Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
74 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is democracy? |
Democracy entails a government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' so the people hold the power and all major decisions are made, directly or indirectly, by the people - Everyone has a say - Participation - Everyone's say is equal - Equality - In the event of disagreement it sides with the majority |
|
|
What are the types of democracy? |
1) Direct Democracy - The people make the decisions themselves 2) Representative Democracy - The people choose people to make decisions on their behalf Anything else is a subset of the above |
|
|
What is direct democracy? Why is it important today? |
1) This is a system in which the people govern themselves and the people themselves have an actual say in proceedings 2) The main example is Athenian democracy where Athenian citizens would attend the senate and vote on key issues in a series of political gatherings 3) Recently it has been used more often as apathy has grown so this is thought to improve participation as the power actually is in the peoples hands, through e-democracy, referenda, citizen's juries etc |
|
|
Why is direct democracy not used anymore? |
1) it is considered unworkable - People have to dedicate time to make political decisions at the senate and they all have to meet togethyer, impossible in a society of millions - It only worked in Greece as the Slaves, Women & Lower class citizens did all the 'work' |
|
|
What are the benefits of direct democracy?
|
1) Genuine democracy 2) Personal development 3) End of professional politics 4) Legitimate government |
|
|
How is Genuine democracy a benefit of direct democracy? |
Direct is the only 'pure' democracy as people only have to obey laws they made themselves. Participation is the stuff of freedom, how people decide their collective destiny and 'general will', whilst representative ensures a gulf between the people and government |
|
|
How is Personal Developmenta benefit of direct democracy? |
People will become more knowledgeable citizens as they are more likely to take an active interest in politics and to better understand society, both how it works and how it should work |
|
|
How is the End of Professional Politicsa benefit of direct democracy? |
It reduces the dependence on self-serving professional politicians who can be seen to distort the truth and who put their own opinions on things, creating a government who only act in the name of the people whereas direct means that the people can do it all themselves |
|
|
How is Legitimate governmenta benefit of direct democracy? |
All election systems can possibly be seen to create illegitimate governments and people are far more likely to obey laws they made themselves - People take responsibility for their own decisions and this ensures a stable government |
|
|
What is representative democracy? |
1) This is asystem where the people decide who decides - the people who win go on to represent the people so is a rule by professional politicians - This is decided through elections 2) Politicians know they can be removed if they don't serve the people so they try to |
|
|
What are the conditions for a democratic election? |
1) Free, fair and regular elections where voters can express their own views 2) Universal suffrage where all adults can vote 3) Party and candidate competition where voters have a genuine choice |
|
|
What is Liberal Democracy? |
1) It is a special form of representative democracy: 2) It balances the need for a popular government against the need for personal freedom and can be divided two ways - Majoritarian - Where the views of the majority trump that of the individual as the majoriity speaks for the people - Constitutional - Emphasis is placed on protecting the individual and their rights |
|
|
What are the criticisms of Representative democracy? |
It is seen as facade democracy: 1) The voting is seen as, at best, a ritual, or at worst a benefit for the government over the people - The government always wins - Government therefore act in the name of the people but the people have little meaningful say over government 2) It is confusing how MPs represent people: Thinking like them? Representing their party? Acting in their interests? |
|
|
What are the core and supplementary features of UK democracy? |
Core: - Parliament - Pressure Groups Supplementary: - Referendums - Devolution - The European Parliament |
|
|
What are the features that make UK elections democractic? |
1) Free and Fair 2) Based on universal suffrage 3) Competitive and provide choice |
|
|
How are the UK's elections free and fair? |
1) There is the secret ballot, introduced in 1872 to stop intimidation 2) One man one vote makes all equal, through the 1948 abolition of plural voting for Oxbridge graduates 3) Greater use of PR in devolved etc elections 4) Establishment of the Electoral commission in 2000 to ensure the integrity of the UK's democratic process 5) The introduction of fixed term elections in 2011 to stop government calling elections to suit them |
|
|
How is the Freedom and Fairness of UK elections questioned? |
1) Some bodies are not elected, like the Monarch and the Lords, neither of which are democratically legitimate 2) The FPTP voting system distorts electoral preferences creating a plurality system where a party can win a majority with a minority of seats 3) The use of proxy and postal votes leads to more allegations of electoral malpractice |
|
|
How do UK elections allow for universal suffrage? |
1) In 1928 the equal voting rights were extended to women as well as men 2) In 1969 the voting age was dropped form 21 to 18 etc |
|
|
How is the universal suffrage in UK elections questionned? |
1) Some people are disenfracised - Convicts, Lords, mentally incapable and, until recently, the homeless means they cannot vote to secure their own ideas 2) The growing apathy and non-voting means that, as the apathy is greatest in the young and the poor, these are treated the worst |
|
|
How do UK elections provide genuine choice? |
1) There is a genuine competition between candidates and parties, with the Liberal and Conservative parties developing in the 19th century and the Labour in the 20th 2) Since the 1960s, there have been far more political parties from the SNP to UKIP and Plaid Cymru, so some areas like Northern Ireland are genuinely multiparty |
|
|
How is the competition of UK elections questionned? |
1) Only the conservatives and Labour have been the main parties of power and therefore choosing anyone else is a little bit pointless 2) The general move to the central ground of consensus politics means less choice between the policies of parties |
|
|
How does Parliament promote democracy? |
1) Parliament is the main institution linking people to the government by upholding representative and responsible government - Representative as the main chamber is elected and MPs represent constituents and the HOC is the debating chamber of the nation - Responsible as it oversees and scrutinizes the actions of government and government needs the support of government |
|
|
How is the effectiveness of Parliaments promotion of democracy questionned? |
1) The second chamber, the Lords, is unelected and weakens the representatives role of parliament 2) The party system of whipping prevents MPs from representing their constituencies and restricts freedom of debate 3) The Government has a majority control over the HOC so can control it's scrutiny |
|
|
How do pressure groups supplement democracy? |
1) They give voices to minorities ignored by the majoritarian system 2) They allow citizens to exert power between elections 3) The allow a vehicle for participation beyond voting These could be argued to be creating a pluralist democracy as turnout has constantly been dropping the membership of pressure groups has been steadily rising since the 1960s |
|
|
How has the effectiveness of Pressure groups promoting democracy been questionned? |
1) They Concentrate power as financially powerful groups could buy power through funding political parties 2) Their bypassing of parliament undermines it and the role of MPs 3) They are unaccountable as they are not elected and are rarely internally democratic |
|
|
How has devolution strengthened democracy? |
1) The constituent nations of the UK have a voice for the first time, representing the views of Scottish, Welsh, etc as English MPs dominate the commons 2) They refine the representative democracy as they are able to express their views about National issues and State issues 3) It widens the ability to participate and strengthens civil engagement and political education |
|
|
How has the effectiveness of devolution at promoting democracy been questioned? |
1) Their powers are ultimately limited and most, if not all, economic and foreign policy decisions are made in Westminster and Whitehall 2) Devolution has done nothing to address the lack of an English parliament |
|
|
How does the European Parliament promote democracy? |
1) UK Citizens have the ability to exert influence in Europe, through elections to the European Parliament, ever 5 years. Since 1999 they have used the Proportional System giving smaller parties like UKIP a greater say and chance of being elected |
|
|
How has the European Parliament's ability to promote democracy been questionned? |
1) The European Parliament is the weakest EU institution with little effective control over the European Commission, creating a democratic deficit 2) The Growing use of EU influence over the UK is possibly a threat to the sovereignty of Parliament and it's ability to function as an independent state |
|
|
Why have referendums not traditionally been used? |
1) They have been seen as 'Un-British' as they conflict with Parliamentary Sovreignty - They diminish Parliament and undermine its popular authority |
|
|
Why have Referendums become more common? |
1) Since 1997 they have been more common as of the growth of the prominence of constitutional reform, particularly as the general acceptance that it should be those who govern the people deciding how the people are governed 2) This has created a convention that all major constitutional issues should be put to a referendum 3) Under the 2010 election manifesto pledges the Liberal democrats pushed for more referendums as that is linked to democracy and to the ability to create constitutional reforms they wanted |
|
|
Why are referenda held? |
1) To endorse constitutional changes that could be very difficult to undo, in the cases of devolution to Scotland and Wales 2) To settle a party's dispute over an issue - the 1975 EU referendum was partially to keep the Labour Party together 3) To settle a contensious issue - The Good Friday agreement settled an issue around the Peace settlement in Northern Ireland, an area where a lot was riding on it |
|
|
What is a Referendum? |
A form of political participation that involves yes or no to a question posed by government - it is a form of direct democracy and involves the direct involvement of citizens in decision making |
|
|
How can a Referendum be supported by two sides? |
1) Both sides will support it as it will give them the ability to settle an issue on their side - In the 2011 AV election the Lib Dems saw it as their opportunity to change a key constitutional issue, whilst a no for the conservatives would allow them to keep it for a significant amount of time 2) Referendums therefore can unite a divided party or government |
|
|
What are the main type of democracy the UK could be defined as? |
1) Majoritarian - The UK system at westminster allows it with less checks and balances, it is more about the majority. Power is concentrated in the hands of Ministers and when it holds a majority there is little stopping from interpreting public opinion it's way - an executive democracy 2) It is criticized for not protecting individual freedoms - the 2001 terror laws could be seen as threatening civil liberties and the interests of Muslims |
|
|
What is the main evidence for a participation crisis? |
1) Drop in voter turnout 2) Drop in political parties membership 3) Declining loyalty of voters to parties |
|
|
How has the turnout dropped? |
1) Between 1945 and 1992 the turnout usually remained at above 75% with 84% in 1950 2) The 2001 election had a turnout of a mere 59%, the lowest ever and 2005 was a mere 61% 3) It rose to 66% in 2015 despite the closeness of the contest and televised debates, although still 9% less than the 45-92 average |
|
|
How has political party membership dropped/ |
1) The Labour party dropped from 1million in the 1950s to 388,000 today, although this has risen due to the election of Jeremy Corbyn 2) In 2007 only 1% of people belonged in a party, down from 7% in the 1950s 3) Conservative membership has dropped from 2.8m in the 1950s to 250,000 in 2009 |
|
|
How has partisan realignment signaled a drop in participation? |
Voters loyalty to parties has dropped and they identify with them far less, moving from a habitual voting pattern to a volatile one |
|
|
What evidence is there that there isn't a participation crisis? |
1) It could be that people have simply changed how they engage, as cynicism and disillusionment in political parties has grown the membership of pressure groups has also grown. 2) Far more younger people now have been involved in protests and direct action, instead of voting 3) Membership of the Labour party has grown massively under Jeremy Corbyn Elections however are the cornerstone of democracy so are the most important thing, so the drop in voting is probably most important |
|
|
Who could be to blame for a participation crisis? |
1) The Public 2) The Press 3) The Politicians |
|
|
How could the public be responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) In all democracies across the world there has been a growing apathy and greater difficulty mobilizing electorates 2) There has been a decrese in social capital - In a more self-centred, materialistic society people care less abouty society and more about themselves - This could be part of the same movement that has also led to a decline in church and union membership |
|
|
How could the mediabe responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) They have helped to foster a sense of cynicism and distrust, leading to a more general climate of cynicism and disenchantment in the public - The drive to make politics sexy has led to more coverage of scandal and incompetence, instead of the politics behind every day decisions - George Osborne's brother story |
|
|
How could the politiciansbe responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) Lack of vision 2) Age of Spin 3) Lack of choice 4) Electoral Strategies |
|
|
How has a lack of visionbeen responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) Many see that politicians are just in it to be elected and politics has become just another career, with politicians lacking morals, purpose and direction |
|
|
How as an age of spinbeen responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) As politicians move into mass-media they are far more concerned about communication - presenting a growth in Spin - Politicians are more concerned about how things appear not how they are, possibly being economical with the truth |
|
|
How has a Lack of choicebeen responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) As there is more of a consensus politics with people moving into the middle to get votes and appeal to middle England mean the two parties are closer together so leading to a 'they're all the same' attitude |
|
|
How have Electoral Strategiesbeen responsible for a decline in political participation? |
1) As parties now tend to target the swing constituencies far more, anywhere else in a safe seat can be left out so most voters are ignored at election time |
|
|
What are the main ways a participation crisis could possibly be solved? |
1) Referenda and more direct democracy 2) Lowering the voting age 3) Compulsory voting 4) Digital Democracy |
|
|
How could Referenda solve a participation crisis? |
1) One main criticism of Referenda is that government can choose if and when to have them so could be too powerful - Labour's 1975 EEC referendum was party politics oriented too 2) A move towards initiatives, where the public can trigger their own would solve this problem and therefore mean the public can have real say, so would raise participation |
|
|
How could Focus groups, Opinion Polls & Citizen's juries solve a participation crisis? |
1) As the people are seen to be directly influencing policy through suggestions, allowing them to have direct say and thus, they'd be more involved as they can make real chance 2) Citizen's juries could therefore gain more atention and have a greater say over policy 3) Government can 'pre-test' policies on the public - The operate through deliberation and debate, engaging in discussion and having the oppurtunity to question witnesses etc. - This limits the argument that the public are then not intelligent enough |
|
|
How can changing the relationship between MPs and Constituentssolve a participation crisis? |
1) Zac Goldsmith has proposed a range of 'recall election' possibilities where constituents can force an MP to return to stand for reelection for serious wrongdoing 2) Primary style elections for candidates where the public would have more say in who their candidate is Both of these would lead to a greater affinity to the candidate and therefore a greater participation |
|
|
What other minor forms of direct democracy have been proposed/implemented tosolve a participation crisis? |
1) E-petitions, 100,000 signatures can force a debate in the commons 2) Public reading stages of bills where the public can have an input on bills 3) Local community referendums and ability to block council tax increases |
|
|
What are the arguments for lowering the voting age? |
1) Responsibilities without rights 2) Ignoring youth interests 3) Stronger engagement 4) Irrational cut-off age |
|
|
How is responsibilities without rights an argument for lowering the voting age? |
1) The UK has a blurred age of responsibility, some at 18, some at 16 - Notably the ability to have sex, get married, leave school, join the army etc and therefore it feels irrational that these people aren't given the right to vote |
|
|
How is the ignoring of youth interestsan argument for lowering the voting age? |
1) As 16 to 18 year olds are not represented politically, their views and opinions are not represented or ignored, so giving them the right to vote can give more attention to them and stimulate thinking on issues like education, drugs etc |
|
|
How is Stronger Political engagementan argument for lowering the voting age? |
1) 18-24 year olds are the group with the lowest turnout, so lowering the voting age would cause people to have a stronger interest and understanding of politics and politics would be oriented around younger voters, making it more meaningful for them |
|
|
How is an irrational cut off agean argument for lowering the voting age? |
1) The argument that 16 year olds are less educationally developed is flawed as education levels continue to rise and no restrictions are applied to ignorant adults, so to restrict 16 & 17 year olds would be a inconsistent application of the policy |
|
|
What are the arguments against lowering the voting age? |
1) Immature voters 2) Preserving childhood 3) Deferred responsibility 4) Undermining turnout |
|
|
How are immature votersan argument against lowering the voting age? |
1) As most 16/17 year olds are in full time education and live with parents they are not 'full' citizens and their educational development remains incomplete - Most 16/17 year olds are unlikely to be interested in politics |
|
|
How is 'preserving childhood' an argument against lowering the voting age? |
1) If we start giving childreen and adolescents, more and more will they erode away at their childhood - Children should spend these years in education, having an enjoyable time and focussing on peronal development, without the stress of making political decisions |
|
|
How is 'deferred representation'an argument against lowering the voting age? |
1) To say that children are disenfranchised like women and the working classes in the past, they simply have to wait 2 more years to vote in elections, they're simply have a deferred representation - Most 18 year olds will still be in touch, moreover, with the interests of 16 & 17 year olds |
|
|
How is 'undermining turnout'an argument against lowering the voting age? |
1) Young voters are those least likely to vote and thus to lower the voting age, turnout may well drop, and most 16-18 year olds are unlikely to vote - As those who do not vote in their first election are the most unreliable, this could create a generation of abstainers |
|
|
What is Digital Democracy (& other tweaks)? How could it help solve a participation crisis? |
1) This is the idea that voting should be made easier and more convenient. This could be done in several ways - Changing the position of polling stations to more popular places like supermarkets to attract more people - Switch the Voting day from Thursday to Sunday 2) More radically, is the suggestion of 'cyber democracy' where democracy could operate through interactive TV, voting online and a greater use of the internet like allowing people to express their views in online referenda, streaming of parliamentary debates etc. |
|
|
What are the arguments for compulsory voting? |
Increased participation Greater legitimacy Civic Duty Stronger Social justice |
|
|
How is 'Increased participation' an argument for compulsory voting? |
1) It would immediately solve the participation crisis as many more would vote, increasing turnout - This happened when voting was made compulsory in Australian elections in 1922 |
|
|
How is 'Greater legitimacy'an argument for compulsory voting? |
1) Governments formed on a higher turnout are far more likely to hold both a electoral but also a popular majority, which has never happened in a UK election, with Labour in 2005 gaining a mere 22% of the popular vote - This would therefore strengthen the democratic legitimacy |
|
|
How is a 'Civic Duty'an argument for compulsory voting? |
1) With compulsory voting it would further the notion that voting and political participation is a civic duty and therefore the more they feel like citizens and engage in a political community |
|
|
How is 'Stronger social justice'an argument for compulsory voting? |
1) With a non-compulsory voting system, those who are more likely to be sidelined like the poor, the young and the less educated are those least likely to vote - Having compulsory voting means that these people's votes need to be won and thus government has to listen, not just to the rich & educated |
|
|
What are the arguments against compulsory voting? |
Abuse of Freedom Cosmetic Democracy Worthless votes Disorted political focus |
|
|
How is an 'Abuse of Freedom'an argument against compulsory voting? |
1) Being compelled to vote is still compulsion. Those who decide not to vote may well be doing it for principled reasons, to protest at the system, to complain about the absence of real choice etc. |
|
|
How is 'Cosmetic Democracy'an argument against compulsory voting? |
1) Making it compulsory may well just solve the issue, but not the cause, it doesn't address the real issues between a lack of desire to engage and by making it compulsory these issues may be masked |
|
|
How is 'Worthless votes'an argument against compulsory voting? |
1) Those who are least likely to vote are those who know least or care least about politics and therefore we can expect their votes to be random and unthinking, particularly as some voters feel resentful and aggrieved |
|
|
How is 'Distorted political focus'an argument against compulsory voting? |
1) It may change the strategies used by political parties to design policies to attract more 'marginal' voters rather than focus on what is best for the whole electorate |
