There are many political parties in Britain but throughout the whole of England, there are three dominant political parties : Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. These are expanded on in the regions by the addition of the Scottish National Party in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and the various Unionist parties and Sein Fein of Northern Ireland. In terms of electoral success, Britain has frequently been referred as a two-party state; similar to America. In terms of pure definition, Britain is a classic multi-party state in which just a handful of parties have any political/electoral significance due to the electoral system we have of ‘first past the post’ in an election. A government is likely to listen to any of the values or the interest/pressure groups if there is a political reason to do so. If the support for one is an electoral liability (even if it is a sound prospective policy) then it is likely that such support will not be forthcoming. Therefore, do political parties merely respond to what the public want or do they drive forward their own agenda and try to bring the public on board? Is a subtle blend of both required for electoral success?
Democracy describes a political system in which the political power resides with the people who live and make up a particular community rather than one particular man called dictorship or a small group of men called oilgarchy. The word Democracy derived from two Greek words, demos (meaning people) and kratos (meaning power) and hence the term literally means 'government by the people'. Democratic government vary from society to society and are relative whereby the people will have more influence over the government in one society than in another society. Abraham Lincoln's definition of democracy is 'the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth'.
Democracy is a political system which has many different meanings and can take different forms. It is often incorrectly used as a synonym for capitalism. Fundamentally, it means a government of, by and for the people. A form of governance in which executive and legislative powers of the state are based on popular elections that are free, fair, and open; the right to organize, speak freely, and find impartial treatment through an independent judiciary are also typically found in democratic societies. The US novelist and Poltical commentator Gore Vidal declared in a 1982 interview: 'Democracy is supposed to give you the illusion of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just asprin.'
This relativity can be placed into two categories, direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy is based upon direct and continuous particuption regardless of ethncity, gender and religion.The term "pure democracy" is sometimes used as a synonym for "direct democracy," however majority power in a direct democracy may be limited by a constitution, all citizens. Also are allowed to participate in decision making for their favourite policy. i.e. Referdrums. Decisions are made by citizens with represntation (poilticans). Direct democracy strengthens community and solidarity. Also citizens have continous involvement in politcal decisions and doesn't have to wait five years for a general election. Although this is one system there are a few criticisms of it they are, it can only be maintained in small states, this is because it would take to long to make decisions if it was upheld in larger places like the UK (A morden state), it would take months or longer for a decision when you might need one quick. Also people generally have too many distractions, so it be better if professional representatives (politicans) can be trusted to make a better decision than the people as a whole.
Indirect democracy is a better policy for the UK, it means citizens elect politicans to make politcal decisions on thier behalf (representative or indirect democracy). It is like a social contract between the government and the electorate. Basically 'one person - one vote'. In the UK we have Plurist politics i.e. competation of different parties at election times, avoiding dictorship. Also citizens have a choice at election times- they can bote out a government if they are unhappy with it's performance. Although this is one system there are a few criticisms of it they are, voters don't have continous control over the way the government is run. Relationships between MP's and voters is broken after elections, also the overwhemling majority of MP's are amibitions and do not want to 'rock the party boat'. Or upset the party leader. One problem with this system is that it doesn't allow individulity and finally the pubilc trends to vote on groups of 'personality' rather than intellect.
A doctrine often known as Edmund Burke's Principle states that representatives should act upon their own conscience in the affairs of a representative democracy. This is contrasted to the expectation that such representatives should consider the views of their electors—an expectation particularly common in states with strong constituency links, or with recall provisions (such as modern British Columbia). Another form of indirect democracy is delegative democracy. In delegative democracy, delegates are selected and expected to act on the wishes of the constituency. In this form of democracy the constituency may recall the delegate at any time. Representatives are expected only to transmit the decisions of electors, advance their views, and if they fail to do so they are subject to immediate recall with only minimal process.One critique of indirect democracy is that it centralizes power into the hands of a few, thereby increasing the likelihood of corruption in and abuse of power by the government.
World democracy simultaneously comprises two approaches, both mutually reinforcing:
Extending democracy to all countries. Introducing democracy in international organizations, via bypassing the screen of nation-states, particularly attempting reforms in the United Nations (see world presidentialism, democratic globalization and world government). There has been a great deal of research about global trends of democracy. For example, over the last century, the percent of world population living in democracy has increased from 12% in 1900 to 63% in 2000. The majority of
increase in democracy has been in developed countries, but about half of less developed countries are now democracies as well.
Britain, as well as being a representative democracy, has also been labelled a liberal democracy. Historically there are five main points behind liberal democracy :
the government should be limited in its impact on the person and the
government should not enjoy arbitrary power. Elections must be free and
fair.
the government should do what it can to remove obstacles limiting the well
being of people. This includes all groups with none excluded.
the government’s involvement in the economic market of a country should
be minimal.
the government should be there to deal with problems when needed
the right to vote should be extended to all (no longer applicable to
Britain).
A country that claims to be a "liberal democracy", embraces the whole issue of civil liberties. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly freedom of religion etc. (within the confines of the law) are of paramount importance. Within Britain these have been safe guarded by what is called the "rule of law". This guarantees someone equality before the law and it also ensures that the powers of those in government can be curtailed by laws that are enforceable in courts. This has been further developed by the growth of the impact of the European Court which can act as a ‘check and balance’ against the governments of member states.
Today democracy is very popular idea and one which people of all ideologies (including conservatives, repubilcans, nationalists, marxists and anarchists) all seem to support. The modern and popularly excepted form of democracy is liberal democracy. This form follows the model of indirect democracy with the liberal touch of universal sufferage for both men and women, freedom of the media and elections on routine basis.
The Frist World War of 1914-18 was a terrible ordeal for civilization in which millions of people perished. But it's end appeared to be a triumph for democracy. Leading USA into the conflict in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson declared that 'The world must be made safe for democracy', and following the wartime collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, defeated Germany became a republic and a cluster of new states appeared in Eastern Europe and the Baltic, all more or less committed to democracy.
Direct democracy is the best system is my eyes, this is beacuse it gives everyone a chance to make decisions, but also you can get on with your life without worrying about everyday problems, instend you have a representative doing the main work for you. So I think it is the best system around.