Questionable democracy in the UK

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Basically, for a group started in my school we're now writing a manifesto...

At one part I'm ranting about democracy and how the UK governments do not always listen to the views of the majority.

I've got the Iraq war as the majority opposed that...

I've also thought about the ban on fox hunting, wher the majority still want it, but it got banned anyway. However, I'm purposely omiting this as I don't want to come across as pro-hunting...

any more examples?

[monkeydust]

Good move leaving out the fox hunting issue.

Other examples: how about the power of the Confederation of British Industry? They tend to disproportionately dominate proceedings.

Example (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/22/who-runs-britain-/)

Have a look at what this guy has to say. Good luck.

[James]

Well i think you will have to get into what democracy actually means.
To quote lincoln, democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Firstly you need to define who are the people: some UK citizens don't get to vote.

Secondly, i would look at how they are goverened. This is on several levels i suppose. You have, for example, the system of representational democracy, or "direct democracy" (or Atheinian democracy.... which did have its merits, but was based on the existance of a slave class. And "the people" were only certain males). Also, you need to look at how we elect our representatives. You will have all sorts of fun debating the merits and disadvantages of First Past The Post, and alternative Proportional Representation systems.


Thirdly: question "for the people", which basically rests on the issue of whether democacy should be majoritarian (i.e. a decision is passed if a majority agree to pass it). You also need to look at whether democacy should have bounds. Should it be total? or should it be "restricted" (i.e. should there be "relms" or "spheres" which are not under democratic control)?
Eventually you shall come across the ideological conflict between individualism and collectivism (and other ideologies).


PErsonally i think you need to look at both Iraq, and also fox hunting. Iraq was opposed by alot (although remember, opinion polls don't count everyone in the nation, and are also subject to other factors which may create misleading results); but was argued by many representatives of the people, to be a threat to the democracy. Iraq isn't a terribly interesting example of our democracy, as it was an issue of foreign affairs.
A domestic issue provides more scope: such as fox hunting. Again the polls show mixed feelings. Should a majority have a right to outlaw the pursuits of a minority?
Do the people's representatives have a right to decide what is and what isn't cruel/unacceptable for everyone else?

Also it poses another interesting area of democracy. That is, the implementation and enforcement of policy. Arguably fox hunting still continues illegally on a large scale. Many argue that the laws arn't enforced fully by the police.
Just like with other laws which arn't fully enforced.
Does a democracy function when some of its laws are ignored?

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:54 PM
Firstly you need to define who are the people: some UK citizens don't get to vote.

Who are you defining in this? Aside from people in prison?

[RedAnarchist]

members of the house of lords, those in prison, people convicted of electoral malpractise, those who are compulsorily detained in psych hospitals, the mentally disabled cannot vote.

it is also a myth that the queen can vote - she can, but royal protocol frowns upon it.

[Paul R]

Aside from the majority not getting what they want, another aspect of questionable democracy in the UK is the House Of Lords. Unelected, totaly undemocratic and yet they have a huge effect on the citizen's of the UK's lives.