the voter turnout was 72.2%, the second highest turnout since the 1992 Uk general election. The highest turnout in a referendum was the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, with a turnout of 84.6%. This is a strong argument as the turnout suggests that voters feel their views are being valued, so are more likely to turn up and vote. Voter turnout is important for the legitimacy of democracy as low voter turnout may undermine the results of the matter which causes controversy over the result. This shows that more direct democracy should be introduced in the Uk so that the voters have a better chance of showing their wishes rather than their MP’s wishes being promoted. On the other hand, some may argue that constant consultation and overuse of referendums could lead to voter fatigue, causing turnout to drop. The AV electoral referendums, for example, in 2011 had a turnout of only 40%. People may not have the time to engage in information or have time to read up on the matter in question which may lead to donkey votes. Having a representative such as an MP allows the electorate to focus on their own lives but can still have a say in matters through weekly surgeries and redress of grievances. However it can be argued that low turnout may not be a result of voter fatigue but turnout may be lower for referendums on topics that people deem less important. Therefore ore direct democracy should be introduced to improve legitimacy of results
On the theme of Improving Democracy, one can argue that the direct democracy system should be introduced to maintain democracy and even increase democracy within the uk. Direct democracy is more democratic, being a pure form of democracy. It eliminates parliamentary sovereignty as the power rests in the hands of the people therefore the policies fully represent the view of citizens. All decisions are put to the popular vote, so they will reflect the majority’s wants; this means that decisions enjoy greater legitimacy. Direct democracy will increase levels of satisfaction and support, which in turn will potentially combat the participation crisis, as the more legitimate the government seems the more likely people will turn up. In the UK, under representative democracy, the trust in politicians is slim to none. For example, the expenses scandal in 2009; when taxpayers money wasn’t being spent properly and it had to be called out by pressure groups. Whereas under direct democracy, this unfair power would be completely eradicated. There is no middleman distorting views, the opinions are directly represented, representative democracy means that the people do not make decisions and in fact surrendered their power to representatives. Thus one can argue that a direct democracy should be introduced in the Uk as citizens would be more democratic and individuals will have more of a voice on issues. However one can argue that this argument is weak because professional politicians that have the power in a representative democracy rather than in a direct democracy, may be more rational and fairer. They are less likely to be swayed by the media and to make anti-humanitarian decisions. The general public may be insufficiently educated on poltical issues as there would be a chance for civil liberties to be ignored, as many of the population agree with the death penalty, the complete halt of immigration and are anti-gay marriage. There is a high chance of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ to occur, in which minorities are placed at a disadvantage with either discrimination against them or possible restriction on their freedom. The public is insufficiently responsible to protect minorities rights against discrimination. For example, in 2021, against the advice of the government, the Swiss people voted in a referendum to ban the wearing of face covering, hence discriminating Muslim women. 5% of the swiss population is Muslim. The population banned women from the right to a freedom of religion. Using this argument, one can argue that direct democracy should not be introduced as MPs should be elected as professional, educated individuals to represent the general public to ensure that the best decisions are made with the general public interests in mind.
On the last theme of accountability, one can argue that Direct democracy should be used more often in order to hold those in power such as recall elections. More recall elections will mean that corrupt representatives can be held accountable by the public and government if they are breaking the law. You can’t hold the public accountable for their opinion and because of this, there would be no need for holding MP’s accountable. Since they will no longer be representing the peoples opinion which is also a good thing because then MP’s who do not listen to their constituents and no longer representatives, this also goes alongside any MP’s that breaks the law. For example, recall elections will mean that more people in power will be held accountable for their inappropriate actions, this means that justice is served and the public is protected from corrupt activity in their constituency. Recall elections are typically very rare because most representatives understand the law and act according to it, there isn’t a large demand for it. For example, 12% of all MP’s studied law in university and 20% of MPs studied politics. If uneducated or ignorant people are voting then. One can argue that this could mean that a lot of bad political decisions will be made whilst if it was under a representative, then they would be a professional in the political field, thus arguing that a direct democracy is a better system at upholding and enhancing democracy. However, one can argue that Direct democracy can not hold people accountable due to the public being easily influenceable due to the power of marketing and public opinion which can cause biassed and discriminative opinions to arise. Representatives being more educated on the political field will mean that they are more understanding of what will be the best political course of action to take when faced with a choice since they have studied it and have the most experience in the field then your regular citizen. One can argue that regardless of the MP’s frequency of breaking the law, these public appointed figures can be held accountable by the general public. Being able to hold referendums would allow the general public to give opinion on issues which affect the status of the country but also due to their non-binding power it allows for the power to remain with the Government. However, one can argue that direct democracy is better as representative democracy, representatives can not be held accountable for their actions and might not take public interests into consideration creating a disconnect , potentially due to parliamentary sovereignty, between the citizens and the appointed representatives.
In conclusion, it can be seen that many of the arguments in favour of direct democracy can be contradicted with strong counter arguments. A more considered definition of democracy would not find a situation where there is a ‘tyranny of the majority’ acceptable and, equally, the argument that direct democracy leads to a higher level of education can be countered by the very low levels of participation in recent referenda in this country and the level of debate over the Brexit referendum. Finally, while direct democracy might do away with our much-reviled class of professional politicians, there is no particular reason to assume that direct democracy would be any more ‘legitimate.’ In turn it could become open to different forms of corruption, such as manipulation by big business or other elites within society..
Demonstrate the negatives of the direct democracy using the example of the European Union and the effects
This example sheds light on the phenomenon of “Bregret” — regret over the decision to leave the European Union — and its implications for democratic processes, particularly the Brexit referendum.
Example- The phenomenon of ‘Bregret’ has gained notoriety in recent months, as polls have revealed that in March 2024, 57% of voters believe that the decision to leave the EU was the wrong choice. The Brexit referendum saw large amounts of misinformation and exaggerated ideas, which may have led people to vote emotionally rather than rationally.
Explanation - This example underscores the importance of informed and rational decision-making in democratic processes. It suggests that when voters are misled or influenced by emotions rather than facts, they may later come to regret their decisions. Additionally, it highlights the need for transparent and fact-based discourse during referendum campaigns to ensure that voters make well-informed choices that align with their long-term interests.
Give an example of strengths of direct democracy
This example highlights the impact of voter enthusiasm and perceived significance of an issue on voter turnout, using the Alternative Vote (AV) Referendum of 2011 as a case study.
Example - The Alternative Vote Referendum of 2011 saw a turnout of 42% of registered voters, which is 20% less than the election of 2010. This is chalked up to the fact that voters were not passionate about the issue, and the electorate were apathetic.
Explanation - Overall, this example underscores the importance of public engagement and perceived significance of the issues at stake in influencing voter turnout. It suggests that voter turnout tends to be higher when voters are passionate about or feel directly affected by the outcome of an election or referendum.
Voter turnout can demonstrate the strength of direct democracy - This example provides a comparative insight into voter turnout in different types of referendums and general elections, shedding light on the level of public engagement in democratic processes.
Example- The Scottish Referendum 2014 saw an 82% turnout while the 2016 EU referendum saw 72% - both higher than General Elections which sit around 65%
Explanation - Comparatively, general elections in the UK typically see a lower turnout, averaging around 65%. This suggests that citizens may be more motivated to participate in referendums, particularly on high-stakes or emotionally charged issues, compared to electing representatives for governance.
Give an example of direct democracy in real life
Example - The Recall of MPs Act has been used 6 times since its enshrinement into law, most recently in October 2023, where the MP for Wellingborough, Peter Bone, was given a suspension for bullying and sexual misconduct against a member of staff. This was successful, with 13% of constituents signing the petition.
Explanation -In a direct democracy system, citizens have the power to directly participate in decision-making processes rather than relying solely on elected representatives. The Recall of MPs Act allows constituents to petition for the removal of their Member of Parliament (MP) if they believe they have engaged in serious misconduct. This demonstrates how ordinary citizens can directly influence the political landscape by holding their representatives accountable for their actions.
This point highlights the evolving landscape of political engagement in the digital age, where social media platforms play a significant role in connecting citizens with politicians, even those who are no longer in frontline politics. Example- There is significant engagement with politicians online with Jeremy Corbyn having 2.4 million followers on Twitter and Nigel Farage having 1.6 million – despite both being out of frontline politics. This level of engagement with politicians on social media platforms illustrates the potential for direct communication and interaction between citizens and political figures outside of traditional channels such as rallies, speeches, or formal party events. It provides an avenue for citizens to express their opinions, engage in discussions, and stay informed about political developments in real-time. However, while social media can enhance accessibility and transparency in politics by facilitating direct communication between politicians and the public, it also raises questions about the quality of political discourse, the spread of misinformation, and the influence of online echo chambers
Give some examples of democratic deficit
This example highlights the issue of declining voter turnout, particularly in the context of UK general elections and “second-order” elections for bodies like the Police and Crime Commissioner. It underscores the democratic deficit present in the UK electoral system, where a significant portion of the population is disengaged from the political process.
Example- Voter turnout in UK general elections has been on the increase since 2001, which was the lowest it had been since the end of WW1 (59%), however it is still hovering around 68%, which is 10% lower than that of 1997. Turnout is even lower in ‘second order’ elections for bodies like the Police and Crime Commissioner, which sat at just 15% in 2012. The persistent low voter turnout in both general and “second-order” elections reflects a broader issue of political disengagement and disillusionment among the electorate. It suggests that a substantial portion of the population feels disconnected from the political process or lacks confidence in the ability of elected officials to address their concerns, ultimately contributing to the democratic deficit within the UK.
This example underscores the phenomenon of declining party membership in major political parties in the UK, contributing to the democratic deficit by reducing citizen engagement and participation in the political process. Example - In 2022, Labour lost 25,000 members, putting it 125,000 down from the 2019 election which was at 500,000. The Conservative Party had just under 150,000 members by 2016, a significant drop from 400,000 in the mid 90s. This decline in membership suggests broader trends of political disengagement and changing attitudes towards traditional party affiliation. As membership dwindles, the party may face challenges in maintaining its grassroots presence, connecting with voters on the ground, and fostering a sense of collective identity and purpose among supporters.
Overall, the decline in party membership across major political parties in the UK contributes to the democratic deficit by diminishing citizen engagement, weakening the representative capacity of political parties, and undermining the vibrancy of political participation within society. This example highlights the role of judicial and legislative branches of government in scrutinising and potentially challenging government policies, particularly in the context of the Rwanda Plan, a controversial scheme related to asylum seekers. The Supreme Court and the House of Lords have both tried to interfere with the Rwanda Plan, with the Court holding that the government’s scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as unlawful. The House of Lords passed five amendments to the bill in March 2024 which started another round of parliamentary ping-pong.
Overall, this example illustrates the dynamic interplay between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive branches of government in holding the government accountable and safeguarding the rule of law and democratic principles
Example of the UK not being in a democratic deficit
The uk is not demand deficit therefore has just been a shift in the electoral system as they sought to be heard in other ways. Example - The increased participation in e-petitions and protests, such as the large-scale protests against the 2003 Iraq War with over 1 million participants, also indicates active engagement and demand for change among the population. Explanation When individuals participate in protests or sign petitions, they are expressing their demands and preferences for specific policy outcomes or actions by the government. The significant turnout in these forms of political activism suggests that there is considerable demand for political accountability and responsiveness.
Define democratic deficit
A perceived deficiency (lack of something) in the way a particular democratic body works, especially in terms of accountability and control over policy-making.
This criticism highlights a significant issue with the UK democracy, even though it was initially directed at the EU. A democratic deficit may arise when there are insufficient voting opportunities or when voting fails to yield proportional outcomes. The term could be employed to critique our democracy if one perceives that governments hold excessive power.
What makes a state democratic?
Importantly, to understand the idea of a democratic deficit one has to look beyond simply the electoral systems used or the numbers of people that choose to engage in them. In a liberal democracy, there is a much wider variety of issues that make a state democratic. Some of these include:
The importance of the rule of law
The protection of minority rights
The freedom of the press and freedom of expression
A limited government
Free and fair elections
As such, a wide range of issues comes into considering whether there is, or is not, a democratic deficit.
In what areas might there be argued to be a democratic deficit in Britain?
Unelected House of Lords – Britain is one of the few political systems around the world that have an unelected chamber in their parliament. Many systems have a second chamber that is not directly elected, but in Britain not one of the 785 members of the House of Lords has their seat due to an open an open democratic election. The House of Lords Act (1999) did remove all but 92 of the traditional hereditary peers who held seats in the Lords, but it did not increase democratic representation in Britain. Consequently, whatever its many strengths, the House of Lords is an argument for democratic deficit in the UK. Nigel Farage failed to win a seat in 2015 despite his party winning 3.8 million votes.
First Past the Post voting system – First Past the Post is the electoral system used for General Elections in the UK. There are a number of criticisms of this system. Firstly, it is extremely disproportionate – the percentage of votes won by a political party does not necessarily translate into the percentage of seats they receive. For example, in 2015 UKIP won 3.8 million votes (12.6%) and won just a single seat in Parliament whilst the SNP won 1.45 million votes (8.6%) and won 56 seats. Secondly, governments can be elected without a clear popular mandate. In Britain, there is a ‘winner’s bonus’ under the FPTP system. This means governments can win a significant parliamentary majority without a percentage of votes that would appear to warrant this. For example, in 2005 Labour won a parliamentary majority of 66 seats having won just 35.2% of all national votes. Finally, FPTP produces a clear two-party system. This can result in apathy amongst the electorate as there are too many ‘safe seats’ and they do not fell that their vote will mater. For example, in the 2017 General Election just 70 of 605 seats changed hands (10.7%).
Disparity within devolution – In 1998 the New Labour Government of Tony Blair began a process of devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. Since then, devolution has grown to these regions, but has also been extended to parts of England through the creation of metropolitan regions and metro-mayors. However, there are problems with this. Most notably, devolution has been asymmetrical. Different parts of the UK have different levels of devolved power. Whilst there are devolved assemblies for all the nations of the UK except England. This problem is exacerbated by the existence of the West Lothian Question – the fact that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs can vote on English-Only matters, but the reverse is not true.
Powerful influence of a partisan media – Britain’s media is dominated by a a relatively small number of powerful entities. The Media Reform Coalition reported in 2021 that 90% of national media outlets were owned by just three companies: Reach plc, News UK and DMG Media whilst just six companies own 71% of local newspapers. Importantly, these companies are not neutral bodies and owners and editors seek to take a political position. Famously, the decision of the The Sun to support Tony Blair in the 1997 General Election was seen as a pivotal moment for New Labour. The press in Britain is generally perceived to be very right of centre and this may have a significant influence on political discussion across the UK.
What arguments might be made that might challenge the notion of a democratic deficit in the UK?
Since 1998 there has been a growth in different voting systems across the UK – Devolution has seen the introduction of different voting systems across the UK. These include: Additional Member System – Welsh Parliament, Scottish Parliament and London Assembly and Single Transferable Vote – Northern Irish Assembly, Scottish Local Councils. Until 2022, the Supplementary Vote was also used for elections in the UK including Metro-Mayors (such as the Mayor of London) but the Elections Act (2022) replaced SV with FPTP in all the elections in which it was used.
Referendums have increasingly been used to settle significant political issues – There has been an increasing use of referendums in the UK. Referendums may be said to enhance democracy because they give an equal weighting to all votes – unlike the FPTP system used for General Elections. In addition, they can give the electorate a say on a very specific issue. Some examples of referendums that have taken place are: 1998 – Good Friday Agreement, 2011 – Alternative Vote, 2014 – Scottish Independence and 2016 – European Union Referendum
There has been some growth in elements of direct democracy in the UK – Since 2010 elements of direct democracy have developed in the UK. Notably, the government e-petitions website allows citizens to share their view on a variety of topics. Any petition that receives over 10,000 signatures gets a government response whilst any petition that receives over 100,00 signatures may be debated in Parliament. Some of the biggest petitions have been: Call on rules to be set for the EU Referendum requiring a threshold of 60% for winning side – 4,150,262 signatures and Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom – 1,863,708 signatures
In addition, the Recall of MPs Act (2015) have put more power in the hands of voters to remove their MP. However, there are only three very distinct circumstances under which a recall petition can be opened: If an MP is convicted of a criminal offence and has received a prison sentence of any length. If an MP is barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days as decided by the Committee on Standards. If an MP is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims, regardless of whether they are imprisoned. This means that whilst the Act does give more power to voters, it does not give the power to remove an MP due to poor performance and that power still relies, in most cases, on a MPs to trigger the process.
Define Franchise
A section of the electorate who’ are able to vote in elections
Outline the Key milestones in the widening of the franchise in relation to class, gender, ethnicity, and age
The Great Reform Act (1832)- Gave the vote to those who owned a property of more than £10 per year. Gave the vote to those who rented a property of £50 or more per year. It also reorganised constituencies and got rid of rotten boroughs
The Second Reform Act (1867) - The rental requirement dropped to £10 per year. Increasing equality for those who wanted to vote.
Ballot Act (1872)- Introduced the secret ballot. Enabled people to vote without fear of influence, more specifically tenants who feared losing their accommodation if they didn’t follow the vote of their landlord.
The Third Reform Act (1884) Got rid of the property requirements for agricultural workers. This act enfranchised almost all male householders and tenants.
The Representation of the People Act (1918). Abolished property qualifications for men. It also granted SOME women over the age of 30 who were either married or property owners. This act TRIPLED the franchise.
The Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act (1928)- Gave women the right to vote at the same age as men - 21.
Scottish Election (Reduction of voting age) Act (2015)- Lowered the voting age for Scottish Parliamentary and local election to 16.
Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act (2021)-Lowered the voting age for Welsh parliamentary and local elections to 16.
Why was extending the franchise important?
Extending the right to vote was important because it increases representation amongst the people. Prior to this, elected politicians were chosen by a very small group of landed gentry, and as a result, these politicians only considered the interests of this very small group. Being elected by everyone over the age of 18 means that representatives have to take the concerns of (nearly) all adults into account, regardless of gender, class background, ethnicity and so on. It also has educational benefits as people may be encouraged to take an interest in politics if they know they can choose their MP, for example. It enhances the UK’s democratic character and helps to make politicians accountable for their actions. The idea of ‘no taxation without representation’ was also relevant- if people are made to give away some of their income to the government, it was only fair that they had a say in how this money was spent.
Outline Female Suffrage in 1.2 A wider franchise and debates over suffrage
Female suffrage was achieved in 1918, and on an equal basis to men in 1928, following years of campaigning by figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst to gain the right to vote. It was thought that women did not need the right to vote as they were naturally uninterested in politics (politics being a ‘public’ activity and women being largely confined to the domestic sphere), and their husbands would vote in their best interests anyway (the wife being seen as the ‘property’ of the husband). Women’s rights campaigners recognised that this was an injustice and put forward arguments in favour of female suffrage on the basis of equal rights. Early campaigners relied on peaceful protest, for examples marches and demonstrations, and were known as the suffragists. When it became clear that their methods were not attracting the necessary attention, campaigners turned to more extreme, sometimes violent methods, the most famous being Emily Davison throwing herself in front of the King’s horse at the 1916 Derby and subsequently dying of her injuries. The campaigners became known as the suffragettes, and risked imprisonment, where they would go on hunger strike and were force-fed. Public support for women’s suffrage started to grow, and, following the work done by women in the First World War (where they proved just as capable of doing ‘men’s jobs’) women over 30 were granted the right to vote in 1918. Once this was achieved, efforts turned to increasing the representation of women in politics, efforts which continue to this day (for example, the 2015 election returned 191 women MPs, or 29% of the total).
Arguments in Favour to lower the voting age to 16 year old
This example could be utilised in the debate over suffrage to argue for the extension of voting rights to younger age groups, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds. Here’s how it could be framed: Debate Side: Proponents advocating for the expansion of suffrage to include 16 and 17-year-olds. Example- The Electoral Commission reported that there was a turnout of 75% amongst 16-17 year olds in the Scottish Independence Referendum, with 97% of those who voted saying they would vote again in the future. This is extremely high, compared to 54% of 18-24 year olds and 72% of 25-34 year olds. By granting voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, we acknowledge their maturity, awareness, and stake in shaping the future of their communities and nations. The Scottish Independence Referendum serves as a compelling example of the positive impact of including younger voters in democratic decision-making processes. Extending suffrage to this age group not only empowers them to have a voice in issues that directly affect their lives but also fosters a culture of civic engagement and participation from an early age, laying the foundation for a more inclusive and representative democracy.
Enhance democracy, enhance pluralist democracy even though some groups may have more influence than others. All offer extra-parliamentary representation and amplify minority viewpoints, therefore countering elitism. Example: Represent diverse interests, helps prevent “tyranny of the majority”. Muslim Council of Great Britain, minority Muslim population. “Shelter” represents homeless who otherwise would not have the agency or influence to do so (no wealth + spread across country). Substantial membership not essential to be influential either, Howard League, 3000 members, successfully made gov U-turn when implementing charges for legal aid for prisoners. Also allows for unorthodox participation, thereby fulfilling participative function of democracy, important when election turnouts have been so low.
Enhance democracy, policy role, informing policy and activity of an elected gov. Educating public on political issues, holding gov to account between elections, ensuring they are acting in the interests of the governed. Example: RSPCA educational campaigns and newsletters, after years of campaigning and public support, influential in passing of 2006 Animal Welfare Act, prevents cruelty. Highly educated electorate + pressure groups hold gov to account and ensure they are responsive to public opinion between elections. Greenpeace influence on Corbyn, 0 emissions by 2035. Ensures active dialogue.
Arguments against lowering the voting age to 16 year olds
This example could be used in the suffrage debate to present a counter argument against lowering the voting age to 16. Here’s how it could be framed: Debate Side: Opponents arguing against the extension of suffrage to include 16 and 17-year-olds. Examples- The Isle of Man enfranchised 16 and 17 year olds in 2006. In every election since then, voter turnout among this age group has decreased – 55% in 2006 to 46% in 2021. The decline in voter turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds in the Isle of Man raises questions about the effectiveness of lowering the voting age as a means of promoting political participation. It suggests that factors such as civic education, political awareness, and the perceived relevance of electoral politics may play a more significant role in determining voter turnout than simply lowering the voting age. Additionally, it highlights the importance of considering the broader context and societal factors that influence political engagement among younger age groups.
Opponents arguing against lowering the voting age to 16.
Examples- Opinion Polls suggest they should stay at 18 – Opinion poll tend to suggest that votes at 16 is seen to be appropriate. In a YouGov poll of 2017 51% opposed lowering the voting age to 16 whilst 26% supported it. The results of opinion polls reflect a widespread sentiment among the public that 18 is an appropriate age for voting eligibility. This viewpoint is supported by the notion that individuals at age 18 typically have completed their compulsory education, are legally considered adults, and are more likely to have developed the maturity, critical thinking skills, and life experience necessary to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
Lack of influence over gov. Majority of pressure groups unlikely to be exert influence if not in line with gov aims/ majority views of society. Example: Countryside Alliance, fails to prevent 2004 Hunting Act, not dominant opinion. Support/membership doesn’t guarantee influence either. “Million March”, 750,000 protesting Iraq 2004, went against Blair’s aims to establish good relations with US Republican party.
Outline arguments that the Uk should implement online voting
This example could be utilised in the suffrage debate to advocate for the implementation of online voting as a means of increasing voter participation. Here’s how it could be framed: Debate Side: Proponents advocating for the introduction of online voting to improve voter turnout. Research by Survation found that two thirds of non-voters in 2010 would have been significantly ‘more likely’ to vote had there been an online voting option. The findings from Survation’s research highlight the potential of online voting to overcome barriers to participation and increase voter turnout. By offering voters the convenience and accessibility of casting their ballots online, particularly for individuals who may face obstacles such as geographical distance, mobility issues, or time constraints, online voting has the potential to engage a broader segment of the population in the democratic process. This example could be used to further support the argument in favour of implementing online voting as a means of increasing voter turnout and improving the democratic process. Here’s how it could be framed:
Debate Side: Proponents advocating for the adoption of online voting to enhance democratic participation.
Estonia is a country which has adapted to the online voting system, where almost 1/4 of all votes cast in the 2011 election were made online. It uses biometric ID cards and verification servers to stop voter fraud. Estonia’s use of biometric ID cards and verification servers to prevent voter fraud highlights the robust security measures that can accompany online voting systems. By leveraging biometric authentication technology and encryption protocols, Estonia has been able to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of online votes, thereby addressing concerns about the security of electronic voting systems.
Outline the arguments against online voting
This example could be used to highlight potential concerns and risks associated with electronic voting systems, particularly in the context of security and transparency. Here’s how it could be framed: Debate Side: Opponents caution against the widespread adoption of electronic voting systems without adequate testing and safeguards. The Brazilian Electoral Tribunal has allowed no testing of the country’s electronic voting system since 2012, when a research team uncovered several vulnerable holes in the system having been granted brief access to millions of lines of code. The decision to disallow testing of the electronic voting system following the discovery of vulnerabilities raises questions about transparency, accountability, and the reliability of the electoral process. Without regular testing and scrutiny, it becomes difficult to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with electronic voting, such as software vulnerabilities, hacking threats, or manipulation of results.
Evaluate the view that referendums enhance democracy in the UK. (30)
P1 Support: Form of direct democracy, through use of media it contributes to encouraging participation + education public on single issues involved. Example: Scottish Independence Ref, 3/4 of Scots found to participate in relevant activities surrounding the referendum. Public feel they have a real voice for change, evidently more engagement from the public when they feel this way vs general elections. EU Ref 72.2%, 2019 General Election 67.3%. Also shown to be more viable way to get young people to vote, Scottish Independence 84.6%, 16-17 89% registered, 97% would vote again.
Paragraph 2- P2 Against: “tyranny of the majority,” minority can end up undermined, binding for future generations when circumstances can change + didn’t even vote for it. Cases of low turnouts for referendums leading to low majorities. Even though turnout was low, majority still dominates, lowering legitimacy of result. Example: FPTP to AV 2011, 42.2% turnout, 68% yes but actually 32% of population votes for this outcome. These kinds of results question the legitimacy of the decision and changing circumstances and events after the referendum can mean people aren’t truly accepting of the result and will campaign against it. EU Referendum misinformation, £350 million to NHS led to people’s march 2018, 700,000 people.
Paragraph 3
Support (weak): Clear indication to public opinion, also provides gov with “popular mandate” to go through with important decisions. Example: Gov may struggle to make decisions due to the importance of the issue, Con-Lib coalition led to FPTP to AV 2011 Referendum, meaning political debates can be overcome by referendums and the “popular mandate”.
Counter: Undermined by low turnouts, just how powerful is the “popular mandate”, FPTP to AV 2011 example + Welsh Assembly Referendum, 50.3% turnout, majority yes 50.1%. Additional Counter: Issues are too complex for public to be voting in a yes/no context, issues are too simplified to a yes/no questions too many factors + MPs are elected to make these decisions, meant to have the expertise and knowledge to make the correct decisions as they are correctly educated (Brexit misinformation). Timing and furtive circumstances can affect result too. Timing of Scottish Independence right after Commonwealth when patriotism high.
Conclusion- Only enhance democracy to a limited extent. P1: direct democracy, increase of education on single issues, engagement of voters + younger voters. P2: “tyranny of the majority”, low turnouts low majorities, people not truly accepting outcome. P3: clear indication to public opinion, “popular mandate vs complex issues for public too simplified, MPs elected to make decisions, timing + circumstances.
Define pressure groups
A Pressure Group is an organised group that does not hold candidates for election, but seeks to influence and change government policy or legislation. They are also described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby groups’ or ‘protest groups’.
Types of pressure groups
Sectional/Interest groups: promote the interests of a certain group or organisation. Membership is usually limited to people who meet certain requirements, such as qualifications and occupation. An example is the National Farmers Union (NFU).
Cause groups: focus on bringing light to a particular issue. Membership is usually open. An example is the Extinction Rebellion, who are trying to bring light to climate issues. Another example is where members are not affected by the issue, but promote knowledge of it, such as Shelter, the homeless charity.
Social movement: similar to cause groups but more loosely structured. Some participants are also members of traditional pressure groups, for example members of Campaign for Better Transport may also be members of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT).
Outline the different powers of pressure groups
Insider groups: those with contacts with the government. The NFU have contacts with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and many insider groups have policies that are broadly in line with the government. Many insider groups use lobbyists to push their agendas.
Outsider groups: unlikely to enter direct contact with the government and use methods such as protests and the media to push their agenda. An example is Fathers for Justice.
Outline direct actions into pressure groups
Direct action refers to the public being actively involved in politics as opposed to using a representative or voting. Direct action can include: Demonstrations and marches, Trade unions going on strike and Sit-ins (Occupy London).
Outline the factors affecting pressure group’s influence
Resources: money to pay staff, pay for advertising, organise events and protests. However, even the largest pressure groups may struggle to change government policy.
Tactics and leadership: pressure groups combining and working together can increase the prevalence of issues amongst the population. Strong leadership can be crucial, as leaders represent the group and issue statements on their behalf.
Public support: pressure groups whose agenda is in line with public opinion are usually more successful. Favourable media endorsements can also help with this.
Government attitudes: insider groups are often successful as they can have direct contact with the government. For example, the NFU’s links to DEFRA around the 2013 badger cull allowed the policy to be discussed between the group and department.
Give three examples of Pressure groups
Insulate Britain- They used direct action tactics (blocking up roads and causing traffic chaos) to make their point about insulating all social housing properly by 2030. - Outsider pressure group example.
British medical association- The British Medical Association offers valuable advice to the government regarding health issues, therefore meaning that there is a strong two-way relationship with policy makers and pressure groups over a wide range of things. It is extremely influential so any minister that goes against them faces a huge challenge as has been seen in recent plans to introduce a 7 days a week health service. Their largest and most documented campaign was to ban smoking in cars carrying children. In 2007, there was a ban on smoking in public spaces, and the BMA saw cars as the next stage.- Insider pressure group example
Black lives matter -BLM is a decentralised social movement that advocates against systemic racism and violence towards black individuals. While it may engage with political processes and institutions, its primary mode of operation involves grassroots activism, protests, and community organising to bring attention to issues of racial injustice. BLM aims to influence public opinion and policy through mobilising people and applying pressure from outside traditional power structures rather than working within them as insider pressure groups do. Can be used as an example of an outsider group
Give three detailed case studies of pressure Groups exerting their power in real time
This example highlights the role of government intervention in response to labour strikes and the balance between protecting public services and the rights of workers to strike. Here’s how it could be discussed: In 2023, the government responded to widespread and prolonged public sector strikes with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act; requires some workers to still work during strikers or face being sacked. Example- The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, enacted in response to widespread and prolonged public sector strikes in 2023, mandates that certain workers must continue to work during strikes or face dismissal. Proponents of the Act may argue that requiring minimum service levels during strikes is essential to prevent disruptions to critical services such as healthcare, transportation, and emergency response. Furthermore, advocates may highlight that the Act strikes a balance between the rights of workers to strike and the responsibilities of public service providers to ensure the welfare of citizens. By requiring minimum service levels, the Act aims to mitigate the adverse effects of strikes on the public while still allowing workers to exercise their right to industrial action.
This example illustrates the effectiveness of pressure groups in advocating for the interests of their members, particularly in the context of labour rights and compensation. BMA successfully campaigned for 2% rise of doctors wages post-pandemic. Through lobbying, negotiations, and public advocacy, the BMA effectively communicated the challenges faced by doctors on the frontline of healthcare and the need for fair compensation for their work. Supporters of the BMA campaign may emphasize that the wage increase not only acknowledges the sacrifices and contributions of doctors during the pandemic but also helps to address longstanding issues such as workload pressures, retention, and morale within the healthcare profession. They may argue that fair compensation is essential to attract and retain skilled healthcare professionals, ensuring the sustainability and effectiveness of the healthcare system. However, critics may raise concerns about the financial implications of the wage increase, particularly in the context of strained public finances and competing budgetary priorities. They may argue that while healthcare professionals deserve recognition and fair compensation, any wage increases should be balanced against the need for fiscal responsibility and sustainability.
Give example of outsider pressure groups
This example highlights the role of student-led movements in advocating for social and political change on a global scale. Example- From April 2024, a ‘Students for Palestine’ movement erupted in US universities, spreading worldwide, seeking to achieve liberation for the Palestinian people. The emergence of the “Students for Palestine” movement in US universities in April 2024, and its subsequent spread worldwide, reflects the growing awareness and concern among young people about the plight of the Palestinian people. Through grassroots organising, education, and advocacy, student activists seek to raise awareness about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, human rights violations, and the need for a just and lasting resolution to the conflict. Supporters of the “Students for Palestine” movement may argue that student-led activism has a long history of catalysing social and political change, from the civil rights movement in the United States to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. They may emphasise the importance of grassroots organising, coalition-building, and nonviolent resistance in effecting meaningful change and building solidarity across borders. However, critics of the “Students for Palestine ‘’ movement may raise concerns about the politicisation of campus discourse and the potential for polarising rhetoric to stifle dialogue and marginalised dissenting voices. They may argue that complex geopolitical conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, require nuanced understanding and constructive engagement to achieve sustainable peace and justice.
This example highlights the contentious nature of civil disobedience as a tactic employed by pressure groups and the trade-off between achieving visibility for a cause and maintaining public support. Just Stop Oil methodology was civil disobedience regardless of public image - getting their message across was the priority rather than public support - although many agreed with the cause of the campaign, they did not agree with the method - April 2022 Just Stop Oil activists vandalised petrol pumps along the M25. The Just Stop Oil campaign employed civil disobedience as a tactic to protest against fossil fuel consumption and advocate for urgent action to address climate change. By vandalising petrol pumps along the M25, activists sought to disrupt the flow of traffic and draw attention to the environmental consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels. Supporters of the Just Stop Oil campaign may argue that civil disobedience is a legitimate and necessary form of protest in the face of government inaction and corporate interests that prioritise profit over environmental sustainability. They may contend that the urgency of the climate crisis warrants unconventional tactics to galvanise public awareness and spur meaningful action. However, critics of civil disobedience may raise concerns about the potential negative consequences of disruptive protests, such as damage to property, disruption of public services, and alienation of public support. They may argue that while the cause of the Just Stop Oil campaign may be valid, the method of protest undermines public sympathy and undermines the credibility of the movement.
Give 2 examples of collective organisations
This example showcases government collaboration with industry stakeholders to support innovation and technological advancement in a key sector of the economy.
In February 2024, the PM Rishi Sunak announced a bill at the NFU annual conference, stating he had worked with the National Farmers Union to create a £220 million package of funding for technology and innovation to protect British farming. Supporters of government-industry partnerships may argue that targeted investments in technology and innovation have the potential to revolutionise British farming, enabling farmers to adopt more efficient practices, reduce environmental impact, and adapt to changing market conditions. They may emphasise the importance of fostering a culture of innovation, entrepreneurship, and collaboration across the agricultural value chain to drive long-term prosperity and resilience. However, critics of government-industry partnerships may raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, or unequal distribution of benefits. They may argue that government funding initiatives should prioritise transparency, accountability, and equitable access to resources to ensure that all stakeholders, including small-scale farmers and rural communities, can participate and benefit from innovation-driven growth.
This example illustrates the intersection between political figures and ideological organisations, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of think tanks on government policy. Example- In 2022, the neoliberal think tank Institute of Economic Affairs had 24 parliamentary supporters – including prominent figures such as Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch and Kwasi Kwarteng (who was previously employed by the organisation). Example- In 2022, the Institute of Economic Affairs, a neoliberal think tank, counted 24 parliamentary supporters among its ranks, including prominent figures such as Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch, and Kwasi Kwarteng. These supporters, many of whom hold influential positions within the government, have been associated with the IEA’s advocacy for free-market principles, deregulation, and limited government intervention in the economy. Critics of the close relationship between political figures and think tanks like the IEA may argue that such alliances blur the lines between public service and private interests, creating opportunities for corporate lobbying and agenda-setting outside of democratic institutions. They may raise concerns about the potential for think tanks to shape policy agendas, draft legislation, and influence decision-making processes behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny and accountability.
Evaluate the claim the pressure groups enhance democracy (30 marker)
Pressure groups are a group of people who seek to influence the government (or another authority) to adopt their ideas. They aim to impact policies, political decisions and public attitudes towards theirs cause. There are three types of pressure groups. Sectional groups promote the interest of a particular section of society. Cause groups focus on achieving a particular goal and promote single issues ideas that benefit the public. Social movements aresimilar to cause groups but more loosely structured. They are usually politically radical and seek to achieve a single object. Pressure groups enhance democracy in the UK by scrutinising government policies and legislations, increasing political participation and politically educating the public. Although these functions of pressure groups do enhance the government is argued that some pressure groups are accused of having a biased nature, their actions are not always peaceful and their opinions often reflective and help a small group of people. However, we can conclude that the advantages of pressure groups outweigh the limitation, thus enhancing democracy. This essay will elucidate the opposing arguments of pressure groups and the ways in which they enhance government.
Pressure groups scrutinise government policies and legislations. Insider pressure groups carry out the scrutiny function as they have regular contact with decisions makers and are able to work inside the political system, they develop a link with political parties to keep the government on their side. A good example of this is the link between trade unions and the labour party, as trade unions provide substantial funding for the labour party, and in return, they have an influence on not only policy but also the election of the party leader. This influence was shown when in 2010 Ed Miliband beat his brother, David, in becoming party leader, a large chunk of theses votes came from trade unions. In addition to this insider pressure groups need to keep the government on their side, so they tend to not make extreme demand. On the other hand, some pressure groups are accused of having a biased nature in favour of their own interests. This means that their campaigns may not present a balanced argument, which may mislead the public into believing opinions that may be untrue about the cause they are trying to fight. Unlike political party leaders the leaders of these pressure groups are not elected, therefore the aren’t held accountable by the public for their actions like misleading the public, this means that powers they exert is not democratically legitimate. An example of this is Fathers 4 Justice, they may not understand that the courts and mothers are trying to achieve the best outcome for their kids. As a result of this, we can conclude that although pressure groups may not have legitimate political powers and may be viewed to have a biased nature, they provide scrutiny and prevent ‘tyranny of the minority’ to the government who are the elected bodies in positions to pass legislations.
Another way pressure groups enhance democracy in the UK is by the increase of political participation during elections and referendums which is healthy for democracy. Pressure groups encourage members of the public to vote in elections to support a political party that may endorse the pressure group’s view. An example of this is ‘we demand a referendum’ group dropped a petition at downing street with 100,000 signatures in 2012 calling for a referendum on EU membership. Pressure groups use different sources of communication to transmit their ideas to a wider audience and one way of these ways is by using the media to influence the public’s attitude towards their cause. Pressure groups introduce a new type ofparticipation such as public protest also known as cyber-activism which diverts from the traditional election every 4 years. Examples of the politics of protest include the activities of left-wing movements such as CND and student protests in 2010 against university tuition fees. However, members within these pressure groups have become increasingly passive as members are happy to pay their subscription but don’t not participate as much in wider activisms. On the other hand, members are often passionate, they may resort to undesirabletactics like violence or criminal behaviour to promote their cause. This does not enhance democracy or transmit the right ideas to the public and how they should tactical ‘injustice’ insociety. An example of this is animal activists damaging scientific animal testing labs and threatening workers and their families. This is complete anomie and completely diminishes the meaning of democracy, members of public will be then hesitant to support the cause of this pressure group and without the support of the public it will be harder for the pressure groups to convince the government into passing more legislations that are tailored to them. Subsequently, we can argue that not all pressure groups turn to violence and chaos when trying to convince the government and public about their cause, pressure groups raising awareness about their cause and making the public politically aware outweighs this as political participation is a healthy indication of good democracy.
Pressure groups do a good job in educating and debating minute issues while simultaneously raising awareness for the issue, sometimes pressure groups make the case of both sides to encourage debate. An example this is in regards to the building of the third Heathrow runway, the British Chambers of Commerce have argued in favour of the runway, but the No Third Runway Action Group argued against it. Debates are important in a democratic state asthey allow the people and government to think critically and strategically about what’s right for the people. Through these debates pressure groups educate those who are ignorant of the issue at hand, they provide information and facts and explain why their issue is important. An example of this is Migration Watch UK provides information on immigration number for the public. They highlight the amounts of immigrates in the UK and argue for lower immigration the UK. They have been praised for improving the quality of debates surrounding immigration in the UK but have been heavily criticized for being anti-immigration. On the other side, pressure groups are known to supporting smaller groups and causes. Pressure groups represent and defend minorities, so they have a voice in heavily populated countries such as the UK. They can help prevent a ‘tyranny of the minority’ when majority of the government elect and impose legislations that suit them. An example of this is The National Union of Teachers. There aren’t many teachers in the UK so the national union of teachers help to represent teachers on topics such as like fair pay for teachers and awork life balance for teachers. Political parties would not be able to stand for and represent teachers like this as they have a number of issues they focus on, especially representing issues pertaining to the majority of the population, which is in a sense what they are supposed to do. As a result of this, the change that may occur when legislations and policies change may suit the pressure group but may be a disadvantage to majority of the population.
To conclude, although pressure groups are accused of having a biased nature, using direct action/violence action to make their voices heard and only representing a small number of the population, they also perform a good job in enhancing democracy in the UK. Pressure groups effectively scrutinise the government’s policies and legislations, increases political participation through protest and campaigns and educates the wider public in what is going on and why they believe the cause they do. Political participation is a good indication of democracy in a country so we could argue that this factor alone is the reason why pressure groups enhance democracy.
Outline Think Tanks
Think tanks are organisations made up of experts that help to develop new policy. Some of them may have ideological leanings, such as the Adam Smith Institute that supports neoliberal economic policy. They don’t run campaigns like pressure groups, but they do have direct contact with political parties and try to persuade them to adopt their ideas. Think tanks have been used more increasingly in recent years, and have become very influential. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is a respected organisation that researches the impact of taxation. It is unbiased and publishes reports to help educate and inform the public about the impact of economic policy.
Outline Lobbyists
Lobbyists are people or organisations that are paid by someone or a group to help influence government policy. They try to get access to politicians to put their clients’ views across. It is not uncommon for former politicians to become lobbyists, as they have easy access to current politicians through their existing network. This is known as the ‘revolving door’.
Outline Corporations
Large corporations may have political influence in many ways. They could employ lobbyists to have direct conversations with politicians on their behalf. They may also be contacted directly by the government to discuss policy and its impacts.
Governments are reluctant to make laws that could have huge impacts on big businesses. Large technology companies like Apple and Amazon have been criticised for not paying their fair share of tax in the UK, despite huge profits. However, calls for increased taxes on these companies are met with calls to let them continue as they are to help generate tax revenue and keep high employment
Pluralism and elitism are 2 different theories that are used to explain how power is spread between individuals and groups in society.
Pluralism suggests that power is spread amongst different groups in society, and that it is the pushing and pulling between these different groups that explains how decisions are made and how governments are influenced. powerful pressure/interest groups are a classic example of pluralism because they show how power is divided amongst these different competing groups and not concentrated with one organisation.
Elitism is the exact opposite of pluralism. In elitist theory power is seen as concentrated amongst a few groups or individuals, including the government. To use the same example as before; elitist theory would suggest that only a few major pressure/interest groups, such as the NRA or AARP, actually have any influence, and that even they struggle to gain power because it is concentrated in the hands of a few members of government.
Of course both these theories have evidence to support them, and most theories use elements of these umbrella theories to explain how power is divided.
.
Outline the rights in context
Civil liberties are a range of rights and freedoms that demand non-interference by government. They are based on the notion of citizenship; being a citizen of a certain country, and usually include freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The government should not interfere in these areas.
Natural rights or Human Rights might be thought of as exciting in nature or coming from God. They can not be removed and do not need to be earned. Ideas of universal human equality such as in the Declaration of Independence ‘All men a re created equal’ is an expression of a right which is natural to all humans.
Civil rights are based on a social contract which guarantees certain rights such as the right to vote or join a party or express an opinion, in return for fulfilling certain obligations such as paying taxes and obeying the law. Citizens of a democracy enter into a contract with the state. Civil Rights’ are legally protected freedoms, also known as civil liberties. In the UK these rights are now guaranteed by the 1998 Human Rights Act. They include the right to fair and equal treatment under the law, including the right to a fair trial and to peaceful possession of one’s property, and to freedom from arbitrary detention freedom of expression in speech and writing
The idea of ‘active citizenship’ goes further, and suggests that in return for these rights there is an expectation of participation , ie voting, volunteering or helping the community. ‘social rights’, are broader and referred to as positive rights including the right to education, employment, health care and welfare provision. The UK has a long tradition of negative rights rather than positive rights- ie the right to education or welfare are positive rights but the right to be free to do anything unless it is strictly prohibited is negative. For example, people had a right to freedom of expression, subject to laws of defamation and blasphemy.
Outline the development of rights in the UK
1215: the Magna Carta
This English Charter acknowledged for the first time that subjects of the crown had legal rights and that laws could apply to kings and queens too. The Magna Carta was also the first step in giving us the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.
1679: Habeas Corpus Act
Another crucial step towards the right to a fair trial, this law protected and extended the right of a detained person to go before a judge to determine whether the detention was legal.
1689: English Bill of Rights
The Bill was a landmark moment in the political history of Britain because it limited the powers of the monarch and set out the rights of Parliament. It included the freedom to petition the monarch (a step towards political protest rights); the freedom from cruel and unusual punishments (the forerunner to the ban on torture in our Human Rights Act) and the freedom from being fined without trial.
1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation for modern human rights. After the Second World War, the international community recognised the need for a collective expression of human rights. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, the declaration sets out a range of rights and freedoms to which everyone, everywhere in the world, is entitled.
1950: the European Convention on Human Rights
Members of the Council of Europe used the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to draw up this treaty to secure basic rights both for their own citizens and for other nationalities within their borders. The Convention was signed in Rome in 1950, ratified by the UK in 1951 and came into force in 1953. Unlike the Universal Declaration, the European Convention on Human Rights contains rights which can be relied on in a court of law.
1965: Race Relations Act
This was the first legislation in the UK to address racial discrimination. Although it was criticised because it only covered discrimination in specified public places, the act laid the foundations for more effective legislation. It also set up the Race Relations Board to consider complaints brought under the act.
1975: Sex Discrimination Act
The act made sex discrimination illegal in the areas of employment, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services.
1976: Race Relations Act
The Race Relations Act was established to prevent race discrimination. It made race discrimination unlawful in employment, training, housing, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services.
1995: Disability Discrimination Act
This Act represented the first far-reaching legislation on discrimination against disabled people. It covered key areas of life such as employment and training, education, goods, facilities and services, premises and transport.
1998: Human Rights Act
In force since October 2000, the Human Rights Act incorporated into domestic law the rights and liberties enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. People in the UK no longer had to take complaints about human rights breaches to the European Court in Strasbourg – British courts could now hear these cases.
The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up in 1950, with the UK as one of its signatories, by the Council of Europe (not part of the European Union). It was very similar to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, drawn up in the aftermath of terrible violations of rights in the Second World War. The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg to hear cases where people felt that their rights had been infringed in their own countries. UK citizens were allowed to appeal to the Court, but it was time-consuming and expensive.
In 1998 the New Labour government passed the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the Convention into UK law with effect from 2000. These rights — including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or degrading treatment, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a fair trial and rights to privacy and family life— could now be defended in UK courts without having to go to Strasbourg.
The Equality Act (2010) brought together earlier pieces of legislation that had sought to outlaw discrimination and unfair treatment, such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and the 1976 Race Relations Act. It identified nine ‘protected characteristics’: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. It made it illegal for public bodies, employers, service providers and other organisations and individuals to discriminate against people on any of these grounds, in the workplace or in wider society.
Outline the Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act: This act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK statute law, enshrining rights such as those to a fair trial, freedom from slavery and degrading treatment, and respect for privacy and family life. All future legislation had to be compatible with the ECHR. Judges could not strike down laws that were incompatible with it but could highlight such legislation for amendment by Parliament. The limitations of the Human Rights Act were demonstrated by the government’s decision to ‘derogate from’ (declare an exemption from) Article 5, which gave individuals the right to liberty and security, in cases of suspected terrorism. The introduction in 2005 of control orders, which allowed the authorities to limit the freedom of movement of such individuals, highlighted the unentrenched nature of the act.
However, the HRA did not introduce any new rights. Its main provision is that courts should interpret all legislation (statutes and delegated legislation) in such a way as to be compatible with the Convention. The UK ratified the Convention in 1951 (it came into force in 1953) and British subjects have had the right of access to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg since 1966.
The main impact of the HRA has therefore been that it has made the Convention substantially more accessible to UK subjects. Access to the Strasbourg court is very costly and extremely time-consuming. However, the HRA has brought the Convention to the forefront of UK politics, influencing both judicial decision-making and affecting the behaviour of all public bodies.
The Convention establishes a wide range of rights, including the following:
Right to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery or forced labour
Right to liberty and security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without trial
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association(including the right to join a trade union)
Right to marry
Freedom from discrimination(sex,race,colour,language,religion,and soon) #Right to education
Right to free elections with a secret ballot.
The HRA is, nevertheless, a statute of a very particular kind. It does not constitute an entrenched bill of rights, and it cannot be used to overturn Acts of Parliament. It does not, therefore, invest the judiciary with the powers of constitutional judicial review. Nevertheless, when a court believes that legislation cannot be reconciled with Convention rights, it issues a ‘declaration of incompatibility’. This forces Parliament (or, in practice, the executive) either to revise the legislation in question and bring it into line with the Convention, or to set aside certain of its provisions through the process of ‘derogation’ (meaning the repeal or modification of a law). The UK, for instance, derogated from Article 5 of the Convention, during 2001–05, in order to pass ‘tougher’ anti-terrorism legislation. As the HRA is not binding on Parliament, it may not be considered as ‘higher’ law. Rather, it hovers somewhere between an ordinary statute law and an entrenched bill of rights.
Outline Cases when HRA or the ECHR had to be used to protect or extend individual rights
Banning prisoners from voting – in the UK and other countries – was declared to be a breach of their human rights and unlawful (2005).
The decision not to deport the murderer of Philip Lawrence when his sentence is completed to his country of origin, Italy (2007).
In a ruling linked to the HRA, the Supreme Court declared that measures to freeze the assets of terrorist suspects were unlawful (2010).
The deportation to Jordan of Abu Qatada was blocked because of fears that evidence obtained under torture would be used against him (2012). (A new treaty with Jordan nevertheless led to his deportation the following year.) Whole life sentences were deemed to be a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits torture (2013).
The Supreme Court ruled that the police cannot keep information on people on their database forever, as it breaches the citizen’s right to privacy (2015).
Outline some criticisms of HRA
First, it is commonly argued that the Act allows judges to overstep their traditional role. Through their interpretation of the HRA, judges are, effectively, able to ‘rewrite’ legislation. This, arguably, makes judges too strong, in that they are able to act more like judges in the USA, who are able to encroach on the policy-making role of politicians. How appropriate is it for the courts to have ‘quasi-legislative’ powers under which unelected and socially unrepresentative judges can alter the law on policy matters, like access to social security and the right to a tenancy?
Second, the HRA and ECHR arguably suffer from the phenomenon of human rights’ inflation, the tendency for rights other than those intended to stop gross abuses of government power to be designated as ‘human rights’, and therefore to be treated as absolute and fundamental rights.
Third, Conservatives in particular have viewed the HRA as a Trojan Horse that allows a particular ‘European’ conception of rights to take root within the UK. Promising to ‘restore sovereignty to Westminster’, the Conservatives have therefore argued that Parliament should be given the right to veto judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and, failing that, that the UK should withdraw from the Convention itself. Linked to this, the HRA would be replaced by a ‘British bill of rights’, although the exact status and precise contents of such a bill of rights remain unclear. However, allegations that the European Convention on Human Rights is somehow ‘un-British’ fail to take account of the fact that the UK was an original signatory of the Convention and one of the first states to ratify it, in 1951, and that UK civil servants and lawyers played an influential role in its drafting
Have civil liberties been under threat? If so, why has this happened?
The Labour government’s record on civil liberties between 1997 and 2010 was a mixed one. In the first place, this period witnessed major advances in individual rights, widely welcomed by groups campaigning on civil liberties issues, such as Charter 88, Liberty, and Freedom and Law. The Human Rights Act was the most significant example of this, but others included the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which marked a major advance in open government and helped to establish a public right to know. Other examples of a strengthening of rights include the establishment of the right to roam through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This was a culmination of many generations of campaigning by ramblers (Ramblers Association) and civil liberties groups.
On the other hand, Labour’s critics drew attention to its civil liberties ‘blind spot’, reflected in the growth of legislation that expands the power of the state and weakens or removes civil liberties or individual rights. Various measures have contributed to this ‘drift towards authoritarianism’. For example: The right to a jury trial was restricted in 1999 by new rules that made it more difficult for people accused of theft, burglary and assault from opting to be tried by a Crown Court (where juries sit), rather than by a magistrate. Detention was introduced for asylum seekers whose claims have been refused, and access to the benefits system was replaced by shopping vouchers for refugees.
Outline the changes to civil liberties under new labour
However, some restrictive measures have been abandoned in the face of parliamentary and public opposition. For example, in November 2005, the Blair government’s proposal to extend the period that a suspect could be held before being charged, from 14 to 90 days, was defeated in the Commons. The government then compromised on 28 days and abandoned a subsequent attempt to increase it to 42 days, following a defeat in the Lords in 2008. Under the coalition, the 28-day period was halved, and the Labour government’s plan for compulsory identity cards was scrapped.
However, the public has been remarkably willing to sacrifice some liberties at a time of heightened concern over security. Governments have tended to place the safety of society above the protection of individual rights. This explains why pro-human rights pressure groups such as Liberty have had limited success in deflecting government policy. For example, Plans for a British Bill of Rights, Legal aid cuts , Internet Surveillance and Extending Secret Courts-2013 Justice and Security Act (Closed Material Practices), which permit terrorist suspects and major criminals to be tried without the evidence against them being disclosed in full. The passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill — the so-called ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ —which increases the power of the intelligence agencies by obliging Internet companies to store information about customers’ browsing history.
How effective are the judiciary at protecting civil rights in the UK (30)
The UK judiciary has several methods at its disposal that provide an effective protection of civil liberties in the UK. However, in practice, there are several shortcomings that make these protections weak in the face of Parliamentary pressure, which will be demonstrated in this essay.
In terms of rights protections, perhaps the most important development in the protection of rights in the UK has been the installation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This act effectively has provided a concrete document that outlines the rights of citizens. Since the passing of this act, judges have been able rule more confidently based on the legislation rather than using complex declarations of the common law via precedents. The increased ease for judges and clarity for citizens has increased the effectiveness of rights protection by the judiciary because now the judiciary can use articles in the HR Act to rule in favour of individuals. For example, in the case of Catherine Zeta Jones v. Hello Magazine 2001, the court was able to rule clearly that the article 8 right to privacy outweighed the magazine’s article 10 right to expression and thus Zeta Jones’ wedding was allowed to remain private. This clearly shows an effective protection of liberty by judges.
Furthermore, a vital protection of liberties can be exercised via judicial review. Judicial review is a process that is conducted in the Supreme Court that hears an appeal over the lawfulness of a case. It is not focused on the rights and wrongs of a case, this would be a case for appeal courts following the above methods, judicial review is simply an examination of the lawfulness of a case. For example, in the case of Home Secretary v. AP 2010 an appeal allowing the government to detain AP on a control order was taken to the Supreme Court to review its lawfulness. The Supreme Court ruled that in fact, based on the 2008 JJ case as a precedent, the appeal court’s ruling in fact constituted a breach of article 5, and that the article 5 interests also contributed to breaches under article 8 of the act. The resulting ruling was that the government control order was ‘ultra vires’ and had to be rescinded. In this way, the judiciary’s ability to reverse executive action by ruling it beyond its powers provides a very effective protection of liberties in the UK. Other examples of ministers being ruled ultra vires and ordered to reverse actions following judicial review include the freezing of terrorist assets with parliamentary approval in 2005, and more recently the reversal of Theresa May’s immigration points system which again had not consulted Parliament.
Finally, if both the above methods fail then the individual can take their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Rulings from Europe are effectively binding on government and often defend the individual. Examples include the Hurst case in 2004 where voting bans for prisoners were ruled in breach of the ECHR, and more recently in 2012 with the blocking of Home Office attempts to deport terror suspect Abu Qatada to Jordan. Both of these cases have proved effectively binding on Parliament and while the prisoners votes issue is still ongoing, Qatada has avoided deportation since 2001 via the courts. This shows the huge protections that judges can impart on civil liberties. On the other hand, the sovereignty of Parliament do provide a large hindrance to the judiciary’s ability to protect liberty. Acts of Parliament are binding on all bodies within the UK, including the Supreme Court. The sovereign status of Parliament puts it above the judiciary, and if a ruling is passed that the government do not like, they can always legislate to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This act allowed the use of control orders which got around the judicial ruling banning detention without trial. This shows that the sovereignty of Parliament hinders the judiciary’s ability to protect liberty.
In addition to this, judges cannot be pro-active in Britain and must wait for appeals to come before engaging in their protective role. The Belmarsh case of 2004 was 3 years after the original 2001 Anti Terrorism Act and was not brought until the pressure group Liberty brought the case forward in behalf of the detainees. This means that erosion of civil liberty can stand for years until someone challenges it, making the effectiveness of judges appear weak.
Finally, due to the lack of an entrenched constitution, erosion of civil liberty is very easy for the government to do, and very difficult for judges to reverse. Labour’s range of anti-terror laws followed by ID cards, the DNA database and expansion of CCTV all were programs that the judges could do nothing about. The sovereignty of Parliament and the implicit nature of the liberty erosion in these bills made it impossible for the judges to overturn any of these provisions, even though they constitute a clear breach of privacy and liberty. The fact that it took subsequent acts of Parliament to overturn these measures shows that while judges can act like an irritation, if Parliament is resolved it can do anything, including scrap the Human Rights Act. This hinders the effectiveness of the judiciary to protect liberty, because if they had outright power to strike down laws like the US Supreme Court, the protection would be far more extensive and effective.
In conclusion, it is clear from the evidence that on a day to day basis rights are generally fairly and effectively protected by the judiciary. The national debate over whether judges have too much power in backlash to the Abu Qatada situation is evidence that in fact judges do effectively protect civil liberties. However, with the drawbacks highlighted, all it takes is for a resolved Parliament to decide national security is under threat for them to erode liberty at will, with the judges powerless to strike down law. For this reason, there remains an underlying ineffectiveness in what the judges can do to protect liberty in the UK.
Give an example of successful challenges to government polices
Examples- It includes High Court rulings that retired Gurkha soldiers should be allowed to settle in the UK (2008), and that the government had not consulted fairly on compensation for people affected by the planned High Speed Rail link (2013).
Explanation: In 2008, the High Court ruled that the government’s policy of denying retired Gurkha soldiers the right to settle in the UK was discriminatory and unjust. The court found that the policy unfairly excluded Gurkha veterans from the same rights as other foreign nationals who had served in the British armed forces, despite their significant contributions and sacrifices. Significance: This ruling highlighted the principle of equality before the law and affirmed the rights of Gurkha veterans to fair treatment and recognition of their service. It led to significant policy changes, including the expansion of eligibility criteria for settlement rights and the granting of residency rights to thousands of retired Gurkha soldiers and their families.
These examples demonstrate how judicial review can serve as a check on government power and ensure that policies are implemented in accordance with legal principles and fundamental rights. They underscore the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual liberties, and promoting accountability and transparency in governance.
Give an Example of the rule of law in practice
Example- For example, in 2008 the High Court awarded Max Mosley, the head of the Formula 1 motor racing organisation, substantial damages when the News of the World published a story about his sex life, which he argued had breached his privacy. Max Mosley failed in a subsequent case at the European Court of Human Rights, which refused to rule that newspapers should notify people before printing stories about their personal lives.
Explanation - The High Court’s decision to award Max Mosley substantial damages highlights the importance of protecting individuals’ right to privacy. The ruling recognized that the publication of a story about Mosley’s private life without his consent breached his privacy rights, and he was entitled to compensation as a result. Overall, this example underscores the significance of the rule of law in protecting individuals’ rights, providing legal remedies for violations, ensuring fair adjudication of disputes, and navigating the sometimes nuanced and evolving landscape of legal protections.
Outline the Case of Abu Qatada
The case of Abu Qatada illustrates the frustration caused by the way in which the Human Rights Act was implemented.
Example- Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric living in London since the 1990s, had made speeches justifying the use of violence to promote the Islamist cause and had served time in British jails. The security services regarded him as a threat and ministers wanted to deport him to his country of origin, Jordan, where he was wanted for trial. However, his legal advisers were able to fight deportation for eight years on the grounds that he might be tried using evidence obtained under torture, a breach of the Human Rights Act. Only in 2013, after the UK had signed a treaty with Jordan pledging that such evidence would not be used, was Abu Qatada flown back to face trial. He was cleared of involvement in terrorist bomb plots in Jordan. Nevertheless the British authorities continued to view him as a dangerous influence.
Explanation - This diplomatic agreement addressed the human rights concerns that had previously hindered Qatada’s deportation, demonstrating the importance of international cooperation and legal mechanisms in resolving complex legal disputes.
Give an example of the Judiciary at protecting civil right in the Uk
Judicial review and Court act 2022- The 2022 Supreme Court case Basfar v Wong provides a useful example here. Josephine Wong is a Filipina national who was trafficked to the UK and forced to work in the household of Saudi Arabian diplomat Khalid Basfar. Wong’s initial claim against Basfar was rejected by an employment tribunal but she was allowed to appeal her case to the Supreme Court. The latter found in her favour, ruling that Mr Basfar had denied her both fair wages and employment rights. The end of Cart judicial reviews means that Ms Wong’s case would not now reach the Supreme Court, denying her the justice our most senior judges felt she deserved.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Wong demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fair wages and employment rights, even in cases involving powerful individuals such as diplomats. By ruling that Basfar had denied Wong fair wages and employment rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse.
Outline Key A* content in Democracy & participation
The largest ever petition on the government e-petition website is a petition that called for Article 50 to be revoked and for Britain to remain in the European Union. This 2019 petition was signed by 6.1 million people and was the largest petition in UK history. The strength of opinion on Brexit by many people was very clear. In the 2017 General Election, before this petition, the Liberal Democrats ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new EU Referendum. However, in 2019 they changed their electoral stance, and their manifesto was called ‘Stop Brexit: Build a Brighter Future’. They said: “The election of a Liberal Democrat majority government on a clear stop Brexit platform will provide a democratic mandate to stop this mess, revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU.” This policy ended up being a disaster for the Liberal Democrats and they received just 11 seats, whilst their leader, Jo Swinson, lost in her own seat of East Dunbartonshire. However, it is likely that the strength of feeling indicated in the Revoke Article 50 petition may have had a significant impact on their decision to contest the election with such a radical policy.
NEW POINT- As he was disappointed with the approach of the Government, Conservative Backbench MP Zac Goldsmith put forward an alternative Private Members Bill called the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill. This bill had the support of more than 70 MPs, including David Davis, Frank Field, Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Goldsmith’s bill would require just 5% of constituents to initiate a petition of recall and then 20% of constituents to sign the petition in order for a by-election to be called. In Goldsmith’s bill, the voters of a constituency could initiate a recall petition for any reason – thereby giving power over the process directly to the voters. However, Goldsmith’s bill did not make it past Second Reading.
NEW POINT- In April 2022 the House of Commons called for Boris Johnson, who was then Prime Minister, to be investigated by the Commons Privileges Committee for having allegedly misled Parliament over Partygate. On June 9th 2023, Boris Johnson received a draft of their report. This report said that Johnson had repeatedly carried out ‘contempt of Parliament’. Johnson immediately resigned as an MP, indicating that the report was sham. The report had recommended that Johnson should be suspended from the House of Commons for 90 days. This would by far be the longest ever suspension that an MP had received. Johnson’s majority in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency was just 7,210 and it is almost certain that at least 10% of his constituents would have signed the recall petition that would have been initiated following his suspension. As such, Johnson can be seen to have made a decision to resign to avoid the ignominy of being thrown out of Parliament by the Recall of MPs Act (2015).
Give Examples of the use of Citizens’ Juries
The People’s Panel (1998): In 1998 the Labour Government established a ‘People’s Panel’. This was made up of 5,000 members of the public and it was put together to be representative of national age, gender and region. An additional 830 members were also recruited from ethnic minority backgrounds to ensure that the sample size from these backgrounds was large enough to adequately represent their views. The panels considered a range of issues including leaflets on genetically modified foods and whether Government Ministers should be involved in public appointments processes.
Your Health, Your Care, Your Say (2005): This consultation by the Department of Health saw 42,000 people take part. Following the initial consultation, four regional “listening events” took place in Gateshead, Leicester, Greater London and Plymouth, each of which were attended by between 50 and 100 people. Following this, a national summit took place in Birmingham in October 2005. In 2006 the Government published a White Paper on their proposals for NHS Reform called “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say”. Some of ideas of the consultation informed the National Health Service Act (2006) and the Health and Social Care Act (2008).
National Pensions Day (2006): A ‘National Pensions Day’ took place on the 18th of March 2006. 1,075 people took part in discussions across six locations in the UK. A number of governmental proposals were put to the groups and they were asked to vote on them using electronic panels. In particular, panellists were asked for their views on the Turner Report, a report commissioned by the government on the future of pensions in the UK
When he became Labour Party Leader in 2020 Keir Starmer asked former leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown to lead a commission considering potential constitutional reform in the UK. The use of citizens’ juries was one of the areas that the commission considered. It concluded that there should be: “We therefore recommend the Labour Party should consult widely on our plans and take in the thoughts and feelings of people in all four nations. One practical option would be a series of Citizens’ Assemblies as part of a ground up conversation with the people of Britain on the change they want to see.”
