Question: Is Britain a liberal, representative democracy?

Democracy derives from the earliest form of Athenian democracy found in Ancient Greece, composing of a more embedded socialist model with the implementation and participation of the public to decide major decisions affecting the society of then. Despite having limitations in the essence of being a pure and direct democracy, the Athenians laid the foundations of modern democracy. It is, centuries later that democracy has formed tangents and derailed into subsequent forms of the foundations. Great Britain as a main representative of democracy through the status in world politics, demonstrates several slight anomalies in the full representation and description of democracy in modern times. Noted by John Kingdom, politics defines politics of the art of the possible since it involves the practice of participating and of finding an agreement. Democracy, has therefore allowed such decisions to be made in a fair, equal and wholly representative of the society since the decisions, laws and discussions affects those of the country- however, the form of indirect and pluralist democracy causes certain strife and displacement of the true nature of politics. Government in the Britain is presented through the form of exemplification through chosen electives by the power of voting. This method of election aims to present the peoples choice of government to decide the decisions that are to be implemented into society. On the other hand, many individuals feel that this form of choice is an inaccurate arrangement since; many decisions are developed and decided by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet collectively. The repeated reliance of a small coterie of advisers (under informal circumstances without the public knowledge of the minutes of such meetings) to decide such matters rather than those members (that were freely chosen by the people to accurately represent the people) has been dismissed in favour of the infamous sofa cabinet, coined by Tony Blair during his active years as Prime Minister. Furthermore, the constrictions of power in a limited government are evident through that of the government in Britain. Several checks and limits of rule are placed on certain individuals to ensure that a totalitarian or dictatorship is not created. Even so, with a pluralist government, such qualities would ensure that a dictatorship was not put in place, since being an open government would mean that those who can access minutes, speeches, debates held in Parliament can perhaps, determine whether government was changing. Additionally, such laws that would require an autocracy would need to pass through the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. If such law is passed through one and rejected by the other, the law is not passed. Such limitations have been consciously put into place to ensure that this does not happen (history through the ages and in present day has shown that a totalitarian state is unfair, subjective and unreasonable to the people it serves and that it is not an image Great Britain would be satisfied in demonstrating to the world, as a prominent leader in world affairs). Nonetheless, being a democratic state, and when in need of public support and advice, it is the use of a referendum that allows for major decision of national importance to include the publics views. This conscious, and highly essential political tool allows for the national community to be included in a political choice, whereas before, such opinions may have not been voiced, heard or acknowledged through the chosen MP or otherwise. Alternatively, in light of recent events, the statement of free press and a considerate relaxation of censorship is a notable anomaly. It is such cases, as the scandals concerning the many major politicians, (such as the leaking of documents that were supposed to be

secretive from the public to the online community, including that of the Iraq War; the expenses around many MPs; the recent phone-hacking scandal and notorious London riots) that contradict the operation of free articles and media without government influence or interest. Captured by the nineteenth-century Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli he describes politics as the art of governing mankind through deceiving them where examples of these conscious actions of dishonesty were evident during the London riots (images of the more violent, destructive footage was not shown in Britain but across other countries in the world. It may have been the governments choice to present Britain being more stable than it actually was to the public for reassurance that the government was in control of the situation). Propaganda, even in concealment is a definitive deception of the public, aiming to withhold information suggests the nature of deceiving for personal use and such means of culminating supporters and influencing certain ideas is wholly unconstitutional. However, in extreme cases where certain acts of national security (such as terrorism), the government opts to preserve knowledge in the benefit of the people. The terrorist attacks that American and Britain have received also show the erosion of civil liberties where the existence of essential public freedom has been replaced with an exaggerated maternal constraint against the public. Britain, (in wake of the 9/11 attacks) implemented a series of personal checks (targeting a specific model of a certain person, which some people believe that the government is targeting a specific race, colour and religion) to ensure public safety. These measures (including the law of the detention concerning terrorist suspects and the amount of days they can be detained for) incite some public fear and paranoia constricting the control the government holds over the public despite the articles presented through the media. It seems that any editorial concerning terrorism is highly exaggerated and hyped to stir public beliefs and cause disagreements. Furthermore, the influence from the media to the government is a strenuous relationship. In a democratic society these two major influences are not supposed to be in a consistent contact with the other. Moreover, it could be said that one has more power and control over the other where the media is able to publish freely (and more quickly than before with the use of the Internet to contact a wider range of people but with some constrictions as mentioned above) and openly able to slander politicians to gain support and favour from the public as well as incite certain views and suggestions. Wealthy businessmen are also said to have some control over politicians and their opinions (including donations sent to certain parties during the 2010 General Election, when parties were discussing their manifestos). Such hold and indirect influence over politics contradicts the democratic features of an open government and holding an equal state that is representative of all. Nevertheless, Britain as a figurehead of democracy still holds true to the fact that it is a fairer and more open way in co-ordinating politics but still has certain irregularities that do not conform to the true nature of politics. Despite being so, in modern times, politics has to constantly adapt and coincide with public demand, technology and public belief. This essentially means that democracy is ever-changing and that there is not the perfect state of democracy to correctly judge how well a government is run but to the extent of how the features of a basic democracy are held in place.