One comparison that can be made about Direct and Representative Democracy relates to the theme of practicality. Source A states that “Direct Democracy is seen as being practical at a local level” and was used in Ancient Greece in the city of Athens but more recently in the small cantons of Switzerland. Source B states that Representative Democracy is better for larger countries as “legislation can be made and passed effectively and practically in modern society”. This shows us that Direct Democracy is more practical for small population sizes whereas Representative Democracy is more practical for the modern, larger sizes of population. 

A second comparison that can be made about Direct and Representative Democracy relates to the theme of Information. Source A states that “it creates a more informed electorate and politically knowledgeable group of citizens” which was the case in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Source B states that the majority of the electorate don’t have an interest or effort to participate in policy or important decisions so Representative Democracy allows elected representatives to dedicate their time solely to policy and scrutiny of information on behalf of the people. This shows that Direct Democracies allows people to become engaged and informed before voting within political decisions, however Representative Democracies take this opportunity away from the people and into the hands of representatives which could be more effective as they can dedicate their whole time to researching and learning, something a normal citizen with a job couldn’t do. 

A third comparison that can be made about Direct and Representative Democracy relates to the theme of Legitimacy. Source A states that because all residents can make political decisions through expressing their own views, “decisions are likely to be accepted as fair” and people will accept the outcomes of decisions. Source B states that “voters legitimise the decisions made by representatives and if people do not like the decisions that are being made then they can vote the party out at the next election”. This shows that Direct Democracy can be seen as more legitimate because of the direct engagement that people have in political decisions whereas, in a Representative Democracy, people don’t have the same amount of engagement or input which could reduce the legitimacy of the decisions as they are relying on their representatives to act on behalf of their views. 

To conclude, the case for Representative Democracy is stronger. Representative Democracy allows better legislation due to having a small group of experts allowing for more practicality within larger populations while also keeping it legit through regular elections making sure the government are being held accountable. This makes it a superior political system to use instead of Direct Democracy. 

Using only the information in Sources A-F:

The first component of the first part of the viewpoint states that “the 2007 council elections were a total disaster for the Labour Party.”  Evidence from Source A provides information relating to the Control of Councils by Party. The Labour Party dropped from having control of 15 councils in 1999 to 2 councils in 2007. In 1999, 10 councils had no overall control compared to in 2007 what was 27 councils with no overall control. This links to evidence in Source B which identifies election data for seats. The Evidence identifies that Labour dropped from 551 seats (45.1%) in 1999 to 348 seats (28.5%) in 2007. Source B also highlights data for the percentage of votes. The data shows that Labours % of votes has fallen from 36.6% in 1999, to 32.9% in 2003, to then 28.1% of 2007. In terms of the number of seats and control of councils by party, the Labour Party clearly had a total disaster as the SNP overtook them in the 2007 election on the number of seats. However, despite Labour losing many seats, they still managed to hold 2 councils and claim the highest number of votes. 

The second component of the first part of the viewpoint points to the SNP replacing Labour as the dominant party in Scottish local government. Evidence from Source A provides information relating to the Control of Councils by Party. In 1999, Labour held control of 15 councils whereas the SNP had control of 1. In 2007, Labour held control of 2 councils whereas the SNP had control of 0. This shows that the SNP lost control of their only council in this election. This links to evidence in Source B which identifies election data for seats. The evidence identifies that the SNP claimed 363 seats and became the majority party. Source B also highlights data for the elections vote share percentages. The data shows that labour fell from in their percentage of votes from 1999 to 2007. Labour had 36.6% of the votes in 1999 to only 28.1% of the votes in 2007. The SNP had 28.8% in 1999 and only 27.9% in 2007.  By every measure, the performance of the Labour Party was less impressive in 2007; they control fewer councils, lost 161 seats compared to the previous election and dropped just under 5% of their vote share compared to the previous election. All of this data shows us how Labour had a nightmare election and let the SNP become the dominant party within the Scottish Local Government of 2007. Despite this, the SNP didn’t control any councils and didn’t receive the highest amount of votes.

The performance of the Labour Party in the 2007 council elections can be said to be a total disaster due to the loss of seats due to the loss of 11 councils as well as dropping 161 seats to rival parties such as the SNP in 2007. For the percentage of seats, they also dropped by 13.2% compared to the previous election of 2003. 

The SNP saw their support rise in numbers within local councils gaining the rank of the dominant party. They gained the highest percentage of seats however, they didn’t get the highest percentage of votes. Therefore this is not as impressive showing that although they were the new dominant party, they didn’t have the highest vote share or full control of a council. 

The first component of the second part of the viewpoint states that “the introduction of the new STV voting system saw both much greater participation all round”. Evidence from Source C provides information relating to turnout. We can see that the turnout increased from 49.6% of the electorate in 2003 to 53.8% of the electorate in 2007. This isn’t as impressive as the turnout for 1999 when Scotland got a devolved parliament when it was 58.1% of the electorate. Evidence from Source C also provides us with information on the number of spoilt ballots. We can see that although participation was up from 2003, 23772 more votes were spoilt in 2007 than in 2003. Source D also highlights data for participation through the number of candidates in council elections. In 2003, there were 4195 candidates fr 1222 seats, this significantly dropped in 2007 to only 2607 candidates for the same number of seats. The STV system may have been a factor in why some voters turned up but there were many people who wasted their vote by spoiling their ballot. Although there was a greater turnout, there wasn’t necessarily greater representation due to the significant number of spoilt papers. 

The second component of the second part of the viewpoint states “fairer representation compared to previous elections”. Evidence from Source E provides us with the number of female candidates in council elections. In 1999, 26.9% of candidates were female; in 2003 it was 27.5% of candidates; in 2007 it was only a mere 22.5% of candidates. The data shows us that the number of female candidates fell significantly from 2003 to 2007. This is showing that more women are less likely to stand within their local councils. Evidence from Source E also provides us with data regarding the number of female councillors. In 1999, 23% of councillors were female; in 200 it was 21.9%; in 2007 it was 21.8%. This highlights that even though it’s a small decrease from 2003 to 2007, it is still a decrease. The number of female candidates and elected councillors highlights that there was in fact not fairer representation compared to previous years but poorer representation with female councillors dropping 1.2% from 1999 to 2007. 

The third component of the second part of the viewpoint states that “the 2012 election was disappointing as there was a deterioration in both these areas”. Evidence from Source C and F highlight information on participation. The turnout from 2007 was 53.8% of the electorate whereas in 2012 dropped significantly to only 39.1% of the electorate. Evidence from C and F highlight data relating to the number of spoilt ballots. In 2007 there were 38351 spoilt ballots whereas in 2012 there were 27044 spoilt. Although there was a decrease of 11307 spoilt papers, this was still a lot higher than in years previous such as 1999 (13597) and 2003 (14579). Evidence from Source E and F shows data relating to representation. In 2012, 23.4% of candidates were female and 24.4 of the elected councillors whereas in 2007 it was 22.5% of candidates and 21.8% were elected. We can see that the number of female candidates rose by 2.6% which is the highest number of female councillors from the 4 years. 2012 was disappointing due to the drop in participation however there were significantly fewer spoilt ballots than the 2007 election. There wasn’t a deterioration in the representation though as it was actually an increase seeing the highest level of female elected councillors in 4 elections. 

The viewpoint states that the 2007 council elections were a disaster for the Labour Party but saw both greater participation and fairer representation. The election data shows us that although the Labour Party had a disaster, they managed to claim overall control of 2 councils which no other party managed to do. They also claimed the highest vote percentage. Regarding greater participation, although there was a higher turnout than in 2003, it still wasn’t at the same level as in 1999. There were also more spoilt ballots meaning that more votes went to waste showing that participation was not better all around. With representation, the number of women fell for both candidates and elected councillors compared to previous elections like in 1999 and 2003. The last part of the viewpoint says that there was deterioration in both of these areas for the 2012 election. This is wrong as the representation of female candidates and councillors increased meaning fairer representation. The participation dropped a lot however there were fewer spoilt papers. This could show that participation was worse in 2012 however representation was actually fairer than in 2007. 

The party I studied was the Conservative Party.

A dominant idea of the Conservative Party I studied was Thatcherism. Thatcherism is the name given to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s, policies that changed many aspects of British life. She was in power from 1979-1990 and was nicknamed the Iron Lady. The policies were to take the government back to a laissez-faire state with the public left to themselves. An area that was affected by Thatcherism was housing; she changed the law in 1980 to allow tenants to purchase council houses. This boosted support for her as we can see through the results of the 1983 general election where she boosted her majority by 58 seats compared to 1979. She also privatised industries which was a shock to most post-war people. During the war, the government controlled industry and society as they believed it was the only way to “win the peace”. Thatcher rejected state-owned business and socialist central planning. This allowed British Telecom, British Airways and British Gas to be put back in private hands. This was all throughout the 80s where she managed to get a clear majority at both general elections with 61% of the seats in 1983 and 58% of the seats in 1987. A key manifesto policy for the 1987 election was taxation. Thatcher slashed the high tax bracket rate from 83% to 40% and the standard rate to 25% which came into effect in 1989/90 (England and Wales) and 1990/91 (Scotland). Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was deeply controversial. The clause stated that a local authority shall not “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. From the voting information, we can see that the turnout was higher and the conservative majority dropped to claiming 57% of the seats in 1987. This shows us that although there was a lot of support for Thatcher’s government, when different policies, such as taxation, came into the manifesto, people turned up to try and stop them from happening. 

Another dominant idea of the Conservative Party I studied was One Nationism. The idea was first proposed by Disraeli in the mid 19th century. The idea of one-nationism aimed to reduce the social divide between the upper class and the lower class in order to merge the 2 forming nations and create one nation increasing equality for all. Disraeli felt that a paternalistic government was the way to go. One nationalism formed a powerful opposition to Thatcherism, many characters claimed to be social unifiers that opposed the new individualist and free-market policies, however, they were named ‘wets’ by Thatcher’s supporters. They argued that her policies were threatening to divide Britain into two nations. They ultimately lost the fight but remain a significant minority within the Conservative party. One nationalism is in support of a United Kingdom and has become its dominant idea recently. During the 2019 General Election, Borris Johson used many one nationism policies to appeal to all classes. He stated that he would reject any effort for an independence referendum with no negotiations. This can be called a one nationism approach and will appeal to all Unionists. However, this repelled the majority of the population of Scotland where they voted for the SNP, an independence party, in 48/59 constituencies showing that they reject the conservative government that they’ve not voted for since 1955, 66 years ago. He also stated that income tax for high earners would be slashed. In 2019 the conservatives claimed a majority with 365 seats. A voting statistic that is interesting is that Labour claimed the most votes from people with a degree or higher within the UK.

The two political systems I studied were the UK and the USA. In the UK, the Conservatives currently hold a majority of 365 MPs and are lead by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The conservatives lie centre-right on the political spectrum. In the US, the current President, Jo Biden, is a Democrat and they hold the House of Representatives. The Republicans hold the Senate. The 2 political systems differ immensely in the way they are held accountable. In this essay, I will discover that the UK has a better system of scrutiny allowing their government and leaders to be easily held accountable. 

The two systems are both scrutinised in view of the general public. The UK system is through the national tv show “Prime Ministers Question Time” produced every Thursday, alongside televised debates. During Question Time, any member of parliament has the opportunity to ask questions and scrutinise the government. Our current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is regularly seen debating within the House of Commons. This is the UK’s way of showing the public an insight into the government so that it’s not just other parties holding the government accountable, but the press and public also. This could be argued against, however, as it can be said that this is nothing more than political theatre and putting on a show to the public. Within debates, the party leaders argue their case in front of viewers usually in the lead up to elections. This can be seen in the lead up to the Holyrood Elections where our leader Nicola Sturgeon debates opposition leaders. This allows the general public to submit questions to be responded to meaning that the public has a way of scrutinising the leaders if they answer questions properly. Within the USA, there is no equivalent of question time however Congress use the publicity of high profile hearings as a way for the public and media to scrutinise the government. In the UK, there is a channel “Court TV” that shows trials over in the USA showing that they lie to publicise their legal and political systems. This is a great way to show transparency to the people within the government and legal systems. The media are used regularly within the US political system as public officials are freer in voicing their opinions on public issues and debates. We can see this through AOC - congresswoman for the Bronx and Queens - social media accounts, she regularly updates her followers on her opinions on current debates. This is a great way of allowing the public to see what is happening within their political system so that they can scrutinise and question it. 

The two systems are also scrutinised through committees. In the UK, there are 4 types of committees; Select, Joint, General and Grand. Select committees work in both houses and check and report on areas ranging from the work of the government departments to economic affairs. Joint committees have members from both Houses and work as one committee. They may conduct examinations of a particular area or a specific matter. An example is the “Human Rights” committee that meets on a regular basis. A general committee is appointed from the house of commons to consider proposed legislation in extreme detail. This system allows for faster processing of Bills and is unique to the House of Commons as the House of Lords meets as a whole house. An example of this is Public Bill Committees - committees formed for each new bill to go through the House of Commons. Grand committees are used differently in each house. In the House of Lords, the Grand Committee is a secondary debating chamber where any of the Lords can speak. In the house of commons, Grand Committees are appointed to debate issues affecting one country or region within the UK. The 3 main types within the USA are; standing, select/special and joint which all play a key role within congress. Standing committees are permanent panels that have legislative jurisdiction that consider bills and decide whether or not bills are considered by their respective chambers. An example of a standing committee is the “Education and Labour” committee. Select/special committees handle oversight or housekeeping responsibilities. Things they do include; confirming appointments such as federal judges, investigate officials or national issues and print government documents. An example of a select/special committee is the “ethics” select committee. Joint committees are permanent and include members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They generally conduct studies or perform housekeeping tasks such as the background work in the legislative process. Joint committees are very powerful as they decide what subjects can become law in the United States. 

Within the UK, the opposition party is there to form a shadow cabinet to closely monitor the policies and actions of the government. This can be seen currently through the Labour party, lead by Sir Keir Starmer. Labour members have roles aligning to the majority government so each person has a partner or group to closely monitor and scrutinise each decision. Committees are groups formed by members of any party that scrutinize policies and decisions in great detail. These features allow the UK government to be easily scrutinized as they all appear in the media allowing pressure to be given from both members and the public. Within the USA, there isn’t a direct comparison as the US constitution does not grant congress oversight responsibility, meaning they have no power over scrutiny. Congress has managed to get implied powers as since they form law, they need to know what is going on. Congress has the power to subpoena documents and testimony, hold people to contempt, and make it illegal to lie to them. It has been argued that congressional oversight is only really effective when the president’s party is not in congress which can be a downside if a president isn’t living up to the job. It is hard for anyone to hold the resident to oversight as he himself rarely, if ever, presents evidence to congress or the House of Representatives. 

From this, we can conclude that both political systems can be fairly scrutinised. In the USA, we saw that through the media and from politicians themselves they can expose and share opinions easily. This is different to the UK where there are designated media platforms for the government to be scrutinised. Overall, it is easier for the UK government to be scrutinised due to the use of television and the use of a shadow cabinate. 

Compare the passage of legislation in 2 political systems you have studied. (12) 

The political systems that I studied were the UK and the USA. 

The 2 political systems differ widely in their passing of legislation. Both political systems are bicameral meaning they have 2 chambers. In the UK system, they have the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a group of unelected officials by appointment or inheritance. The House of Commons is the more dominant house full of elected officials who hold office for 5 years. Legislation can originate in either the House of Lords or the House of Commons, however, to pass, it has to go through both. For a law to pass, it needs to receive royal descent from Queen Elizabeth II. This differs to the USA due to both the Senate and the House of Representatives being elected groups of officials with the House of Representatives being 2-year terms and Senate being 6-year terms. The USA’s constitution prohibits “titles of nobility” which is a contrast to the vast number of titles available within the UK. In the USA legislation can originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Unlike in the Uk, in the USA legislation is researched and spoken about in smaller committees before being taken to either Senate or the House of Representatives. For a law to pass, the final stage is getting the President to approve or pass it. This creates issues if the Senate and House of Representatives are the opposite party to the president. If the president doesn’t agree with a law they want to pass, he can refuse to sign it. Donald Trump vetoed signing 10 laws in his term. 

The 2 political systems differ in the way they are held accountable. Within the UK, it is easy to scrutinize the actions of the government due to 3 key features;  Prime Ministers Question Time, The Opposition Party, and Committees. During question time, Borris Johnson is regularly seen debating within the house of Commons, this allows opposition parties, or even members of his own party, the opportunity to ask questions and scrutinize the government. The Opposition party is there to form a shadow cabinet to closely monitor the policies and actions of the government. This can be seen currently through the Labour party, lead by Sir Keir Starmer who closely watches every decision that Borris and his tory government make. Committees are groups formed by members of any party that scrutinise policies and decisions in great detail. These features allow the UK government to be easy scruitined as they all appear in the media allowing pressure to be given from both members and the public. This is a massive difference between the 2 systems as the US Consitution does not grant congress oversight responsibility. Congress has managed to get implied powers as since they form law, they need to know what is going on. Congress have the power to subpoena documents and testimony, hold people to contempt and make it illegal to lie to them. It has been argued that congressional oversight is only really effective when the president’s party is not in congress which can be a downside if a president isnt living up to the job. It is hard for anyone to hold the resident to oversight as he himself rarely, if ever, presents evidence to congress or the House of Representitives. 

Committees play a key role in congress. There are 3 main types; standing, select/special, joint. Standing committees are permanent panels that have legislative jurisdiction that consider bills and decide whether or not bills are considered by their respective chambers. An example of a standing committee is the “Education and Labour” committee. Select/special committees handle oversight or housekeeping responsibilities. Things they do include; confirming appointments such as federal judges, investigate officials or national issues and print government documents. An example of a select/special committee is the “ethics” select committee. Joint committees are permanent and include members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They generally conduct studies or perform housekeeping tasks such as the background work in the legislative process. Joint committees are very powerful as they decide what subjects can become law in the United States. In the UK, there are 4 types of committees; Select, Joint, General and Grand. Select committees work in both houses and check and report on areas ranging from the work of the government departments to economic affairs. Joint committees have members from both Houses and work as one committee. They may conduct examinations of a particular area or a specific matter. An example is the “Human Rights” committee that meets on a regular basis. A general committee is appointed from the house of commons to consider proposed legislation in extreme detail. This system allows for faster processing of Bills and is unique to the House of Commons as the House of Lords meets as a whole house. An example of this is Public Bill Committees - committees formed for each new bill to go through the House of Commons. Grand committees are used differently in each house. In the House of Lords, the Grand Committee is a secondary debating chamber where any of the Lords can speak. In the house of commons, Grand Committees are appointed to debate issues affecting one country or region within the UK. 

Well done, Maria! Please find attached your marked essay.

Direct democracy is seen to be the purest form of democracy whereas Representative democracy is seen to be the most practical form of democracy. 

When we look at the practicality of both direct and representative democracy then we can conclude that representative democracy is more superior. It is more practical for larger populations. When we look at the United States of America compared to Swiss Contons then we see a significant difference in population, trying to engage all members of the population to vote on issues consistently in a larger country isn’t going to be achievable as there is a much larger population to handle. In direct democracy the process to allow all members of the country can be expensive to set up and run. A further complication to direct democracy is that if not all members are engaged and consistently voting then it will result in a small group of the population making important final decisions on issues resulting in the votes not fully representing the voices of the whole population. The first past the post system in representative democracy allows a simple and clear way to identify the winner of an election, majority wins. Although it is described as the most practical, representative democracy leads to wasted votes in its first past the post system. It only counts the highest number of votes and deems that candidate the winner this means that if the highest number of votes in a vote is 30%, the other 70% are disregarded and their voices aren’t heard. Overall, representative democracy is the clear superior over direct democracy due to the simplicity and practicality of the system. 

When we look at the representation of both direct and representative democracy then we see that direct democracy is by far superior. In a direct democracy, there are no professional politicians meaning that everyone represents themselves with their own voices and views playing a factor in how they choose to vote. This means that all opinions to be taken into account and respected during each decision. On the other hand, if people don’t keep up with the ever-changing political news or don’t feel like voting then their say will be wasted leaving it up to a small minority making all of the important decisions anyways. In a representative democracy, the public vote during general elections for who they feel would best represent the interests of the constituency in decision making. This means that the public has to put all of their faith in their elected representatives to make well informed, rational decisions in parliament. This can be worrying for many people in populations as with the first past the post system, they might not have their say heard during the elections for representatives meaning that they don’t get a say at all. Overall, direct democracy triumphs over representative democracy in terms of representation as it allows for all people to have their say heard and be counted. 

When we look at the accountability of both direct and representative democracy then we see that direct democracy is by far superior. In a direct democracy, everyone in the country eligible to vote is responsible and accountable for all decisions as they all have opportunities to have their voices heard within decision making. If people are not happy with an outcome, they cannot go back on it as all decisions are final as they have consulted the whole population. This can be a downfall, however, as decisions cannot be gone back on due to the whole population having a say on the matter. This is a complete contrast to the representative democracy as the people accountable for most decisions are the elected officials; MSPs, MPs & MEPs. Members of the public can access which way politicians vote on bills meaning that transparency is crucial as they can be called out at any time. In the 2020 decision about providing free school meals to primary aged pupils throughout school holidays, Douglas Ross posted on Twitter his thought on the matter however it was found that he voted the opposite way when it came to parliament. This brought up a storm and his constituents held him accountable for his actions. Overall, direct democracy is fa superior when compared to representative democracy as it is so much more inclusive of every single member’s opinion and views on important matters, they are not having to put their trust in elected strangers to voice their opinions for them.

Thanks Maria - please find your marked work and feedback attached.

The concepts of Power, Authority and Legitimacy all remain highly relevant in the 21st century. Discuss with reference to the ideas of Steven Lukes and Max Weber. (20) 

Power can be defined as a relationship; the ability to influence the behaviour of others. Steven Lukes is a 21-century political theorist with the idea that power has three faces/dimensions; “open face”, “secretive face” and “manipulative desires”.  Authority can be defined as legitimate power, authority operates through the right to do so. Weber was a 19-century german socialist that developed the idea of there being three types of authority; traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. In this essay, I will show that Weber and Lukes both have legitimate opinions on Power and authority. 

The first face of power Lukes speaks about is Decision Making. This is the “open face” of power that is clearly seen to be used; the ability to affect the content of public policy. Usually, we can identify where the power lies and that it is exercised in accordance with the will of the people. This form of power can be illustrated through the formation of laws. When governments propose bills to be debated in the houses of parliament they are discussed by various sources such as; the media, pressure groups and various MPs. This is significant because it reveals that there is no secrecy within the process as the decision is transparent and open to amendments and discussion. This example is important as it collaborates with Lukes theories that they are logical and evident in our own political systems modern-day work. Through, for example, televised parliamentary debates we can see this type of power coming into action. 

The second face of power Lukes speaks about is Agenda Setting or Non-Decision Making. This is the “secretive face” of power that is exercised behind closed doors. Lukes suggests that an important source of power is to set the political agenda. This is being able to decide what will or won’t be discussed. Power is as much about limiting choices as well as making them. We can view this form of power through Scotland’s fight for Devolution. Under the Conservative government of 1979-1997, the topic was never allowed to be discussed in parliament as it was never on their political agenda. This changed however when Labour was elected into power in May 1997 as their manifesto included the option of a Devotion referendum. This appealed to many Scots and a referendum was held. As a result of this, we have been shown that this theory is, in fact, valid as again there are modern examples backing up Lukes claim. Everyone has different opinions, governments and parties choose to make, or not to make decisions based on their beliefs and interests. This type of decision making is not really denying choice but controlling the choices that people have which advances power. 

The third, and arguably most important, face of power Lukes speaks about is manipulating desires or thought control. This is explaining that power can go even further and be exercised by manipulation. This is the ability to influence popular beliefs and ideas and persuade us that decisions are being made in our best interests. To view this we can look at an example of Feminism. Feminists argue that women were persuaded that being a housewife and mother is the best way to support society. However, they argue that when women do this, they are just being exploited by men into doing their bidding. This idea of functionalism was pushed onto the women and they were made to feel they had to do this as it was the social norm of the time. From the above Lukes has drawn his theories from modern examples. The remnants of which or indeed active examples we see being exercised in our society today. 

The first form of authority Weber speaks about is traditional authority. This is the reliance of the population following customs and traditions from the past. We are brought up learning from our surroundings and following social norms of society. An example of this could be the celebration of Christmas. People just follow on with traditions because its all they’ve known. Nobody will ever question why they are getting a few days holiday. A further example could be the introduction of a new monarch. They demand the same respect and obedience that the last monarch had. We don’t question it, they have authority and power and we have to obey. Weber shows us that this form of authority is puzzling as people don’t usually know why they follow it, it’s just how they’ve been brought up and its normality; learnt behaviour to accept and follow.  

The second form of authority Weber speaks about is charismatic authority. This depends on the special qualities of a leader. People ate drawn to follow the leader due to the desirable qualities that they possess. This type of authority may die within the leader or live on in their group. An example of this could be a political party leader dying and their beliefs and ethos living on in those who follow. This can be seen through the former President of the United States, Donald Trump. He had snappy slogans, the signature look and strong opinions on all topics. Whether his opinions were good or bad, people instantly recognised him and followed him as they knew he would make a change/statement. Although he didn’t die, his political reign did. This form of authority shows that the public perception of people can be extremely valuable. Donald Trump gained the people’s support as he gave the idea of drastic change. The people put him into power giving him the authority to do as he pleased. 

The third form of authority Weber discusses is rational-legal authority. This depends on a formal set of rules which gives those the right to direct, command others and make decisions on their behalf. It had a moral dimension that people have freely handed over their right to decision making to those representing them. An example of this can be seen while looking at the British democratic system. The public vote in who they want representing them in important matters. The Scottish people vote in MPs/MSPs/Cllrs who represent their views and beliefs and who they feel is best to represent them. Our leader Nicola Sturgeon has the right to command and direct as she has been voted in and elected by the Scottish people. This form of authority is also puzzling, why are we giving away our right to vote on certain policies and bills? This means we need to ensure our politicians are genuinely doing it for the benefit of the people and their best interests because apart from elections, we have slim control over decision making. 

Overall, Weber and Lukes make very compelling and logical arguments to their theories on power and authority. Weber’s theories on authority show the three stages which we can identify examples from the 21 century. Traditional authority shows us how we are born into accepting things through our upbringing. Charismatic authority shows us that the qualities and persona of people can be a direct link to gaining public interest and an unofficial authority. Regional-legal authority shows us that people are voted into power legally by the people by who can best represent their people. Lukes theories on power show the three faces of power which we can identify further examples from the 21 century. Decision making shows us the democratic system that we have at the moment and how the elected government are there to represent the people. Agenda setting shows us that while politicians are there to represent the people, they have their own political motives from which they don’t hide. Manipulation shows us that political motives won’t always be for the best of the people, peoples minds can be manipulated into thinking a certain situation works in favour of them but in fact, it is the opposite. Weber and Lukes both have compelling and legitimate statements regarding power and authority which have numerous examples linking to them. 

In this text, Plato used an analogy of crewmates on a ship thinking that they can overthrow the captain as they feel he is not suitable in the art of navigation. The captain is larger and stronger however a bit deaf and blind and has limited knowledge on the sea however the most qualified. The crewmates chat about overthrowing their captain however they realise they have to appreciate his skills and abilities as they don’t realise what it takes to be a captain. They don’t realise the dedication and study that went into researching the seasons, sky, starts and winds to combine into his knowledge of navigation. 

This can be used in current day times. If you were ill, you’d go to see an expert; a doctor. You would want to go and consult someone specially trained in the department. This can be mirrored in Scottish politics, you’d surely want to go to your local MSP; a trained, educated and elected member of society rather than just whoever can shout the loudest at your local branch meeting. Decisions should be made to better the state which required judgement and skill rather than the interests of self progression.  

Plato argues that there are no expert rulers to be found unless “kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings”. Plato argues that this is a necessary qualification to rule. This makes us question though whether those that have a degree in philosophy are therefore qualified to rule? 

A.C Grayling is a 21-century British philosopher. In his text “democracy and its crisis”, he details the theories for possible failings of democracy through various political theorists. He mentions that this could happen through defective institutions, citizens not educated enough to make informed decisions or people with too much power. 

In this chapter, he speaks about Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli and starts with Plato’s attack on democracy. He fears that democracy will rapidly collapse into rule by the least equipped to rule.  He then goes onto detail that there may be a hidden power secretly controlling the government - “Manipulation can achieve its own ends”. In the eighth book of the Republic, Plato discusses political regimes in descending order of merit; Airtricity “rule by best” being at the top and tyranny “rule by a single individual” being the worst. 

He further goes onto speak about the disagreements Aristotle had with his teacher Plato. He believed there was a stage between the oligarchy and democracy called polity. This is an identifiable political entity; a group of people with a collective identity who are organised by social relations and have the capacity to mobilise resources. 

The chapter chats about the three intermediary forms between aristocracy and tyranny. The fist being aristocracy - “rule by the best”. They were the most knowledgable virtuous and wise who chose to rule for the better of the state. The second being epistocracy. This is known by those commonly most knowledgeable, experienced and educated. They were known as “philosopher kings” as they were known to be so knowledgeable. 

Thanks, Maria. Please find your marked essay attached above.

Analyse the concept of power with reference to the work of Steven Lukes. (12)

The first face of power Lukes speaks about is Decision Making. This is the “open face” of power that is clearly seen to be used; the ability to affect the content of public policy. Usually, we can identify where the power lies and that it is exercised in accordance with the will of the people.  This form of power can be illustrated through the formation of laws. When governments propose bills to be debated in the houses of parliament they are discussed by various sources such as; the media, pressure groups and various MPs. This is significant because it reveals that there is no secrecy within the process as the decision is transparent and open to amendments and discussion. This example is important as it collaborates with Lukes theories that they are logical and evident in our own political systems modern-day work. Through, for example, televised parliamentary debates we can see this type of power coming into action. 

The second face of power Lukes speaks about is Agenda Setting or Non-Decision Making. This is the “secretive face” of power that is exercised behind closed doors. Lukes suggests that an important source of power is to set the political agenda. This is being able to decide what will or won’t be discussed. Power is as much about limiting choices as well as making them. We can view this form of power through Scotland’s fight for Devolution. Under the Conservative government of 1979-1997, the topic was never allowed to be discussed in parliament as it was never on their political agenda. This changed however when Labour was elected into power in May 1997 as their manifesto included the option of a Devotion referendum. This appealed to many Scots and a referendum was held. Another example of limiting power is when the Scottish National Party wished there to be a question regarding independence in the referendum but Labour denied this as it wasn’t in their political agenda. As a result of this, we have been shown that this theory is, in fact, valid as again there are modern examples backing up Lukes claim. Everyone has different opinions, governments and parties choose to make, or not to make decisions based on their beliefs and interests. This type of decision making is not really denying choice but controlling the choices that people have which advances power. 

The third, and arguably most important, face of power Lukes speaks about is Manipulating Desires or Thought control. This is explaining that power can go even further and be exercised by manipulation. This is the ability to influence popular beliefs and ideas and persuade us that decisions are being made in our best interests. To view this we can look at an example of Feminism. Feminists argue that women were persuaded that being a housewife and mother is the best way to support society. However, they argue that when women do this, they are just being exploited by men into doing their bidding. This idea of functionalism was pushed onto the women and they were made to feel they had to do this as it was the social norm of the time. From the above Lukes has drawn his theories from modern examples. The remnants of which or indeed active examples we see being exercised in our society today.