Compare the cases for Direct and Representative Democracy ,

In your answer you must make three points of comparison and reach an overall conclusion. (8)

A comparison that can be identified between direct and representative democracy is that they both relate to the overall theme of practicality. This is shown by Source A where the source states that, “direct democracy is seen as being practical at a local level” and further evidence of this is that it was used in Ancient Athens and is currently in use in the Swiss Cantons. Representative democracy is shown to be practical in source B where the source goes onto explain that representative democracy is the best sort of democracy for those countries with much larger populations. This is because the democracy is seen to work more effectively and practically in modern society.” Overall this shows that direct democracy is only practical in small scale situations whereas for representative democracy to work best and effectively it needs to work in modern governments that manage complex societies.

Another comparison that can be made between both direct and representative democracy is that they are both linked to the theme of participation. This can be further shown in source A, “voters have responsibilities to directly make decisions through the frequent use of referenda.” Furthermore evidence of this is that in many of the US states are given a select about of opportunities to have a direct say over key decisions. Representative democracy is then shown to be linked to participation because in source B it states, “Popular participation in government is infrequent and brief, most commonly participation is through voting in elections.” Overall this shows that direct democracy is practical in small sized countries where it doesn’t take as much time to sent out or collect votes and therefore are able to hold regular elections whereas representative democracy can only work in larger countries where there is voter participation but a referendum or election cannot be held for every decision that is made due to time scales. 

A next comparison between both forms of direct and representative democracy is that they are both tied into the theme of information. This is shown in source A where the source states, “Guardian editorial piece claimed that the electorate were the most informed at any election in the UK since the second world war.” Evidence of this is also shown in source A as it explains that due to the result of this the problem was sorted and because of this a liberal democrat and conservative coalition remained until the 2015 general election. Representative democracy is also shown to be informative as source B says, “voters legitimize the decisions made by representatives and if the people do not like the decisions that are being made then they can vote the party out at next election.” Overall this shows that direct democracy is practical in smaller populations because they are more likely to receive or see the information via post or advert whereas representative democracy works better in countries with denser populations where they don’t have access to mass amounts of information so therefore they can listen to what their representer wants to do and then can chose which view they agree with most. 

Finally there is a comparison between direct democracy and representative democracy that is that they both link into legitimacy. This is shown in source A where the source quotes, “this outcome will be accepted and potential disputes or civil unrest will be avoided.” Evidence to further show this in source A as the decisions that are made are more likely to be accepted as being fair and the decisions are also more likely to be seen as legitimate. Finally representative democracy is also shown to be legitimate in source B since the source says, “many would not have the knowledge, time or capability to research complex issues. The elected representative acts on their behalf,” overall this shows that direct democracy works best in smaller countries where civil war cannot break out over politics and the law put in place is the peoples view instead of one persons, whereas representative democracy works bets in larger countries because no everyone wants to or is willing to educate themselves on the clause and therefore it is easier for them to be able to listen to a range of opinions and then can choose only one.  

Compare the flexibility of the UK and US Constitutions.

In your answer you must make three points of comparison and reach an overall

conclusion. (8)

• One comparison that both the UK and US constitutions is that their core government power does get shared out. While the UK doesn’t spread its power as widely as the US and only give Scotland, Ireland, and Wales specific devolved power they share out their power. This is shown in source A, where it says, “the constitutional arrangements of the UK were radically re-organized as a result of the passage of the Scotland Act (1998) which resulted in the creation of then devolved Scottish Parliament.” This shows that over time the national government did decide to give certain powers and authorities to the joining countries meaning that they could have some control over their countries action. For example, the exam regime for Scotland was the same, GCSE’s, before they decided to replace them with a new system including National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications. This shows some similarity and a point of comparison towards the US constitution as they too technically devolve their main governments power to each one of the 50 states. This is proven in source B where it states, “The USA also has a federal system of government in which political power is divided between a national government and state governments, each having its own area of substantive jurisdiction.” This shows that the US separates certain powers to its 50 states as long as they abide to the Bill of Rights. This gives states to introduce their own laws and the power to tax, for example many republican states such as Alabama have decided to make abortion illegal. 
• A furthermore comparison between both the British and American constitution is that both governments have the power to revoke or remove a law. In Britain this can be done via the house of commons where all 650 MPS vote on how they feel and id they want the bill to be removed. This is proven in source A where it mentions, “none of these statutes are properly entrenched as future Parliaments can alter or revoke them.” This shows that whatever government whether it be conservative, Labour, etc. Has the power to change or make adaptations to something that they feel no long fits the constitution such as when the government decoded to remove the law forbidding gay marriage to allow people to marry whomever they please. This is further shown in the US constitution therefore showing a comparison as a higher political and power holding authority is allowed to alter or remove laws and in the case of the US make amendments. This is stated in Source B where it says, “An amendment can be ratified either by three-quarters of the state legislatures or by state.” This shows an important comparison as this means that adaptations can only be made by the top of the political pyramid and that they are the only ones able to do this. However a further comparison is that both constitutions show that adaptations or removals can only be done if the government or court has a clear majority. 
• A final comparison between the two, UK and US constitutions and their flexibility is that they both constitutions are based off of their key or core principles. While these principles may not be the same they do come down to the protection of their people. The UK is based off of the key ideology that the constitution it is supreme, this is shown in source A where it says, “The UK constitution is also based on the principle that the legislature is supreme or ‘sovereign’.” This is important and shows the flexibility of the British constitution as it means that no one is above the law. Furthermore this is important as the law is put in place to protect people under all articles stated in the Humans Right Act of 1998 therefore no one has the right to put any other person or being into harm or danger by breaking or double crossing the constitution and key principles. The comparison is shown for the US in Source B where it states, “This is because it is based on core liberal ideas such as freedom, rights and democracy which the framers saw as timeless and unalterable. These core principles determine many of the key features of the US political system such as the system of checks and balances.” This is important in showing the comparison and flexibility of the US constitution as like the British one the key principles are put into place so that every citizen is protected and safe and therefore prevents danger while still allowing basic human rights such as the freedom of speech. This allows both of the constitutions to base their laws off of their values in the best possible way to ensure safety for a majority as well as justice for those effected by anyone who double-crosses it while providing freedom. 
• Overall upon immense further analysis to conclude both the UK and the US constitution are flexible to a certain extent and in ways do have many comparisons between both. However I believe that the UK constitution has the qualities to be the most flexible. This is due to it being a constantly adapting and adaptable constitution unlike the US Constitution which is much harder to amend. This therefore shows that If the public is unhappy, or if something acts against the Human Rights Act it is easily changed. While another point of argument may be that the US gives out much more power to all states I do not believe that this is necessary for the UK for it to be flexible as we are a small island with a much lesser population meaning that it is easy as well as convenient that power has only been devolved to the four countries that provide us with adequate decisions and new opposing laws. 

There are significant differences between both the key features and the importance of constitutions.

Discuss with reference to two political systems that you have studied. (20 marks)

Both the United Kingdom and the United states have constitutions. This outlines their countries morals and the rights and laws that their citizens have access to and have to abide to. While we are able to split both constitutions into their origins and development, their key principles, their nature and their role of judiciary and constitution in safeguarding individual rights. This essay intends to argue that both the British constitution and the American constitution have differing kay features ad importance’s.

Both the British and United States of America have very varying origins and development methods to their constitution. The UK constitution has been formed over a mass amount of time and which started with the Magna Carter in 1215. Whereas the US constitution was created out of a revolution out of the desire to remove itself from the autocratic British monarchy. The other major difference between the UK and US’s constitution development is that the US’s constitution was fully formed in 1789. This is important because it means that the US’s constitution was pretty much formed and completed instantly and therefore is pretty set-in stone meaning that is it hard for individuals and powerful figures to change the constitution with amendments. This is apparent as since it was created there has only been 10 amendments with the last one being made in 1992. Whereas the UK’s constitution is able to be amended with a simple parliamentary vote. In evaluation this means that not only how the constitutions were created but how they are constantly developing in some cases are very differing between the UK and the US but in addition the way their constitution is led is different. This is because the UK government is formed under a constitutional monarchy which means that the monarchy’s legal power is exercised by the government ministers that they appoint. However the US constitution is led by the current president which is the head of the state.

Both the UK and US also having different key principles which are exercised through their constitution’s. One of the UK’s key principles is parliamentary sovereignty which is exercised in Westminster through the supreme law-making body. Another key principle held by the UK is the rule of law meaning that no one is above the law. The US also has many key principles such as liberty, individualism, equality, representative democracy, limited government, and state rights. Due to these key principles it has allowed amendments to be made as well as the bill of rights to be put in place for example amendments 13 which was to band and end slavery. This is important for both constitutions as it helps to determine if they are a unitary state or a federal state. The UK therefore is a unitary state as countries political power is concentrated in the center in this case being Westminster. The UK is a unitary state which means that although they have county’s the MP’s have very little and limited power and has meant that the Westminster has devolved its power to the neighboring countries Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Thus allows the countries to have some power, for example Scotland has the devolved powers of education and healthcare along with others however don’t have a say in the overall powers held by Westminster such as immigration. However the US is a federal state meaning that they give specific power to all their 50 states which means that they are able to choose their own police and are able to vote in laws of their own into their state for example the state of Colorado legalized the use of cannabis in 2014. Showing that both countries constitutions leads to very different distribution of power.

The UK and US constitution also having differing interpretations of the nature of their constitutions.  The UK constitution isn’t intrenched and it is able to be amended by a parliamentary vote and has many different documents both published and online which show the UK’s constitution and rules. This means that the UK constitution is codified. Whereas the US constitution has all of their rules collected and put into a single authoritative document. This means that the US constitution is intrenched. This is important as due to weather or not the country’s constitution is intrenched or not determines how easy it is to alter and amend the constitution. Therefore in evaluation because the UK’s constitution is not intrenched this means that it is a lot easier for the government to amend the constitution as it can be done by a simple parliamentary vote however in comparison it is much harder for the US constitution to be amended. This is because it can just be voted on weather or not a new law should be put in place or a law should be removed the supreme courts are the only people who are able to decide if actions taken by the president or individuals are unconstitutional. Leading to any alternations to the constitution.

Finally both the Constitution of the UK and the US have differing interpretations of their role of judiciary and constitution in safeguarding individual rights. The UK has the ‘Human Rights Act’ of 1998 which was statured into UK law which allows all citizens of the UK to be protected under. However the US doesn’t have the Human Rights Act but instead the bill of rights and judicial review helps to protect the people as it allows them to challenge legal decisions or actions. This is important because both the UK and the US have one similarity, even if it is only to a certain extent, they both have supreme courts. The British supreme court isn’t able to strike down acts which are viewed as unconstitutional where the US supreme court is able to as previously explained. However the British supreme court is able to do judicial review even though they are seen as less significant than the US supreme court. In evaluation this further amplifies how both constitutions are able to protect their citizens and their rights as in the UK a young girl who originally from Zambia who had lived in the UK since the age of 6 based off of her father’s student visa applied for a university loan so that she could be able to attend the university of Northern Cumbia, but her application was denied. Obviously, she was not happy with this and her case was taken up by the supreme court as a breach of article 2 of the Human Rights Act which state the right to education and the court ended up ruling this and agreeing that it was a breach of her right to education. Then in June 2020 the US supreme court ruled the language of the civil rights act of 1964 which prohibits sex discrimination applied to the discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community. This was massively significant as it meant that a member of the community was no not able to be fired for their sexual orientation or sexual preferences.

In conclusion the UK and US constitutions have different features and importance’s when compared against each other. On the one hand while the origin of the UK constitution has been evolving over a mass amount of time on the other the US’s constitution was created almost instantaneously. There are also massive comparisons which can be made in relation to the key principles of the constitutions as the UK constitution is based and guided by a monarchy which uses the government minister to exercise their power and the UK constitution is led and acted upon by the head of state, the president, as well as this they also have differing ideas as they have different key principles. The nature of the UK constitution is easily amended and can be amended almost at any point via using a simple parliamentary vote whereas on balance the US constitution is very hard to be amended and can only be amended by the supreme court if they rule an action as unconstitutional which can then lead to an amendment such as amendment 13 to end and ban slavery in America. Finally the UK and the US constitutions have different features and interests when it comes to the role of judiciary and constitution in safeguarding individual rights. This is as the UK does have a supreme court which is able for those and rule a case which is see as unconstitutional but are unable to solely strike down an act which they view to be unconstitutional whereas on comparison the US supreme court is the only power in America which is able to overturn anything seen as unconstitutional as although this isn’t done based off the Human Rights Act that the UK uses it can be based off of the Bill of rights and judicial review.

To what extent are the key features of political ideologies different?

You must refer to two political ideologies and also to the ideas of relevant theorists. (20)

There are two main political ideologies, conservatism, and socialism. Conservatism believes that people should follow the guidance and wisdom which has been passed down from our ancestors, however, to be able to do this the citizens need to be led by an authoritative leader and humans are untrustworthy and selfish. While socialism on the other hand is made up of 2 elements, a criticism of capitalism and creating a blueprint for an alternative way to organize society. Socialist thinkers believe that being optimistic of human nature is the best way forward and by allowing humans to work together. Both conservative and socialist thinkers have different beliefs on how their way of thinking effects property, economy, society, and human nature. This essay intends to argue that both conservatism and socialism are very different political ideologies.

Conservative thinkers such as John Locke believe that the ownership of property is vital if society is to maintain a higher archery and this would be able to continue from the wisdom and wealth passed down and inherited through generations. Then when the industrial revolution happened in the UK in the 50s this began to be threatened as a new middle class was created this would then mean that if the conservative thinkers could stay ‘in power’ they needed to relay on the middle class’ vote for the conservatives as they had the influence to change or sway political decision making now. However socialist thinkers such as Robert Owen otherwise known as the father of British socialism and the utopian socialists believed in collectivism within property. This would then create social justice and equality within the community. This was because they believe that capitalism only magnifies the evils of which private ownership generates the wealth for many which is then not put back into society to improve the living conditions and lives of the working classes. Owen was a philanthropist and dedicated his life to creating a society which could be based off of compassion, communitarianism, and cooperation. This was all done by Owen creating a town out of the wealth he inherited from his family farm as he believed that capitalism didn’t need to exploit British workers. This therefore shows although very opposing views as one wants a working class to remain and one wants to remove it, they do have one semi-common goal that anyone who wants a property should be allowed to have property. However in this respect once again this is only a semi-common goal and other than that both conservatism and socialism completely disagree on how people should be able to achieve this and on what level.

Both conservative and socialist thinkers have different viewpoints on human nature. Traditional conservatism thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes adopt a very pessimistic view on human nature. Believing that humans are very much flawed and that they are incapable of looking after themselves and others meaning that they need heavy guidance from a strong and powerful government. This is because they believe that when humans are useless if left to their own devices and are irrational which then of course creates mass chaos, conservative thinkers also believe that it is impossible for there to ever be complete equality between humans due to human nature, this is otherwise known as Noblesse Oblige. Thomas Hobbes had the exact same view that humans were needy and vulnerable and therefore were untrustworthy. Hobbes also believe that humans were solely driven by their ruthless self interest which therefore made them incapable of deciding if the behavior's of others are acceptable. While on the other hand socialist thinkers adopt an optimistic view on human nature, believing that humans are self-reliant, helpful, and cooperative naturally therefore causing humans to go and seek positive relationships with other beings. Socialists also believe that fraternity is a massive threat as it suggests that the characterization of human being is being diluted by capitalism and therefore being replaced by competition and greed within society. Beatrice Webb a evolutionary socialist believed that capitalism is the scourge of society and damages human nature. Webb also believed that the core values of socialism could co-exist in a capitalist system and capitalism can help to reduce the inequalities within services such as healthcare and education. Therefore upon analysis both conservatism and socialism have extremely opposing views on human nature. They have completely different views on how people are and how people should be viewed upon as one believes that humans are driven to come and work together with likeminded people however conservative thinkers think the only possible way forward for continued human growth is via an authority trained in power to rule over people.

Another aspect in which conservative and socialist thinkers are said to have opposing views is with economy. The overall conservative viewpoint of economy is that it works best under a lassiez faire capitalist system which was adopted in Britain in the late 1800s. this means that there is very limited interference from the government while allowing anyone, of course with the money, to start businesses, buy property and stick and benefit from the wealth received in return. One theorist who did not accept this was Edmund Burke who believed that the only way to have stability within the economy was to follow the routes of tradition, experience, and hierarchy. This then meant that caution would need to be exercised in order for change to be successful while having the continuity of the past in creating a stable future. However in order to be able to prosper in a capitalist society uncertainty and risks would need to be taken, which could lead to having to accept a balanced power in breaking the continuality of powerful figures which would leave the economy unstable. However he did believe that there should be equality. While on the other hand socialist thinkers had varied views on a capitalist economy that it could either be worked with or that it should be crushed. Karl Marx and Engels believed that free market capitalism only served in order to exploit workers and therefore create mass inequality, this meant that they though the only way of removing capitalism would be by a socialist revolution which would give economic and political power to the workforce. They believed that this could only be done by a 10-stage revolution beginning with primitive societies and ending with the end of history which would be guided by socialism and would be the peak of human achievement. Upon analysis this means there is one link between both ideologies that change to the economy needs to be continuous whether we like it or not in order to be able to flourish. However there is an implication with the socialist revolt and 10-stage theory as there could never be a stage-10 end if history as we will never know if we will or are at the peak of human achievement.

Finally both conservative and socialist thinkers both have views on society and how it should be run. Conservative theorist Thomas Hobbes believed people were needy, vulnerable and would be easily led astray and was concerned about the fate of society if it weren’t reined over by a controller. Hobbes also believed that in order to keep a peaceful society there needed to be a strong and powerful leader that would save people from the ‘state of nature’ otherwise society would rein in a state of chaos and violence and without a society run like this it would be heavily undesirable. He believed we were all signed up into a contract with others in our society and as a collective some freedoms would have to be given up while the ruler had the right to decide what to do as long as they acted morally. Socialist thinkers like Rosa Luxemburg who helped found the spartactist revolt of January 1919 in Berlin. She believed that the masses of people are in reality their own leaders which help to create their own development process and that the more social democracy evolves and grows and becomes stronger the more the masses became enlightened causing workers to take their own leadership of their movement and determination into their own hands. She also described the Bourgeoisie which is the social order which is dominated by the middle-class. This was based heavily upon Marx’s theory and would mean the end of exploitation and alienation of the workforce and would create a stable society organized around ownership which produces everything to fit the needs of the workforce. On balance with their views upon society they do have similarities as they both believe that for a society to work that people need to have ownership and that everyone in a society needs to come together in order to make the society to work.

In conclusion it could be argued that there are a number of differences and similarities between the political ideologies, conservatism, and socialism. On the one hand similarities can be seen in relation to the views of human nature that everyone has needs and wants and that everyone has some sort of right that helps to sway or influence political decisions. However on the other hand differences can be seen with regards to how each political ideology views humans and how they believe they react to when given power and how social equality can be achieved and given. Both ideologies show similarities in their opinions in property as they both believe that people are entitled to property and a place to live. However on the other hand they show significant differences as conservative thinkers only think that property should be owned by a hierarchy and this is crucial if it means that conservatism is to stay intact, while socialist thinkers believe that common ownership should be the only system in place and any money made from it should go into improving the lives of the work force. On one hand both conservative and socialist thinkers do have limited similarities in comparison to the economy as both ideologies believe that equality for all should be served. Yet on the other hand they have very apparent differences such as one believing in a lassiez-faire system with minimal government help meaning only the successful could grow while socialists believe in a free economy which would help everyone to grow together. Finally conservatism and socialism shows similarities within society as they do both believe that society needs to be stable and that everyone has a place in society. However there are still varied differences as they believe in different things as such how society should be run and where everyone’s place is in a society and what they should do to have their place.

Overall representative democracy is more practical upon comparison to direct democracy. This is due to the fact that it is more practical for largely populated countries such as India and America. This is good as it means that for countries such as America where referendums are more less frequent the voter turn out is more likely to be much higher. However by having representative democracy it is still just as time consuming, complex, and costly as if they were to run under a direct democracy. This further means that while it may be time consuming and costly in the main long run it is more manage and practical as US elections can carry on for weeks and to hold multiple elections such as the Swiss Cantons where they can have up to 30 referendums a year which take far to long especially due to having to count and collect and have people to turn out. Meaning that upon evaluation representative democracy is superior and far more practical for the majority of the world especially countries with large and constantly growing populations. 

Representative Democracy is also far more superior when it comes to being able to hold the government to account. This is because each constituency has to vote an MP or representative for example in the UK through FPTP which means that if they do not feel that they are being incorrectly represented and their views and concerns are not being voiced then they know who to tweet, email or attend the surgery of. This is good as constituents are also able to vote their MP out if they are not satisfied with the job that they have done or if they are not able to accurately represent their constituents. However this isn’t always fair on the constituents as MPs don’t always respond or change their actions to fit in with their people. Therefore while there may be faults with how we aren’t able to immediately hold the government and democracy to account overall it is superior as any UK citizen is able to go onto the My Society website and see how their MP voted in important matters down at Westminster and are able to track all of their expenses, shares and assets. This I s especially true as recently many MP’s were questioned about their expenses and were forced to give £1 million back to taxpayers as well as 3 MP’s got jail time meaning that representative democracy provides people with the best accountability.

Furthermore representative democracy provides people with the best representation compared to direct democracy although they do have both similar flaws making both aspects of representation not ideal and to a perfect standard. Direct democracy fails to accurately represent its people as it means that countries such as the UK and US are usually left stuck between the two main parties, Conservative and Labour and republican and Democratic, meaning that people whose party is for example UKIP under represented as they won 12.7% of the votes in the 2015 general election but only got 1 seat compared to SNP who won around 4% of the votes but got 56 seats. So how is representative democracy better than this? Every 5 years a General election is held across the whole of the UK for them to pick their MP who will represent them for the next 5 years down in parliament meaning that the public has fairly good representation as they are given an annual chance to change who they have as their MP if they are not happy with how they are doing or feel that they are not being represented. However this is due criticism as by no means does it offer amazing representation as due to the FPTP electoral system it means that the person with the most votes gets voted in even if overall more people didn’t vote for them. For example in Dumfries and Galloway Conservative MP Allister Jack only received 42% of the votes meaning that many SNP and Labour voters will feel underrepresented. On evaluation while both have their negatives and positives representative democracy remains superior as while in the UK it can be unfair in Scotland via the system of AMS each constituency is given 8 MSPS which are elected in a number system therefore providing the person who the most people wanted to win or whom they would be more okay with being elected providing a better standard of representation. 

However for the participation in Democracy, Direct Democracy is far superior over representative democracy. This is based on studies done on the Swiss cantons where the population is only 8.4 million. The study concluded that for many smally populated countries this system of direct democracy had many benefits. The Swiss Cantons have very high voter turnout which has proven the  public will then have a greater political trust installed with the government which causes the voting turnout to be so high due to feeling that they have a political place and are engaged within society. This also means that the Swiss Canton voters also have a much higher satisfaction within the government and their votes. However this would be unable to dominate other countries as their democracy as it means that there would be loads for and regular referendums which would be too time consuming and impractical. So overall while it isn’t the most practical as a government system which would be able to be used across the world it is still the system that receives the best participation also due to that there is not financial barriers for neither the government or the public. 

Hello Ellie - thank you for this. I have uploaded a marked copy of your work to the top of this post.

Task 3 - Democracy  

Plato believed that democracy was a disastrous system as he believed that the incorrect people were being chosen to rule. in Greek Democracy translates to mob which suggests that vulgar, unwashed and unfit men were being left to rule. Plato's argument is that essentially the people ruling the democracy should be experts and not just 'random' people being voted in due to popularilty they hold when people do not have an accurate representation of ruling. Plato believed that to be fit to rule you had to be a philosopher but not as the kind whom read books and merely passed a degree, but instead someone who has gained an early understand via education by participating in music, mathematics, military experience and physical education from a young age. Plato strongly believed that a special training was key fir any expert with the correct skills set to be able to dominate their field and not everyone beheld nor is capable of having or developing these skills. The comparison used by Plato is that if you were ill or in need of medical attention you would want to go and seek advice from a medical expert and would not let a crowd of people determine their treatment or medication therefore ruling should also be left to the experts and those in the position of ruling should be left to rule with their expertise as well as receiving special training on how to rule efficiently, such as from philosophers.

Task 1 – Democracy           250-word synopsis of Graylings main line of argument 

On the contrary Graylings main line of argument is that democracy is imperfect and a fairly new system and look on democracy. Democracy is imperfect as it still isn’t fair as the systems used such as FPTP means that a minority can lead to the referendum outcome and in fact the majority of the time it is a representative democracy. Although this can be negative electoral systems which accurately portray the nations votes such as Italy often create coalition governments which often are weak unstable and unreliable. However Israel have a somewhat perfect balance as they instead have tiny majority parties. While democracy is seen as a trait almost related to the Western world for the vast majority of its history it was not democratic and it wasn’t until the Athenian Democracy was invented that the western world began to convert. While many such as Plato and Aristotle saw this system as ignorant as it excluded the majority of its population it was the beginning of the democracy revolution and over time has vastly evolved until it came to Britain in 1832.  There were many fears of this system taking away people’s possessions and property especially from the founding fathers and even Winston Churchill had his doubts.