Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities and differences between direct and representative democracy
Representative democracy merits and demerits
Considerations on representative government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper discusses about the recent case, Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] 273 ALR 1 (hereafter Rowe), related with the notions of representative government and representative democracy. Through the discussion of the case, this paper also analyses its significance in Australia.
Representative Government & Representative Democracy
The notion of representative government distinguishes from the notion of representative democracy. McHugh J in Theophanous said that representative democracy describes a society where an equality of rights is existed. In McGinty, it also pointed that the notion of representative democracy requires the people to have an ‘equal electorate’.
In contrast, the representative government indicates where the people can freely vote for representatives exercising governmental powers on behalf of the people’s interests. Dawson J also stated that representative government needs people to elect freely their representative as a minimum requirement. In recent judgments in Australia, the two concepts are interchangeable. However, the notion of representative democracy seems a bit broader than the notion of representative government.
Sections 7 and 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution confer an implied right to vote. This interpretation comes from that the people elected to be the members of the Senate and the House of Representative are defined as ‘directly chosen by the people’. In other words, the equal electorate needs for the people who participate in elections to express their wills through their representative. Accordingly, the implied right is consistent with the definitions of representative democracy and representative government. The following case, Rowe, is considered the both notions, bu...
... middle of paper ...
... limitation is necessary. In addition, it is being seen as taking account every history and context of the case in making decisions, rather simply judging the case according to the words of provisions. Gleeson CJ in Roach also stated the consideration that the historical context and circumstances in the case is also protected by the sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the Rowe is consistent with the Constitution’s implied right and the notion of representative democracy in Australia.
Conclusion
This paper concludes with that Rowe is an important case for Australia representative democracy because it underlines the implied right to vote supported under sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution along with the previous case, Roach. It also defines the importance of the equal electorate to maintain the representative democracy as well.
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
There is an argument in the article “Telling Americans to Vote, or Else”, that is written by William A. Galston. The article states that voting should be necessary for everyone. The author contrasts American voting with Australian voting. In the text, it says,
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
Australia has one of the oldest systems of compulsory voting, and arguably the most efficient (Hill, 2010). Compulsory enrolment at the federal level was introduced in 1911 this later became mandatory voting in 1924 (Hill, 2010). Mandatory voting was introduced in Australia to combat the problem of low voter turnout and it was successful in doing so; 59% turnout in 1922 surged to 91% in 1925 after the first federal election (Hill, 2010). “Australia never had a rights culture understood in the classical liberal sense of individualized rights” (Hill, 2010. Pg.428). Australia was unified in 1901 and shortly after compulsory voting became mandate. The citizen’s of Australia have never known a...
Ozdowski, Sev. 2007. Why We Need an Australian Bill of Rights Now. Pg. 22-25. Swinburne Online Library. Viewed 19th December 2016.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Trying to apply new reforms to the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete, free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws based on democratic principles. The deficiency of the Canadian electoral system decreases the level of democracy in the Canadian constitution. Canadian citizens are known for being active in political matters whether it relates to them specifically or not.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
In conclusion it seems that the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty as purported by Dicey is no longer an immutable part of our constitution. Although it remains a key principle of our constitution, it has now been reinterpreted in light of seminal cases such as Factortame and Jackson, from a legally unchangeable, rule of our constitution, to one in which Parliament is no longer prevented from placing limits to the content and form of itself.
One of the contemporary definitions of democracy today is as follows: “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives; Rule by the majority” (“Democracy” Def.1,4). Democracy, as a form of government, was a radical idea when it manifested; many governments in the early history of the world were totalitarian or tyrannical in nature, due to overarching beliefs that the strong ruled over the weak.
The United States of America was built on the fundamental principles of democracy. Democracy is government by the people for the people. The people have opinions about government that are expressed mainly through voting. It is common knowledge that anyone of age can choose to vote. **** There are many issues in the election system of the United States. Some issues include, the absence of a defined right to vote in the Constitution, the American ballots, the Electoral College, the cost of being a politician, and the electronic voting systems in use today. In this paper I will address problems in the electoral system and my opinion on various solutions.