Is nationalism a progressive or reactionary doctrine?

Heater said that there are three paradoxes of nationalism: it is a force for either peace or violence, democracy or dictatorship and is both progressive and reactionary. The progressive aspects in this sense would be forward looking while the reactionary would be backward looking and even seek to turn the clock back to a previous era.

The basic belief of nationalism is that the nation is or should be the central principle of political organisation. On a basic level, nations are cultural entities, collections of people bound together by shared values and traditions, although there is no set of components that establish where and when a nation exists. Nations usually share a common history and tradition and their national identity is preserved by recalling past glories, suggesting a reactionary view. However nationalist feelings may be based more on future expectations than on shared memories or a common past, creating a progressive view of the nation. This is most evident in the USA, a ‘land of immigrants’ where events like the War of Independence have no direct relevance for most Americans whose families arrived centuries after these events occurred.

These progressive and reactionary views of the nation are most clearly demonstrated in the rival inclusive and exclusive concepts of the nation. Exclusive concepts of the nation are reactionary as they stress the importance of ethnic unity and a shared history, viewing national identity as given and unchanging. Inclusive concepts are progressive as they highlight the importance of civic consciousness and patriotic loyalty, suggesting that nations may be multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious.

As well as progressive and reactionary view of the nation, there are progressive and reactionary views of national identity. Primordialist approaches to nationalism portray national identity as historically embedded and characterised by deep emotional attachments that resemble kinship ties. This is a reactionary view as it implies that there is little difference between ethnicity and nationality. In contrast situationalist approaches to nationalism suggest that national identity is forged in response to changing situations and historical challenges. This is a more progressive view as Ernest Gellner suggested that nations coalesced in response to particular social conditions and circumstances and implies that the national community is deeprooted and enduring.

Although the theme of the nation is divided with both progressive and reactionary aspects, the nationalism core theme of self-determination is undeniably progressive. Self-determination sprang up during the French Reolution as Jeans-Jacques Rousseau argued that government should be based on the indivisible collective will of the entire community, not the absolute power of a monarch. The form of nationalism that emerged was based on the vision of a people or nation governing itself. In this tradition, national identity is the desire to attain or maintain political independence, expressed in the principle of national self-determination. The goal of nationalism is therefore the founding of a nation-state, which may involve a process of unification where a collection of separate political entities are integrated into a single state or achievement of independence. As the goal of nationalism is progressive, you could argue that the entire doctrine is progressive. However, there are many different forms of nationalism and not all of them seek to achieve this goal in a progressive manner.

There are three forms of nationalism: ethnic, cultural and political. Cultural nationalism emphasizes the strengthening or defence of cultural identity over overt political demons. It is based on a romantic belief in the nation as a unique historical and organic whole. Cultural nationalism is a reactionary form of nationalism because of its emphasis on history. Ethnic nationalism differs from cultural nationalism in that ethnicity is loyalty towards a distinctive population, cultural group or territorial area. It is still reactionary however as its racial overtones give it an exclusive character. Political nationalism on the other hand is progressive as it is defined by the progressive principle of self-determination and emphasizes civic loyalty and political allegiance rather than on cultural identity. Eric Hobsbawm argued that a belief in historical continuity and cultural purity was a myth created by nationalism.

Of the four traditions of nationalism, liberal nationalism is by far the most progressive as they believe that nations are equally entitled to the right of self-determination and their ultimate goal is the construction of a world of independent nation states. Conservative nationalism on the other hand cares less about universal self-determination and are appealed to nationalism because of tradition and history making it more reactionary. It is essentially nostalgic and backward-looking, reflecting on a past age of national glory and being against immigration and supranationalism. Expansionist nationalism is by far the most reactionary tradition of nationalism because of its belief in chauvinism, that nations are not equal in their right to self-determination. Chauvinism is also a breeding ground for racialist theories as it is often stimulated by negative integration, the portrayal of another nation or race as a threat or an enemy. Nevertheless it is progressive as nationalist enthusiasm was provoked by arbitrary expansion or imperial conquest. Pan-Germanism desired a German dominated Europe. Anti-colonial nationalism is progressive in its desire for independence and social revolution while post-colonial nationalism is reactionary, rejecting Western culture and seeking to revert to the culture before the West colonised the area.

There are so many forms and traditions within nationalism and it has such a subjective nature that it cannot be generally termed as being either a progressive or reactionary doctrine. It contains clear cut examples of both, giving it an almost schizophrenic political character.

Is Liberal democracy is a contradiction of terms?

Here is an essay I wrote while studying liberalism in 2009

Robyn, UK

Liberal democracy is a contradiction of terms. Discuss.

Liberal democracy is the main political force in the developed world, with 2/3 of the worlds states demonstrating features of it. It is a form of political rule that balances the principle of limited government against the idea of popular consent. Although today liberalism and democracy are often regarded as synonyms, liberals did not in fact support the case for democracy until the 20^th century. Even Rousseau, who is considered to have been a key influence in liberalism, felt that democracy was unworkable. These issues are based on the conflicting ideas in liberalism and democracy which now stand as contradictions within liberal democracy.

Macpherson argued that anyone of substance in the 17^th century would have seen democracy as a system of government fatal to the individual and all the graces of civilized government. For liberals there is the concern that democracy can become the enemy of individual liberty as ‘the people’ are not a single entity but a collection of individuals. The first issue with this is that a collection of individuals possess different opinions and opposing interests. The democratic solution to conflict is the application of the majority rule which means decisions would be based on 51%. This leads to individual liberty and rights to be crushed in the name of ‘the people’ which liberals refer to as ‘tyranny of the majority’. Liberals other issue with majoritarianism and the tyranny of the majority relates to the make-up of the majority in modern, industrial societies. The liberal theory of utilitarianism and equality led to an abundance for the few but subsistence for the many and while in theory it is happiness that is maximised, in practice it is wealth. Therefore if society is deeply divided, majoritarianism would expose the rich to a tyranny of the poor.

J.S Mill, a key figure in liberalism, believed political wisdom is unequally distributed and largely related to education. The uneducated poor are more likely to act according to narrow class interests so for them to have the majority would be disastrous. Mill argued that the educated can use their wisdom and experience for the good of others. Therefore he believed elected politicians should speak for themselves rather than reflect the views of their electors. This argument demonstrates a liberal disdain for representative government, a key feature of democracy. Nevertheless, the liberal arguments against both majoritarianism and representative government demonstrate a deeper mistrust in liberals of universal suffrage.

Neither Rousseau nor Jefferson supported the case for universal suffrage and would have excluded the poor, dependants and women from voting. However, democracy became an issue in the late 18^th century when those excluded from political power began to demand their rights. Liberals of the 19^th century worried that natural rights might be used against property. The theory of utility was a safer way of defending liberty than natural rights since class divisions could no longer be ignored and the idea that everyone had the same innate rights no longer seemed plausible. Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, insisted that when security of property comes into conflict with equality, it is equality that yields. He only accepted the case for universal suffrage when he was convinced that the poor would not use their votes to destroy private property. James Mill also accepted universal suffrage, arguing that workers would still regard the middle class as those in charge of the business of government. A greater sympathy for universal suffrage is shown by his son John Mill who argues for the empowerment of women and against the plight of workers, showing he had moved from a protective to a developemental view of democracy. New liberals, such as Hobhouse, argued that although the doctrine of popular sovereignty might lead to the ‘expropriation of the rich’, the suspensive veto of a second chamber and the use of referendums are valuable device to check a ‘large and headstrong majority’. This reflects the defence against majoritarianism within liberal democracy of having a network of checks and balances that would make government responsive.

Another justification for universal suffrage was made by Joseph Schumpeter who said that al governments ‘discriminate’ against some section of the population, for example no children being able to vote. Therefore discrimination is not undemocratic and it depends on how you define the demos. Schumpter agrees that in contemporary society, all adults should have the right to vote however this does not mean that they will use this right or participate more directly in the political process. This can be seen in liberal democracies today where, although universal suffrage and ‘one person, one vote’ principles are upheld, there has been a decrease in voter turnout. This argument assures liberals that although there is a risk of tyranny of majority by the uneducated poor, the fact that they are uneducated and therefore most likely uninterested in politics means the risk is a lot slimmer.

The final justification comes from utilitarian theorists who developed the notion of democracy as a form of protection for the individual into a case for universal suffrage. The liberal theory of utilitarianism implies that individuals will vote as to advance or defend their interests as they define them, thus protecting the individuals rights. Also, by participating in political life, citizens enhance their understanding and achieve a higher level of personal development, making an educational experience.

Although there are conflicting ideas within liberalism and democracy, the liberal acceptance of universal suffrage, the key feature of democracy, has led to an acceptance to all the elements of democracy including majority rule and representative government. This is because liberals were able to create solutions to prevent the extremes of democracy and democracy also balances out the extreme sides of liberalism. This can be seen with the example of majoritarianism. While the liberal element of checks and balances prevents tyranny of the majority, the democratic element of universal suffrage prevents a meritocratic society. Therefore it can be argued that liberal democracy finds a fair balance between the two theories, thereby strengthening their advantages and lessening their disadvanatages.

Greek Independence Day

After centuries of unsuccessful uprisings and failure of the Ottoman Empire to assimilate and convert the Greeks, The War of Independence began in 1821 rising up against 400 years of occupation and oppression by the Ottoman Turks. The origin of the Turkish occupancy began in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople (currently referred to as Istanbul). During the dark years of the Ottoman occupation, thousands were killed and tortured for attending church or teaching their children culture, history and language. It was the Greek Orthodox Church that helped to retain their very identity by the institution of Crypha Scholia (Hidden Schools).

The celebration of Greek Independence Day on March 25th draws inspiration from one of the holiest days for Greek Orthodox Christians, the Annunciation of the Theotokos. This is the day that the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a child. Bishop Germanos of Patras seized the opportunity by raising the banner of revolution, in an act of defiance against the Turks and marked the beginning of the War of Independence. These freedom fighters, or klephts as they were called, of Greece sacrificed much for their country. Kolokotronis, Nikitara, Karaiskakis, Bouboulina, and Mpotsaris are some of the heroes of the revolution.

During this period there was a strong maritime tradition on the islands of the Aegean which, together with the emergence over the 18th century of an influential merchant class, generated the wealth necessary to found schools, libraries and pay for young Greeks to study at the universities of Western Europe. It was there that they came into contact with the radical ideas of the European Enlightenment, the French Revolution and romantic nationalism. Educated and influential members of the large Greek diaspora, such as Adamantios Korais and Anthimos Gazis, tried to transmit these ideas back to the Greeks, with the double aim of raising their educational level and simultaneously strengthening their national identity.

The struggle for independence was supported abroad by intellectuals of the day. In addition to the Secret Society of Friends (Filiki Etaeria) and the Sacred Band (Ieros Lohos) prominent world figures including Lord Byron of England, Daniel Webster and Dr. Samuel Gridly Howe of the United States raised the interest level among Europeans and Americans.

The Peloponnese (a region in southern Greece), with its long tradition of resistance to the Ottomans, was to become the heartland of the revolt. The crucial meeting was held at Vostitsa (modern Aigion), where chieftains and prelates from all over the Peloponnese assembled on 26 January. There, the klepht captains declared their readiness for the uprising, while most of the civil leaders presented themselves sceptical and demanded guarantees about a Russian intervention.

On 17 March, 1821, war was declared on the Turks by the Maniots in the town of Areopoli. An army of 2,000 Maniots advanced on the Messenian town of Kalamata, which fell to the Greeks on 23 March. On the same day, Andreas Londos, a Greek primate (bishop), rose up at Vostitsa. On March 28, the Messenian Senate, the first of the Greeks' local governing councils, held its first session in Kalamata. On 22 March, the revolutionaries declared the Revolution at the square of Agios Georgios in Patras, in the presence of archbishop Germanos. On the next day, the leaders of the Revolution in Achaia sent a document to the foreign consulates explaining the reasons of the Revolution. On 23 March, the Ottomans launched sporadic attacks towards the town while the revolutionaries drove them back to the fortress.

By the end of March, the Greeks effectively controlled the countryside, while the Turks were confined to the fortresses. Many armatoloi in Central Greece had joined the Filiki Eteria. When the revolution erupted they took up arms alongside the revolutionaries. The first region to revolt in Central Greece was Phocis on 24 March. In Boeotia, Livadeia was captured on 29 March, followed by Thebes two days later. The Ottoman garrison held out in the citadel of Salona, the regional capital, until April 10, when the Greeks took it. Cretan participation in the revolution was extensive, but it failed to achieve liberation from Turkish rule due to Egyptian intervention. The final major engagement of the war was the Battle of Petra, which occurred north of Attica. Greek forces under Demetrius Ypsilantis, for the first time trained to fight as a regular European army rather than as guerilla bands, advanced against Aslan Bey's forces and defeated them. The Turks would surrender all lands from Livadeia to the Spercheios River in exchange for safe passage out of Central Greece.

From November 15 to 20, 1821, a council was held in Salona (present-day Amfissa) in which the main local notables and military chiefs participated. Under the direction of Theodoros Negris, they set down a proto-constitution for the region, the "Legal Order of Eastern Continental Greece", and established a governing council. A month later, a national legislative assembly was formed at Epidaurus, consisted almost exclusively of Moreot notables. The Assembly composed the first Greek Constitution and appointed the members of an executive and a legislative body that were to govern the liberated territories.

On 21 December 1828 the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Russia, and France met in the island of Poros, and prepared a Protocol, which provided for the creation of an autonomous state ruled by a monarch. Under the pressure of Russia, the Porte finally agreed on the terms of the Treaty of London of 6 July 1827, and of the Protocol of 22 March 1829. Soon afterward, the United Kingdom and France conceived the idea of an independent Greek state, trying to limit the influence of Russia on the new state. Russia was not delighted by the idea, but could not reject it, and, consequently, the three powers finally agreed to create an independent Greek state under their joint protection, and concluded the Protocols of 3 February 1830.

The consequences of the Greek revolution were somewhat ambiguous in the immediate aftermath. An independent Greek state had been established, but with Britain, Russia and France claiming a major role in Greek politics, an imported Bavarian dynast as ruler, and a mercenary army. The population of the new state numbered 800,000, representing less than one-third of the 2.5 million Greek inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. In the long-term historical perspective, this marked a seminal event in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. For the first time, a Christian subject people had achieved independence from the Ottoman rule and established a fully independent state, recognized by Europe. The Greek Revolt legitimized the concept of small ethnically-based nation-states and emboldened nationalist movements among other Christian subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire. The Serbs, Bulgars and Romanians would all subsequently fight for and win their independence, while the Armenians would fail as even in their traditional homeland they were outnumbered five-to-one by Muslims (Turks and Kurds).

The flag of Greece has not changed since the revolution. The white cross in the upper left hand corner covering one fourth of the flag signifies the important role of the Greek Orthodox Church in the formation of the Hellenic Nation. The blue and white alternating stripes represent the sea and the relentless waves of the Aegean. According to legend, the Goddess of Beauty Aphrodite emerged from these waves. There are nine stripes representing each letter of the Greek word for freedom, Eleftheria.

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence#Central_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_II

http://www.helleniccomserve.com/greekindependence.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopoli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_(religion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnese

British Politics: Democracy - Assess the limitations of the UK democratic system

And another one...

Robyn, UK

Assess the limitations of the UK democratic system

Democracy is defined as ‘rule by the people’ and is based on the two core principles of political participation and political equality. There are two forms of democracy: direct or representative democracy. The UK democratic system is currently a representative democracy which involves indirect popular participation, limited popular participation in government and mediated popular participation. However, recently, the effectiveness of the UK democratic system has come under fire. To look at whether the UK currently has an effective democracy, I will be looking at the limitations and strengths of the UK democratic system.

One of the strengths of the UK democratic system is the free and fair elections. The introduction of the secret ballot ensures that voters could think for themselves and express their own views at election time without being intimidated into voting for a certain party. This is a core feature of democracy and representative democracy, as it is a case of political participation and indirect and limited popular participation. This means that the UK is correctly following the theory of representative democracy which ensures that the representatives chosen were done so in the correct democratic way.

However a limitation of UK democracy is the first past the post system. It has been criticised for distorting electoral preferences and creating a system of plurality rule, in which government could win fewer than half the votes cast. This is a limitation of representative democracy, as elections are supposed to ensure that the representative that the majority of the public want comes into power. With the first past the post system, however, the representative may only need 30-40% of the electorate vote, which means that the representative may not be wanted by a majority of the country.

Another limitation of the UK democratic system, linked to election is the non-elected element of the system. This includes the Monarchy, the House of Lords and Pressure Groups. This is a limitation because they all have varying levels of influence on the government, but were not elected by the public. This means that some of the things these bodies influence the government on may not be wanted by the public, which is who should technically have the most influence in a representative democracy.

As mentioned above, pressure groups can have unwanted influence over the government and parliament, which makes them a limitation to the UK democracy, however, they can aldo be a strength. Pressure groups promote political participation and members of the public being members of pressure groups creates mediated popular participation. It does this by giving a voice to minorities, providing a way for citizens to exert influence between elections and acting as an important vehicle for political participation beyond voting. This is a strength as if people feel they are not well represented by government then they can feel represented by pressure groups instead.

Under representation can also be seen in the House of Commons. The social composition of the House of Commons doesn’t reflect the social composition of the country as there are few women and ethnic minorities. This is a limitation as they cannot fairly represent the country as they will have a lack of understanding in certain areas.

There is another limitation in the House of Commons as the executive has more power than parliament. The government usually has majority control of the house of commons which means that if they want a certain bill passed, it will get the majority vote in the House of Commons. This is a limitation of the UK democratic system as Parliament are supposed to be representing the public but the executive control means that they can’t always do what the public would want. There is a strength in this, however, through the House of Lords. The House of Lords can stop any bill that they feel is unfair or undemocratic which protects the public’s interests. On the other hand, there is also a limitation here as The Parliament Act states that if government really want a bill passed they can ignore parliament and the House of Lords anyway. However this is rarely done as it makes them unpopular.

Another strength in terms of protecting public interest was the creation of the Human Rights Act in 1998. Human rights belong to everyone and are fundamental in that they are inalienable. This is strength of representative democracy as it ensures that the government and parliament can represent, but not exploit, the public.

Referendums are another strength in UK democracy, however they could be considered a limitation of representative democracy as it is a form of direct democracy and conflict with the principles of the parliamentary democracy. Referendums involve the public expressing a view on a particular issue of public policy. It is a strength as it enhances political participation and also, if the public feel that they are not being well represented, a referendum can ensure they get something that they want.

The last strength in the UK democratic system was created in 1998 by devolution. Devolution has enhanced representative democracy in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It also lessens the power of Westminster and grants more power to the people as they have a better chance of getting the party they want.

I believe that there will always be limitations to the UK democratic system because there are two many outside factors for a representative democracy to completely work in practice. I believe, however, that limitations have decreased as there is starting to be less of a two party system there was the recent creation of devolution and the more common use of referendums. I believe that no one form of democracy can be used successfully, but using different aspects of different forms can enhance democracy on the whole.

British Politics: Democracy - How has direct democracy been more widely used in the UK in recent years

And another one!

Robyn, UK

How has direct democracy been more widely used in the UK in recent years

Direct democracy has been more widely used in the UK in recent years as an attempt to widen political participation.

The most commonly used form of direct democracy today is referendums. It is argued that they are the best way of getting greater popular involvement in politics as they give the public direct and unmediated control over the government’s decision making. However, a weakness in referendums at the moment is that there is no public control over when and where they will be used. This means that the governments could only call referendums on issues that they support and when they are confident of winning. This takes away the initial decision making power that the public should have with referendums. On the other hand, this can be solved by creating ways for citizens to initiate referendums. This gives the public the power to vote certain legislation or to force legislators to consider certain policy proposals.

Another form of direct democracy that has been emphasized more since the 1997 labour government is the use of focus groups and opinion polls. A focus group is a small cross section of people who are used to gain insight into wider public views. They are the views of a small sample of the population which are chosen to speak for the whole of society. Focus groups and opinion polls would be used as a way of gauging political opinion and testing government policies to see how the public would react.

In July 2007 Gordon Brown revealed plans for a much wider use of citizens juries, which are another devise of direct democracy. Unlike referendums and opinion polls, citizen juries operate through deliberation and debate rather than the citizens just being asked to give an opinion. This means that they develop a much more balanced and sensible idea of public opinion. However it is argued that citizens juries are only designed to give the impression that the government is listening without them having to share policy-making power.

I believe that although referendums are a good way of increasing political participation, they defeat the purpose of representative democracy, which is what we have in the UK today. I think that focus groups and opinion polls are an effective way for the government to test public opinion on different policies. However, because it is only a small sample of the population I don’t think they could always represent the opinion of the whole society. I think citizens juries are the best device of direct democracy that is used today because the deliberation and debate allows a representative and unbiased opinion to be formed and is the most interactive way for political participation. As for what is argued about it being designed to give the impression government is listening without them having to share their policy making power, I see this as a good thing. The UK is a representative democracy, therefore we do not want the policy making power. Citizens juries allow the public to give a balanced opinion so that the government and parliament can aim to represent us better.

British Politics: Democracy - Do the advantages of referendums outweigh the disadvantages?

The last one!

Robyn, UK

Do the advantages of referendums outweigh the disadvantages?

Referendums are a device of direct democracy and are a popular vote on an issue of public policy. They are the most commonly used form of direct democracy today and are used to widen political participation. However, as the UK is a representative, not direct democracy, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

As they are a device of direct democracy, referendums give the public direct and unmediated control over government decision-making. This means that the public vies and interests are properly and accurately given. It also means they cannot be changed or moulded to suit the politicians who represent the public.

However, the point of having politicians represent us is that they have political experience and knowledge to make correct and justified decisions. Referendums undermine the part of representative democracy as the general public is mainly badly informed, uneducated in politics and lack political experience. This means that although referendums give the public what they want, what the public want could be very bad for the country in the long term.

On the other hand, referendums could be the key to gaining the sufficient political knowledge and understanding. They widen the opportunities for political participation and create debate on particular issues which make the electorate better informed, more educated and more politically engaged. This means that the public have a stronger incentive to think and act politically.

There are advantages and disadvantages with referendums in terms of government as well as the public. Referendums can be considered to strengthen and extend government power. This is shown through the current major weakness in referendums: the government decide whether, when and over what issues to call referendums. This means that they could only call referendums on issues which they support and when they are confident of winning as well as that, governments can frame the questions asked. This defeats the purpose of referendums as the public opinion is moulded to be what the government want.

However this can overcome by establishing processes through which citizens can initiate referendums. The can also be considered to reduce government power. Referendums protect citizens from an over-mighty government as they provide a much needed check on government power. The government has less control over their outcome than it does over parliament. Parliament are elected to represent the public, so f the government are controlling parliament in a way which prevents them effectively representing society, then referendums can be used to make sure that public opinion is still counted.

Despite this, referendums also create an irresponsible government. They allow governments to slightly remove themselves from responsibility by handing decisions over to the electorate. In the UK’s representative democracy, we elect the governments to govern on our behalf, not for them to get us to do it.

I believe that although referendums educate the public well and widen political participation, they cause too many problems with the government. I think the disadvantages with government outweigh the advantages of public participation because the UK is a representative democracy. This means that the country is governed more by the elected government than the general publics opnion so advantages with government should be more important.

British Politics: Democracy - What are the limitations on the doctrine of the mandate?

Another democracy essay

Robyn, UK

What are the limitations on the doctrine of the mandate?

The doctrine of the mandate is a theory of representation in modern politics and Is considered to be the most influential of all theories. The theory is that when a party wins an election, they gain a popular mandate. This mandate authorises the party to carry out the policies on which it fought the election. These policies are contained in election manifestos. This theory implies that it is the party rather than the individual politicians who carry out representation. This model provides a clear justification for party unity and party discipline. This means that politicians serve their constituents by staying loyal to their party rather than thinking for themselves. However, there have been four criticisms of the doctrine of the mandate.

The first of these is about the questionable model of voting behaviour. There is little evidence that voters vote for a party on the basis of their manifesto commitments. There can also be other factors which are considered politically unrational. This includes voting for the party that your parents voted for or voting because you like the look of the party leader. This is an important factor to think about in UK politics as we are currently in the age of political celebrity and so the party leaders profiles can often dominate their party. This means that today people are more likely to vote for the party leader rather than the party, which goes against the purpose of the doctrine of the mandate.

Secondly even if voters are influenced by a parties policies, a vote for a party is unlikely to show support for its entire manifesto. This means that a party still couldn’t carry out true representation as people wouldn’t agree with all of their policies. As the Doctrine of the Mandate requires politicians to remain loyal to their party policies, if there was a change that the public wanted made, but the party didn’t agree with it, then it wouldn’t be done. However, if the politicians were to think for themselves, then the politicians with the most power in a party, such as the party leaders, could bring about this change. This can be seen in David Cameron’s leadership of the conservative party. Since his appointment in 2005, Cameron has made many new policies which are considered to go against traditional conservatism. If there was a Doctrine of the Mandate, then Cameron wouldn’t have been able to do this.

Thirdly, there is no way to force elected governments to carry out their manifesto commitments. Some of the policies in manifestos are used to simply win votes, which can actually be difficult to implement. This fact defeats the whole purpose of the Doctrine of the Mandate as even though it does all these good things at the end of the day the government don’t even need to follow it.

Lastly, it is unclear whether the mandate falls to the party or the prime minister. With the Doctrine of the Mandate, there has been a growing tendency for prime minister’s to claim a ‘personal mandate’ which is based on their role in leading the party to power, however this certain mandate allows prime ministers to act however they want. Once again, this completely defeats the purpose of the doctrine of the mandate as one of its purposes is to stop politicians serving constituents by thinking for themselves. This personal mandate, however, allows the most important politicians of the time to completely think for themselves.

I don’t think that the UK could use the doctrine of the mandate with its current political situation. The doctrine of the mandate provides clear justification for party unity, however the labour party is currently considered to be un-united. Also the mandate involved parties carrying out the policies on which they fought the election. Gordon Brown, however, didn’t become Prime Minister by winning an election. Therefore he has no election manifestos and wouldn’t be able to gain a popular mandate anyway.

British Politics: Democracy - What is an election? Distinguish between an election and a referendum What is representation? and more!

Here are some essays I did in my first year of college on democracy in the UK. They are 5 mark questions so the answers are very short and simple. I'll also be posting some longer ones on here too.

Robyn, UK

What is an election?

An election is the means through which an office or post is filled. It involves a designated body of people, known as the electorate, to choose one candidate and cast their vote in the secret ballot. There are four different types of elections. The general election is where all the seats in the House of Commons come up for re-election. The devolved assembly elections are to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly. The European Parliament elections select members of the European Parliament. The local elections are to district, borough and country councils. Elections take place every four or five years.

Distinguish between an election and a referendum

The purpose of an election is to fill offices or posts and to form government. The purpose of a referendum is to make policy decisions. In an election, the electorate vote for a candidate or party whereas in a referendum, people give a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ opinion. Elections are related to general issues as the electorate vote for all of the candidate’s policies. Referendums on the other hand, are related to a specific piece of policy or issue. Elections are legally required as part of a representative democracy and take place quite regularly. Referendums, however, are a device of direct democracy and the government decides when they happen.

What is representation?

Representation is a relationship where an individual or group acts on behalf of a larger body of people. It is part of representational democracy, which is slightly different to democracy because democracy wants to abolish the distinction between the government and the people while representational acknowledges this. Representation is used in the UK today through the party Government system and also through things such as pressure groups.

Explain two functions of elections

An election is a method of filling an office or post through choices made by a designated body of people known as the electorate. Elections take place every four or five years. There are four types of elections: the general election, devolved assembly elections, the European parliament elections and local elections. Two of the main functions of elections are to form government and ensure representation.

In the general elections, elections have the function of forming governments. Elections are the main way in which power is transferred from one government to the next. The governments in the UK are formed from the leading members of the majority party in the House of Commons. The results of general elections are usually very clear so the transfer of power normally happens the day after the election. The leader of the majority party becomes the Prime Minister and they must appoint the other ministers for their government. However, it is argued that elections in the UK aren’t always successful in forming governments because where proportional electoral systems are used, there is less likely to be a single winning party. This means that governments may be formed through deals negotiated by two or more parties. These deals can take many days or weeks to negotiate. An example of this can be seen in the Scottish Parliament as a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was formed after the 1999 and 2003 elections.

The second main function is ensuring representation. Elections act as a way for communication between government and the people, which means they carry out a representative function. Elections create a link between the elected politicians and their constituents which ensures that the constituency’s concerns are properly articulated and addressed. Elections also create a more general link between the government of that time and public opinion. This happens because elections make politicians and the government of the day are therefore publicly accountable. This gives people final control over the government as they are also ultimately removable. However, because elections are four or five years apart, the link between voters and representatives is weakened, this also includes the fact that there aren’t any recall elections in the UK. Secondly, it is argued how elected politicians should represent their electors and how they actually do it.

Define direct democracy and representative democracy

Direct democracy originates from Athens 500 to 322 BCE and today it is used to supplement representative democracy. In direct democracy, the people ‘make’ policy decisions as they don’t just choose who will rule on their behalf. The most modern form of direct democracy is the use of referendums. The people also ‘are’ the government as there is no separate class of professional politicians and people engage in politics on a regular and ongoing basis.

Representative democracy has quite opposite features to a direct democracy. In a representative democracy, the popular participation is indirect as the public don’t exercise power, instead they choose someone to rule on their behalf and there is limited popular participation as voting takes place every few years.

Young, Angry and White

In July 2009, almost a million voters chose the BNP in the EU elections. As well as the traditional BNP voters explaining this success, a recent survey found one in 20 young people would vote BNP. In this Channel 4 documentary, Peter Beard follows 19-year-old Kieren who is considering joining the BNP but is unsure that the party represents his views. As the Channel 4 summary put it, "t

his fascinating First Cut documentary offers an insight into a young person's attraction to a party whose policies and image continue to cause extreme controversy throughout the country."

Kieren is part of a new generation of far right recruits, "I do want to see an all white Britain. An immediate stop to immigration and repatriation which would follow”.

Walking down the high street, Kieren points out Halal and Carribean food shops saying he doesn't like all of these things being around. He sees them as a threat, culturally changing his town and destroying what his town is about saying that “its just catering for minority groups but it seems like the majority of the high streets are getting taken over by that” and that he doesn't want it "on my doorstep".

Talking about being a nationalist, Kieren says “you have to be a pessimist about the whole society. You gotta be quite angry and depressed and think oh this is horrible everything about this life is just rotten. But then once you have an alternative once you have an answer which manifests itself via the BNP you can only look forward and try and be optimistic”.

The first thought that comes to someone hearing Kieren have such extreme views is that it must come from his family and friends, but that is where you would be wrong. His mum doesn’t want herself or Kieren brothers to be involved in filming the documentary. His mum comes from a background of liberal voters and doesn’t agree with her sons views. Kieren's parents split up when he was one years old and he didn't have a male role model growing up. This has made him want a strong family when he has children and he wants to be the 'breadwinner'. Five years ago, his Dad moved to Wales with his new wife and children and Kieren sees him a few times a year. His dad is a labour voter and says of BNP leader Nick Griffin, “the way he says things makes him look like a complete racist”. He also disagrees with his sons views. After his Dad moved away, life became difficult for Kieren. He and his mum later had to move out of London because of domestic violence and then move again because of another 'woman beater'. He made friends with nationalists from his old London area of Barnet online and then his friendships grew and he was welcomed into their group. He says that he felt like he belonged to something and found it quite comforting.

Kieren doesn't agree with mixed race relationships, hanging a banner in his garden saying "love music, hate race mixing", a twisted pun on the slogan "love music, hate racism". Asked about mixed relationships he said "as a matter of principle I'm against immigration and multiculturalism. Our own women, by fraternising with the other races, they're part of the problem as far as I’m concerned”. Kieren has a girlfriend called Amy. He questioned her heritage, thinking she had an 'oriental look in her face'. She had to ring her sister to confirm that there was no Chinese in her family and he still didn’t believe it. He admitted he wouldn't have dated her if she had Chinese in her family. Kieren thinks that "people should be around their own type of people” and thinks "multiculturalism cannot work, as a concept, or will work...just from looking at social circles, from studying it. I would welcome people to live amongst each other in harmony but I don’t think it can happen”.

He has also made a new group of friends, none of which are nationalist or agree with his views. One of his friends asked Kieren “how do you feel about me losing my virginity to a black girl?” to which he responded “you know how I feel about that and I told you at the time that you hate your own race...Its a form of genocide”. Despite everyone around him disagreeing with his views, Kieren is unashamed to be honest with them, saying things like “its not that I don’t see people as unequal, its that in my life I want people like me around me” and “if they want to call me a racist then fine, I’m a racist, I’ll happily be a racist but I don’t think its racism and I think the word racism needs redefining and we need to have a common sense acknowledgement of what it actually is”. His friends and girlfriend looked very awkward being around while he said these things.

When deciding whether to join the BNP, he watched the infamous episode of Question Time (read about question time here) with BNP leader Nick Griffin. He said “theres never been a question time like this. I enjoy this show normally”. He is extremely disappointed with Nick Griffins performance and unsure whether they still represent his views. This disappointment was made stronger by the news that the BNP could be extending their membership to allow non-whites to join their party. Kieren doesn’t join the BNP. Instead he attends the annual National Front remembrance march. The National Front are a far-right party that have stronger views than the BNP and are arguably more racist and elitist.

The filmer, Peter Beard, talks to a militant group who also grew disillusioned with the BNP. They only agreed to talk if they could be in disguise. The man speaking for the group said “we would like to see England returned to the hands of the people who have the blood right to this country... their blood is in this soil... we have seen the filth flooding through our streets, we have seen a consumerist nation overtake a moral nation”.

Kieren admits that there can be problems with not wanting to integrate with other races. “A lot of nationalists might suffer from social problems I suppose. You don’t really want to indulge in a social life with people who don’t see everything along the route lines as you. I don’t not want to have a life. Nationalisms brilliant and I put all of my thought into it but at the same time I’m 19 and I want to live a normal life”. Sometimes his nationalist views provide a worry to Kieren: “I want to do well and I feel like I’ve turned it around from not being in school to being in education. I want to enjoy university and have a great time and I want to enjoy a successful career. It shouldn’t be considered wrong for me to say how I feel no matter how un socially acceptable it is I’m not doing it in an aggressive manner. I do worry that my honesty in that regard could hold me back."

If you live in the UK, you can watch this documentary here: Young, Angry and White

Democracy in action: Question Time

In the years since it was first broadcast on 25 September 1979, Question Time has become something of a national institution, offering British voters a unique opportunity to quiz top decision-makers on the events of the day.

The panels are drawn from significant figures in politics as well as industry, the media and entertainment.

But at the heart of Question Time is the audience - both in the studio and at home.

The programme is recorded in front of a live audience from around 2030 each Thursday.

The recording is done in a single take, precisely as if it were broadcast live. Some exchanges occasionally have to be edited out for legal or taste/decency reasons.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/about_the_show/default.stm)

Question time is the public's opportunity to question politicians on their actions and their views on current issues within the UK. It is one of the few ways that the public can directly speak to politicians and is a very often effective debate. The clips below demonstrate some of the topics that have come up in question time. The first video is from arguably the most famous episode of Question Time, with BNP leader Nick Griffin. To read more about the BNP click here. The second video is talking about the recession and the banks bonuses. The third video is about the MPs expenses and second homes. The fourth video discusses Sarah Palin. The fifth video is about the torture of suspected terrorists.

Do you have question time in your country? Do you think it is an effective programme? Leave a comment and let us know!

The Iraq Inquiry in the UK

On the 15th June 2009 the Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that there would be an inquiry to “identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict”. The inquiry was officially launched on 30th July 2009. At the launch, the chairman of the inquiry Sir John Chilcot said that the inquiry “will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

This inquiry highlights the British public’s displeasure at the decision to go to war in Iraq and seems to be our chance to point the blame and dish out the punishments. In 2009, six out of ten people thought that UK troops shouldn’t have gone to Iraq. “This [inquiry] is our chance to get justice for all those poor soldiers that died in a war that shouldn’t have happened” said one member of the public. In 2003, 46,000 British army personnel were sent to Iraq. Iraqi Mohammed Nayyef, 19, said that many soldiers “were really trying to help and they are friendly but some were terrified in Iraq”. 179 British service personnel were killed between 2003 and 2009.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also died over the same period. Nayyef, who lives in the capital city Baghdad, says that seeing all of the dead bodies “gives you more of a sense for life and flavours it with a bit of sadness”. The majority of deaths have been caused by a high number of suicide bombers in the cities. The most recent event at writing was five days ago; a car bomb that killed eleven and hurt twenty in the city of Ramadi. Fifteen days before that, at least twenty pilgrims were killed on their way to a religious festival in a suicide attack in the city of Karbala and two days before that a female suicide bomber killed at least 41 people and injured over 100. In the Iraqi population it would be difficult to find someone who hasn’t lost a friend or relative and near on impossible to find someone in the cities that hasn’t seen a dead body.

The justifications for the Iraq war began 11 months before, when then Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also." Later that year, Blair made the infamous claim that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." This 45 minute claim became controversial after months of searching for weapons in Iraq were unsuccessful and people began to question whether there were actually any WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Two years later during a different inquiry over the war, Blair said “it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy."

A few months later, Blair changed his position and gave the justification for the war being to end Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq: “The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power." Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq for over 20 years and was known for being “the most hated Arab leader”. According to an exiled Iraqi diplomat, "Saddam is a dictator who is ready to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain on his throne in Baghdad." When he came into power, Hussein started as he meant to go on by putting to death dozens of his rivals. In the years of his regime, Baghdad authorities tortured and killed opponents of the regime. When asked if this was true, Saddam responded “Of course. What do you expect if they oppose the regime?” Saddam imposed his authority through a terror which went far beyond the arrest and execution of opponents. He used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people of Iraq and put down a Shi’ia rebellion by flattening entire towns and draining the marshlands of water. After running away when the war began, Saddam Hussein was found in the cellar of a farmhouse near his hometown of Tikrit on 14th December 2003. On 5th November 2006 he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging, which took place on December 30th 2006. Nayyef says that “greater good was made” as although “[the war] needed lots of sacrifice, that war was needed. People were suffering more from Saddam.”

If it had been shown that there were no WMD in 2004 and Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006, why did the UK only end combat operations in Iraq on April 30th 2009? While there are many conspiracy theories related to ex- US President George Bush wanting to use Iraq’s rich oil resource, in 2006 Blair said that this war was part of a wider global struggle between “democracy and violence” and enhanced the ideas of making Iraq a democratic country. However it has come out in the Iraq inquiry that there was a serious lack of planning for what would happen in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Thousands of Iraqis died in the months after the invasion as law and order broke down in many parts of the country. Although US officials listened to UK ideas about post-war planning, their input was largely ignored. A Foreign Office official said that “[US officials] had a touching faith that...everybody would be grateful and dancing in the streets and there would be really be no further difficulty. And then the Iraqis would somehow magically take over and restore their state to the democratic state it should be in.” Despite this, Nayyef says many positive things have come out of the war “like freedom and the Iraqis are starting to breathe again. Kids grow up without fears of the future like before” however he admits that there are still many problems with “war destruction, lack of security and terrorism. But Iraq is recovering now”.

It is clear that many mistakes were made with this war and “lessons” certainly do need to be learnt, but is this “shoulda, woulda, coulda” attitude really going to improve things? On a political level, it is important to make sure that no future Prime Minister can ever send the UK to war when so many people are against it. But what about on a social level? What about the people of Iraq? When asked about teenage life in Iraq Nayyef, who is a first year medical student at the medical school of Baghdad, said “being a teenager is a very hard thing in normal situations, so imagine how it is here. Teens can lose faith very easily and grow up in despair. It’s harder here to raise a child because the environment is altered in many ways but we can also say that it’s getting better. Everyday life is getting normal and that’s good!” Surely now our focus should be on the people of Iraq, in particular the youth who deserve, after years of terror and turmoil, an opportunity to grow up in a peaceful society. It’s time to give the Iraqi youths a world where their biggest worry is not whether they will live to see tomorrow, but whether their hair looks OK.

What do you think about the Iraq Inquiry? What do you think about the Iraq War? Are you living in Iraq? Do you know any soldiers in Iraq? Leave a comment and let us know!

British Political Parties: The BNP

In Britain there are three main political parties: Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. However there are also many small parties who try to gain support such as the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP).

The BNP is a far-right political party. Until 2009, when it was challenged in the courts on grounds of racial discrimination, it restricted membership to people of "Caucasian origin". After a vote by members in a February 2010 extraordinary general meeting the party dropped this policy, with chairman Nick Griffin saying that the party will now "accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British".

The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It believes that there are significant differences between races.

The party has very little respect from other political parties and has never gained enough power to have an MP (member of Parliament). However in the 2006 English local elections the party doubled its number of seats in England. The BNP finished fifth in the 2008 London mayoral election with 5.2% of the popular vote and secured one of the London Assembly's 25 seats. They won their first county council seats in 2009 together with two seats in the European Parliament.

At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party ... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, "We are 100 per cent racist, yes". Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible". When Nick Griffin became chairman in 1999, the party began to change its stance with regard to racial issues. Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism". He claims that his core ideology is "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom".

The BNP previously required that all members must be members of the "Indigenous Caucasian" racial group. The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests".

The BNP is opposed to mixed-race relationships on the stated ground that racial differences must be preserved; the party said that "when whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed." Nick Griffin stated: "...while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don't hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will".

In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards (it has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell) with a tape of a telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape, Russell could be heard to say that "the black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, low achievers that drain our welfare benefits and the prison system and probably go and mug you." He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".

The party states that "The BNP has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-semitism which has held this party back for two decades. The real enemies of the British people are home grown Anglo-Saxon Celtic liberal-leftists ... and the Crescent Horde—the endless wave of Islamics who are flocking to our shores to bring our island nations into the embrace of their barbaric desert religion".

Suggested policies to help police this "threat to all of us" include a Muslim no-fly policy, which would ban Muslims from flying in and out of the UK. The BNP erected a plaque in Oldham, Greater Manchester in memory of Gavin Hopley, a 19-year-old white man who was mugged and kicked to death by Asian Muslims in the street in Glodwick, in February 2002. The plaque was later removed by the local council.

The BNP states that homosexuality in private should be tolerated but believes that it "should not be promoted or encouraged". It opposed the introduction of civil partnerships and wishes to ban what it perceives as the promotion of homosexuality in schools and the media; and believes that homosexuality should be returned "to the closet".

BNP spokesman Phil Edwards stated that homosexuality "is unnatural" and "does not lead to procreation but does lead to moral turpitude and disease". Mark Collett, former chairman of the Young BNP and current Director of Publicity, described homosexuals as "AIDS Monkeys", "bum bandits" and "faggots" and said the idea of homosexuality was a "sickening thought".

The BNP was criticised over a list on their website titled "Liars, buggers and thieves" which grouped several gay politicians in with convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles. The compiler of the list, BNP local councillor for Redbridge, Julian Leppert defended it and said that the reason why gay MPs were included was because "it fits in with the headline, the bugger part, I guess" and stated that the BNP are "a family party with family values".

Articles published in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail have alleged that Nick Griffin had a four year homosexual relationship with Martin Webster, although Griffin denies this. On his appearance on BBC One's Question Time on 22 October 2009, he stated in response to being asked about the death of Boyzone member Stephen Gateley, "I said that a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel, Christians feel that way, Muslims, all sorts of people."

According to their website, the BNP policy on immigration is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

They say that "India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?"

The BNP policy on education is:

- The restoration of discipline – including corporal punishment – uniforms, traditional teaching methods and stricter exams (e.g. ‘0′ levels);

- The reintroduction of grammar schools with entrance exams at 11 and 13;

- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;

- The reintroduction of competitive sports and daily Christian assemblies;

- The teaching of old-fashioned literacy skills (as opposed to clearly failed “modern” teaching methods);

- The teaching of old-fashioned mathematics skills which have practical application to everyday life;

- The teaching of a full curriculum of British history. This will instil in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain, and not the cherry-picked politically correct drivel being fed to children today;

- The abolition of fees and the restoration of full grants to university students studying proper subjects (as opposed to fake “social sciences”);

- The improvement of school food as proper meals have been shown to be linked to behaviour and achievement;

- The ending of the scandalous and racist neglect that has left working class white boys at the bottom of the table for academic achievement;

- The introduction of tax breaks for home-schooling parents or direct subsidies as their fair share of the education budget;

- The introduction of a compulsory Community Award Scheme for all school-leavers to teach them work ethics and social and community values. This would consist of work caring for the elderly or handicapped people, or environmental or heritage restoration projects, or military training. These courses would be character-building and instil discipline, social and community values and work ethics in all young people. Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to get ’something back’ from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship, or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs.

The BNP foreign affairs policy is:

- Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and

- Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

The majority of the British public are highly against the BNP and the recent support they have received in British elections has been put down to the British populations frustration with the main political parties over immigration and the MP expenses scandal.

In 2002 the foundation Stop The BNP was created "to counter racism and fascism in elections and beyond". According to their website, "we want to make sure that people know the full story about who the BNP are and what they really stand for. The Stop the BNP website aims to do just that, serving the anti-fascist movement and providing up to date news, good practice and analysis."

(Information taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party, http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/, http://bnp.org.uk/)

Click here to watch the BNP Campaign video

Click here to watch a BNP propaganda video

Click here to watch a documentary about the BNP

What do you think about the BNP? Are there any political parties like this in your country? Comment and let us know!

Political Ideologies: Liberalism - Why do liberals support the principle of limited government and how do they propose it be achieved?

Here is an essay I wrote while studying liberalism in 2009

Robyn, UK

Why do liberals support the principle of limited government and how do they propose that it be achieved? 45

Liberals don’t believe that a balanced and tolerant society will develop naturally out of the free actions of individuals. Liberals fear that free individuals may want to exploit others if it is in their interest to do so. Therefore our liberty requires that they are restrained from encroaching on our freedom and vice versa. Such protection can only be provided by a sovereign state capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. While liberals are convinced of the need for government they are also aware of the dangers.

All governments are potential tyrannies against the individual as government exercises sovereign power and so poses a constant threat to individual liberty. This reflects a liberal fear of power as humans are self-seeking creatures so they naturally use power for their own benefit and at the expense of others. Liberals believe egoism plus power equals corruption and follow the quote by Lord Acton that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Liberals therefore fear arbitrary government and uphold the principle of limited government. Liberals believe government can be limited through the establishment of constitutional constraints and by democracy.

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the government itself and defines the extent of government power and limits its exercise. The power of government bodies and politicians can be limited by external and legal constraints. A codified constitution codifies the major powers and responsibilities of government institutions within a single authorative document. A codified constitution codifies higher law. The first codified constitution was the US constitution but now all liberal democracies have one except for the UK, Israel and New Zealand.

A bill of rights entrenches individual rights by providing a legal definition of the relationship between the individual and the state. This limits government power by limiting their control over the actions of the individual and protects individual liberty.

Where there is no codified constitution or bill of rights liberals stress the importance of statute law in checking government power through the principle of the rule of law. This can be established by the introduction of a number of internal constraints which disperse political power among a number of institutions and creates a network of checks and balances. All liberal political systems exhibit some kind of internal fragmentation. An example is the doctrine of the separation of powers which keeps the judiciary, the executive and parliament as three separate branches that cannot overlap. The principle of judicial independence is respected in all liberal democracies because the judiciary interprets the meaning of law and therefore reviews the powers of government itself. It must have formal independence and political neutrality to protect the individual from the state. Governments can also be fragmented by cabinet government, parliamentary government, bicameralism and territorial divisions such as feudalism, devolution and local government.

Liberal democracy is the most common liberal political system and the political force in the developed world. It balances the principle of limited government against the idea of popular consent. Liberals are concerned that democracy can become the enemy of individual liberty as the people are not a single authority but a collection of individuals possessing different opinions and opposing interests. The democratic solution to conflict is the application of the majority rule which liberals describe as tyranny of the majority. Majoritarianism would have a great effect on elections and referendums as governments could be elected that are in fact unwanted by many individuals and decisions in referendums could go against what many individuals want, thereby permitting government to do things that individuals do not want. Individual liberty and majority rights can be crushed in the name of the people. The best defence against majoritarianism is a network of checks and balances that would make government responsive to competing minorities.

Democracy limits government through consent and the idea that citizens must have a means of protecting themselves from the encroachment of government. Utilitarian theorists developed the notion of democracy as a form of protection for the individual into a case for universal suffrage. Utilitarianism implies that individuals will vote so as to defend their interests as they define them. Therefore the government elected is most likely the one wanted by individuals, ensuring that they are still in control.