Judicial Review free essay sample

The United Kingdom as the Most Democratic Country Anthony Giddens, a sociologist and author, defines democracy as having three core components, â€Å"democracy exists where you have a multiparty system with political parties competing with one another, free and non-corrupt voting procedures to elect political leaders, and an effective legal framework of civil liberties or human rights that underlie the mechanisms of voting processes† (Lever). Democracy is a form of government where the supreme power is vested in the people and is exercised directly by the people or by its elected agents. Countries such as Japan, the United States’, and the United Kingdom, all have democratic forms of government. Judicial review is a part of democracy where a higher level court can review cases involving laws and make those laws invalid. It is an important part of the checks and balances in a democracy to limit power. Through the power of judicial review, the Court is charged with assuring citizens’ individual rights as guaranteed to them. We will write a custom essay sample on Judicial Review or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Judicial review is important for democracy, but on the other hand, some feel as though judicial review is undemocratic. Although the United States was the first country to practice judicial review, the United Kingdom possesses the most democratic judicial system. Judicial review has many positive benefits and is significant to a country’s judiciary. In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, decided by the John Marshall Court in America in 1803, officials argued that the court system, as a whole, and the Supreme Court, which is the top court of the land, has the power to decide if a government law, regulation or action was Constitutional because the court system is the place where all legal matters are decided. Judicial review legitimizes the government’s actions that are protected by the courts and helps maintain the supremacy of the Constitution of a country. It helps to temper radical extremism in political parties that obtain a majority. Its also democratic because it gives people a say both in supporting the original passage of the law as well as in appealing its constitutionality. If laws are not decided upon whether or not they are constitutional, the Constitution is not being treated as the supreme law of the land as it is designed to do in America. Those who feel that judicial review is undemocratic believe that courts should not interfere with the attempts of Congress or the President to deal with wars and emergencies. Judicial review may be seen as undemocratic, especially when compared to the true definition of democracy (Lever). Another strike at judicial review is that it is not explicitly stated in the American Constitution. The judiciary is the branch of a country’s government that is concerned with allocating justice. The constitutional court is the highest judicial body to rule on the constitutionality of laws and other government actions. Some regimes give the judiciary the power of concrete review, which allows the high court to rule on constitutional issues only when debates are brought up. Other regimes give the power of abstract review, which allows the court to decide questions that do no arise from legal cases, and even allows it to make judgements on legislation that has not yet been enacted. The US allows concrete review and in contrast, the UK courts do not have power to overturn legislation passed by the national legislature under any circumstances. Britain is a representative democracy. This is where citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them. Every five years in Britain the people have the chance to vote into power those they wish to represent them in Parliament. These member’s of parliament meet in the House of Commons to discuss matters which pass acts and then become British law. Within the House of Commons, each elected member of parliament represents an area called a constituency. For five years, member’s of parliament are responsible to their electorate and are held accountable to them. If they fail to perform, or if the party does badly during its time in office, they can be removed by the people of their constituency. According to the Democracy Rankings of 2012, the United Kingdom was ranked at 13 while the United States was ranked at 15 (Campbell). In both the UK and USA any citizen, male or female, and any race, has the right to vote in elections, as long as they are over eighteen years old. This universal suffrage is something that is desperately needed if a country is going to be democratic, for some citizens are excluded from the right to vote then a government is obviously not democratic because not everyone who lives in  that country is getting a chance to say how they want to be run. The British Executive may be held accountable more frequently than elections would allow through what is called the Prime Minister’s Question Time. In these sessions the government is questioned on all of its activities by the opposition, and their own party, meaning that, theoretically, the Executive shouldn’t be able to keep important secrets from the people and become too overpowering, but instead are frequently reminded of the fact that they work for the people. However, in the US, the President is not faced with these sessions, and so are not held accountable so often. In this way Britain is more democratic. Another strike against American democracy is the influence that money has on elections. Without money it is very difficult to win a campaign in   America, which leads to the high percentage on incumbents that get re-elected. Also, during their term in office the incumbents have created the network of contacts that can fund their campaigns. This makes it very hard for new people to break into American politics unless they have somehow collected a great sum of money. However, in Britain, money is not so important in elections which is partly because campaigns are shorter, taking weeks instead of a year, and because in the UK general election candidates are guaranteed time on the TV, radio, and can take advantage of the national press. In the US everything has to be bought. In this way the UK is more democratic than America. America is known as the greatest democracy in the world, and   Britain has been called the mother of all democracy, yet, if you look more closely at the governmental systems you will see many points that reflect an undemocratic quality in both countries. Though there is not much to choose between them, the US is less democratic, largely because of the enormous influence money has on American politics, therefore, if you’re not wealthy it is very hard to break into politics, and even is you are, the strict two-party system also makes it more difficult. The UK is not a lot more democratic, but the fact that money isn’t such an issue means that politics is more accessible to a wider number of people, as long as they want to get involved. The fact is that a pure democracy is often unworkable, and it may be that democracy has to be partially sacrificed in order to have an effective and efficient government.