CONTENTS

CHAPTER I ...................................................................................................................................................2
GOVERNMENT AND POLITCS. POLITICAL DELIMITATION. HOW COULD ONE DEFINE
POLITICS?.....................................................................................................................................................2
THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE .................................................................................................................10
POLITICAL PARTIES ................................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER IV ..............................................................................................................................................23
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT IN THE UK. HISTORIC BACKGROUND; THE FIRST SIGNS
OF THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT............................................................................................................23
CONCLUSIONS: ....................................................................................................................................28
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..........................................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER I
GOVERNMENT AND POLITCS. POLITICAL DELIMITATION. HOW
COULD ONE DEFINE POLITICS?

When trying to define the meaning of “politics” we most usually face two
major problems. Many people may see clearly that subjects like economics,
geography, history and biology are simply academic subjects, but when it
comes to politics people perceives it with preconceptions. Many, for this
reason see it as hard to give an objective definition in an impartial and
dispassionate manner. The first thing about politics that comes to people’s
mind it is that of trouble making, of disorder, corruption or manipulation; in
fact if we go back to 1775, Samuel Johnson described politics as “the means
of rising in the world”.
Politics, in its broader sense is in fact the activity through which people
make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Politics is
thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation.
Major concepts remain at the forefront discussion in a way that does
not normally apply to more scientific disciplines. Political analyse is far more
than pure opinion; yet even so it is hard to provide a more strictly only
scientifically approach of the topic. It is therefore hard to provide definitions,
it is rather more a matter of providing contrasting perspectives on the subject.
Political science through its main functions- such as the explicative,
interpretative, evaluative, prospective- give solutions and interpretations as
much on theoretically as practically. Politological research’s main concern is
to explain and interpret the phenomena and the political procedures.
The state, its institutions, the individual and collective actors, the
elections, the political decisions, revolutions, ideologies etc. are being
analysed, analytically and synthetically, theoretically and empirically. On the
fundament of these analyses though, on the political and moral set of values
followed, the politologues are making evaluations, predictions and
recommendations regarding the improvement of the local and central
government, the development of the political processes etc.
The scientifically objectivity, the subjective partition and the self
engagement are interconnected; they should favour the epistemological
objectivity, the inter-conditioning of the social systems and the historical
development tendencies.
It is in this way that the political science may give realistic goals and, in
the same time, cognitive instruments efficient enough for the political
interaction.

2
 Politics might most probably be described as the activity through which
different groups get together and try to take collective decisions by seeking
common solutions within the group and for the interest of the group. Most
commonly it may be defined as “who gets what, when, why and how”.
Politics is the process whereby a group of people, whose opinions or interests
are initially divergent, come to a generally accepted decision which finally is
enforced as common policy.
So, could one establish the boundaries of politics? Would one consider
the fact of invading another country as a matter of politics? Would countries
invade one other if they were to dispose of indefinite resources? Is politics
strictly reserved to the government or does it interact to the people’s lives,
families or even analogous groups?
It is therefore noteworthy the fact that politics arises from the necessity
that people have for a shared life. People need to make collective decisions
about sharing resources, relating to other groups or making plans for the
future.
From the members of the family trying to decide over where to take a
vacation to the decisions on the top political level concerning a possible war
or relating to the climate’s warmth or other major political decisions we
always relate to politics.
So, the more we try to define it the harder it is to see through it and to
try to define it. It is merely impossible to set boundaries to such a complex
and nuanced thing as "politics".
Perhaps the closest we could come with the definition of politics is: the
process through which groups try to reach collective decisions by seeking in
the same time to find and reconcile with the members within the group.
It is probably also one major point of the politics: people not always
agree; in fact were we all to agree all the time, politics should be redundant!
The way to come to an end is through persuasion and discussion.
The Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322) considered that “man is by
nature a political animal”. In other words, he meant by this that man is not
just unavoidable but that he is the essential human activity; political
engagement is by far what separates us from other species! He argues that
man can only express their meaning by participating in the political life and
eventually be able to come to consensus through participation and
involvement. Aristotle considered politics as the “master science”, the activity
through which people agree and try to improve their lives and create the Good
Society. Politics is most of all a social activity, a dialogue through which
people agree and disagree but it is never a monologue.

3
Defining government. Traditional systems of classification
“That government is best which governs not at all.”
Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience (1849)

Fist of all, how can one define “government” and what would be the
difference between the “political systems” or “regimes” and “a government”?
Usually when referring to “government” we speak about collective and
binding decisions that are being made by certain official institutions and their
constitutional way; as a result when defining the government we not only
refer to the institutions of the state but also to the process through which they
interact with the society.

Who rules?
Rulers One person the few the many

Who benefits?

All

Fig. 1.1 Aristotle’s six forms of government

A political system is, in effect, a subsystem of the larger social system.

It is a “system” in that there are interrelationships within a complex whole,
and “political” in that these interrelationships relate to the distribution of
power, wealth and resources in society. Political regimes can thus be
characterized as effectively by the organization of economic life as they are
by the governmental processes through which they operate.
A regime is therefore a “system of rules” that endures despite the fact
that governments come and go. Whereas governments can be changed by
elections, through dynastic succession, as a result of coups d’etat, and so on,
regimes can be changed only by military intervention from without or by
some kind of revolutionary upheaval from within.
As a result, one may say that the solving of people’s decision making is
a matter of government; in order to come to this end people join different
groups and most countries develop some kind of collective work. Groups
must not only reach decisions on their common affairs, they must also work
out how such decisions are to be reached. The question of who decides raises
the question of government. Nearly all large societies develop some kind of
institutions for making and enforcing collective decisions. These bodies are
the government.

4
 Whether the government is elected, appointed inherited or imposed,
may be a matter of a brief or geographical significance but it usually provides
the framework within which the activity of politics takes place. Generally
while referring to “the government”, one most often speaks about the highest
echelon of political appointments: such as the presidents or the department
heads, prime ministers or cabinet members. But in a broader way one refers to
all those organizations charged with the task of decision making within a
community.

So, as a result, the definition of the government would be that it

consists of institutions responsible for making collective decisions for society.
In a more narrow sense, government refers to the top political level within
such institutions. Yet, nowadays, our perceptions of the political institutions
governing states are changing. Phenomena such as globalised economic
competition, the expanding role of the world financial markets, the growing
importance of Multinational Corporation, the activities of transnational social
movements, and regional co-operation across national borders, European
integration and the growing importance of the international organizations
appear to undermine the power of nation-states and national governments.

In addition to such challenges from the supra-national level the nation

state and national governments are challenged by the growing demands of
actors at the sub national level such as particular regions or linguistic or
ethnic communities.
New social movements have challenged the monopoly of
“conventional” politics and politicians. National political institutions are
increasingly locked into the role of one actor amongst many in a number of
networks made up of interest-groups representatives and bureaucrats. Elected
governments seem to be no longer fully “in charge”. Their role often seems to
be no other than that of a coordinator in a multitude of overlapping networks.
Federal states and sovereign states
Governing always has a territorial dimension. Rulers need to extract
resources from the willingness of the population to remain within the orbit of
the state. To achieve this ends, the modern state consists of an intricate
network of organizations including the central government, its field officers in
cities, villages and towns, and subnational governments such as elected
regional and local authorities.
These bodies engage in a continuous effort to extract resources from,
provide services to, and maintain the support of the population they both
serve and control. My paperwork will therefore hereafter take up and examine
two basic solutions to the territorial organization of power – federal and
unitary government.

5
Unitary/sovereign states
The majority of the world’s countries are organised as sovereign and
unitary states which means that sovereignty lies within the central
government. Subnational authorities, whether regional or local, may make
policy as well as implement it but they do so with the permission of the
centre. In theory, the national government could abolish lower levels if it
wished so. In most unitary states, the legislature has only one chamber since
there is no need for an upper or states” house. After the complexities of
federalism, a unitary structure may seem straight-forward and efficient. In
unitary states, the standard pattern now is to have three levels of subnational
government – regional, provincial and local – such as France and Italy.
There are three ways in which unitary states may disperse power from
the centre:
 Deconcentration: it is more a matter of a purely administrative
organization; it refers to the location of central government employees
away from the capital. The case for a deconcentrated structure is that it
spreads the work around, enabling field offices to benefit from local
knowledge and freeing central departments to focus on policy-making.
 Decentralisation: delegating policy execution to subnational bodies,
traditional local authorities but also (and increasingly) a range of other
agencies.
 Devolution: is also a form of power dispersal which occurs when the
centre grants decision-making autonomy (including some legislative
power) to lower levels.
The principle of separation of powers complies with the fact that all the
political power is centred; about 70 % of the world’s states are sovereign
states.

Federalism: characteristics and origins

The distinctive feature of federalism is that legal sovereignty is shared
between the federal government and the constituent “states” (the name given
to provinces in a federation).
A federal constitution creates two layers of government, with specific
function allocated to each. The centre takes charge of external relations –
defence, foreign affairs and immigration – and some common domestic
functions such as the currency.
The functions of the state vary but typically include education and law
enforcement.
According to a classic theory the state is an organization which has a
total monopoly within a territory. In order to be able to speak about a “state”,
there must be real geographical delimitations where there should be a force
which shall have legislative power so much over the internal security as for
the external military security. All these together - territory, power, legitimacy

6
– as with the diplomatically recognition of the state, are important criterion of
the prerequisite of the state as such.
Just because the state is sovereign within its own territory, it does not
mean that all the national territorial organizations look the same in all
countries. In most of the countries the power of the state is practically applied
directly from the top to the local level. But there are also the cases in which
the central power is spread to regional level, countries like Switzerland, who
confer power to local or territorial authorities which then decide
astronomically.

In a federation, the existence and functions of the state are entrenched;

they can only be modified by amending the constitution. It is this protected
position of the states, not the extent of the powers, which distinguishes
federations (such as the USA and Canada) from unitary governments (such as
UK or France).
Multiple levels of governance are integral to a federation whereas in a
unitary system sovereignty resides solely within the centre. Furthermore, in
nearly all federations the states have a guaranteed voice in national political-
making through an upper chamber of the assembly, in which each state
normally receives equal representation.
In most unitary states, by contrast, the legislature consists of only one
chamber.
The federal states are though usually taking this measure in cases in
which there are cultural or ethnic differences or whether there is a problem in
size.
A basic condition for the state to be a federal state is that it should be
administrated on small territory divisions. Generally it ought to be difficult to
change its constitution; the easier it is the weaker the federalism. Federal
states are relatively few among world’s states; examples for federal states are:
in Europe, countries like Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia,
Russia, Switzerland or Germany; in America: Argentina, Canada, USA or
Mexico, in Asia: India, Malaysia or Pakistan.

Federalism is different from country to country; Spain for instance can

barely be named as federal state, although important parts of its territory
(Catalonia, the Basks, Andalusia or Galicia) have a considerable autonomy.
The Spanish constitution from 1978 gives the regions the possibility to
conserve their autonomy, but so far, they have partly implemented this statute.
For Belgium, on the other side, who got its constitution as a federal state in
1993, the situation is about the opposite. The territories are on one hand,
divided according to geographical delimitation: Wallon, the Flemish and the
region of Bruxelles. But on the other hand there is the language delimitation:
with the French, Flemish and German languages. Both delimitations make an
entity, yet the two are a complicated and hard to define “whole”.

7
 The normal condition for the federal state is that they should provide
the same power to all the countries within the federation.
However, asymmetric federalism comes also from the fact that there
are countries in which the states within a federation are being given more
power to some than to others.
One should describe the federal state with the following characteristics:
 Federal states should be democracies
 They should have a written constitution
 The Parliament should have two chambers
 Should have two different independent courts which shall decide over
the federal laws
 They should have a High Court
As a result, the main description of the federal state would be:
1. The separation of the main part of the territory into self-governed
regions. With certain exceptions from the role, the regional
autonomy should be the main principle for the delimitation of the
territory.
2. The separation of powers between the central and the regional
level. Usually there are one or more basic decision levels.
3. Equality between central and regional level. There should be
though some control over the delegated regional authority which
ought to be stipulated in the written constitution but mainly it
may be the result of an established tradition.
Size has most often two important dimensions which most often go
hand in hand: territory and a dense population. These factors taken each one
separately are problems for which federalism can offer solutions. A big
territory would also mean large distances between different provinces,
between the centre and the periphery. If the territory is too large it would
imply that the power of decision of the country is centralised far from the
citizens and that the contact between the people and the decisional power,
between the electors and the elected ones, disappears.
Long distances would also involve significantly long railways and
communication systems. A result of a decentralised system is most welcomed
as a solution for the administration of big and otherwise weak territories.
In such cases regional organisation was often the best solution.
It is therefore easy to understand why most states which have such problems,
also choose this solution.
In post-Franco Spain, for instance, Catalonia, the Basque Country and
Galicia were regarded as “historic communities” which entitled them to an
earlier and wider grant of autonomy then was awarded to other regions.
In post-communist Russia for instance, 21 of 89 territorial units are “republic”
authorised to adopt their own constitution, elect their own presidents and
choose their own law-making assemblies. In Canada, Quebec nationalists
have long thrived for their own French-speaking province.

8
 Asymmetric federalism is a natural response to differences in power
between the regions of a federation, but they ruin the risk of creating
instability as the less favoured states thrive after advantages accorded to the
more privileged autonomous provinces.

As a conclusion, a society which is both culturally and ethnically

heterogeneous could actually accept federalism as a complete natural
solution, a most trustworthy one if the different regions are relatively strong
concentrated. Through federal solution one may choose to give the reaction to
the exact problem which would concern that particular group.
There are also a few other factors which should be named as potential
reasons for the “segmentation” of the country: like language or religious
related matters. These matters might have more or less importance for maybe
the same particular group, yet the closer the groups feel the stronger the
solidarity for the foreign affairs politics. The economic wealth is also a very
important part for the well-being of the federal state.
Federalism is by far the most common solution for the distribution of
powers on the territorial level.
Federations must though be distinguished not only from unitary states
but also from confederations. While a federation is more like a state where the
sovereignty is shared between the centre and the state, the confederation is
based on the principle that states within the confederation are organised
separately and they retain their separate statehood. The decisions from the
centre are applied rather directly to the states and not to the citizens.

9
CHAPTER II
THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE
“The political executive” is the heart of the government; it refers to the
political leaders from the political parties ruling the country: presidents and
ministers, the prime ministers and cabinets; although it is possible to rule
without an assembly it is virtually impossible to preside over the country
without the political executive.
The political executive is the regime’s energizing force, setting
priorities, taking decisions and seeing after how they are carried out.
But the executive is nothing but organizations which make policies; the
putting into practice is, though up to the bureaucratic authorities.
In liberal democracies, executives fall into three groups: presidential,
parliamentary and semi-presidential.
In presidential governments, where we can point out USA as a foremost
example, the chief executive is elected independently of the assembly and for
a fixed period of time. Presidents are elected and remain loyal to the
electorate.
The parliamentary governments, as most of the parliaments in Europe
are, where the head of the government leads a council of ministers which
emerges from the assembly and continues in office just as long as it has the
support of the legislature. An elected president or monarch serves as the head
of the state and it only has a “ceremonial role”.
Semi-presidential governments mix the two of them. In such cases, the
prime minister coexists with the prime minister and they are accountable to
the assembly.

Presidential government
Most generally one says that the countries that don’t have a monarch
have a president as a head of state. While the monarch has most often limited
power the president is generally the head of the state and has ceremonial and
representative responsibilities with no virtual political power.
The most important role is that of the head of the government; he is the
one appointing the government’s members.
Presidential system of government:
Is a system of government which has a president as the head of
the government of the Republic; he has the executive powers.

As head of the state, the president also has the decisive power and
general responsibility for government’s work. He guides and leads
government’s affairs. He is the sole political responsible to the electors for the
government’s joint decisions. In fact, the principle of “separation of powers”
in state implies the fact that the president is responsible to the electors.

10
 As a general rule all organised societies have chosen legislative and
executive functions separately from each-other. This means that different
people or administrative bodies are responsible for making the rules which
should rule over the society and their implementation. The highest political
decisional organisation is the government. According to the tradition from
each country it is named: administration, commission, government or
committee.
In theory, the difference between the legislative and the executive is
much thinner than in practice. The government influences especially the law
making process mostly for those matters which are directly accountable to the
parliament. So, in principle, the parliament is mainly responsible for those
law proposals which are within the parliament’s authority. Without the
parliament’s approval, no laws can be issued.
The state’s structure may be classified from the following points of
view:
 Legislative and executive power
 Who is the head of the government and to whom is he responsible
 The legislative versus executive is represented through a monistic or
dualistic representation.
 This means that people elect their representatives for the legislature and
these, in their turn they choose the parliament. Both the parliament and
the executive obtain their legitimacy out of the same reason: people
will reflect through the elections.
Parliamentary system
Fundamentally, parliamentary system is the opposite of the presidential
system. In the presidential system the executive and the legislative
administrative organs and people’s legitimacy is represented in
parliamentarism as a fusion of powers; where the government is directly
responsible to the parliament (parliament’s majority). How the government is
elected or appointed is a matter which depends from country to country, the
general rule is though that it may be dissolved with parliament’s majority.

Parliamentary system of government:

The head of state are selected from within the assembly and govern
through a majority within the assembly. Generally speaking it
refers to all systems of governments ruled by popularly elected
parliaments.

Rules applied to the government are also valid for their leader. This
former one is responsible to the parliament. The head of the government is not
also the head of the state. The political power is that of the head of the
government when important political matters are being discussed.
Parliamentary system doesn’t mean that in practice is the parliament
who has the “decisional power”, most often though it is exactly the opposite:

11
the parliament has the most powerful political “tools” at his disposal. The
system works as long as the government has the parliament’s majority and
vice-versa.
Parliamentary government has three major features:
The governing parties emerge from the assembly, Government
ministers are drawn from and remain members of the legislature
The head of government (most often named Prime Minister, Premier,
and Chancellor) and the council of ministers (the cabinet) can be dismissed
from office through a vote of no confidence by parliament. Prime Minister’s
post is usually other than that of the head of state.
The executive is collegial, taking the form of a cabinet in which the
Prime Minister is just one among members with equal rights.
Party system and parliamentary government
The main influence of the operation of parliamentary government is the
party system. Where one single party holds the power and the majority in the
assembly, the government is stable and decisive. In most of the European
countries, no single party wins the majority in the legislature which makes the
leading parties to form coalitions which take longer time to form and have it
harder to resist.

Single party government3

The most relevant example for such a government is Great Britain where the
governing party holds the majority in both the cabinet as the assembly. The
tradition is that the executive should dominate over the assembly: it should
control its agenda. On the other hand, the cabinet is the top committee, but in
the same time, all the party leaders are represented here; they have the control
over the House of Commons for as long as they remain faithful to the
backbenchers (ordinary MPs who sit behind the front benches).
In fact, in the House the government seats are on side of the speaker
and the seats of the opposition party are on the other side. The two front
benches are occupied by government ministers and the opposite ministers are
on the opposite side as well.
The main idea in a strong political party system is that it should be
difficult for a single man to gain as much power as to get to the top on his
own, to build a career on his own.

Coalition party government

Proportional electoral party systems are most popular among European
countries; political parties share seats within the parliament and a majority
party rule is most unknown if not inexistent. The government is therefore
formed from coalition parties and they; its formation becomes consensual and
cautious. The normal procedure of asset is that once a party coalition is agreed
upon, there is the vote of the legislature which demonstrates their support for
3
See Annexe 2

12
the new government. In cases when one of the parties of the coalition
disintegrates, the other parties form the new government from the remaining
members and only in cases when this is impossible should they go for new
elections.
As a general rule, this type of governments” works best if:
The participating parties have the majority or at least a common
ideology
The coalition is based on a small number of parties
The economy is strong
The government is popular in the country
Monarhies with a parliamentary regime may be mentioned; such as
Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, Sweden. In such states there are Courts and
Constitutional Law-courts who aside from their normal attributions also see to
a constitutionality control of the laws.
As a result, parliamentary system is a system where the government,
inclusively the head of the government is directly responsible to the
parliament. The head of the government is also the head of state.

Semi-presidentialism
angajarea răspunderii guvernului în faţa parlamentului
alegerea de către popor a parlamentului şi a şefului de stat
şeful de stat are atribuţii relativ largi dar întotdeauna mai reduse ca cele a unui
preşedinte în regim prezidenţial
are atribuţii foarte largi in domeniul politicii externe şi în domeniul apărării
Preşedintele nu are drept de iniţiativă legislativa, însă are dreptul de a refuza
promulgarea legilor în acest sens având două modalitaţi de acţiune:
retrimiterea legii spre rediscutare la parlament si sesizarea Curţii sau
Trib.constituţional în vederea realizării controlului de constituţionalitate al
legilor.Preţedintele poate numi pe primul-ministru şi îl poate revoca şi la
propunerea acestuia, îi poate numi pe ceilalţi membrii ai guvernului
(ex.Franţa).
Guvernul- exercită în principal atribuţii executive alături de şefii de
stat.Primul-ministru este desemnat de către şeful de stat şi el trebuie să aibă
susţinerea majorităţii din parlament.
Parlamentul – poate fi bicameral sau unicameral.
Este unicameral in Filanda (unde parlamentul se numeşte Camera
Reprezentanţilor – 4 ani) şi în Portugalia (parlamentul – Adunarea Republicii
Portugeze – 4 ani).
Ex.bicamerale sunt: Franţa – constituit din Adunarea Naţională (5 ani) ales de
popor şi Senat (9 ani)- colectivitîţi administrative.
Austria : Consiliul Naţional (Camera Populară – ales pe o durată de 4 ani) şi
Consiliul Federal.
Iranda : Parlamentul bicameral - Camera reprezentanţilor pe o anumită durată
( 4 ani) si Senat.

13
Cele mai importante competenţe
exercită funcţie legilativă
importantă funcţie de control şi anume un control foarte eficient asupra
guvernului prin întrebări, interpelări , adoptarea unei moţiuni de cenzură sau
prin angajarea răspunderii guvernului în faţa parlamentului.
Parlamentul poate pune sub acuzare pe şeful de stat.
Există Curţi şi Tribunale ce realizează controlul de constituţionalitate a legii.
Şi anume: Curte Constituţionale în Austria, Consiliul Constituţional în Franţa,
Tribunal Constituţional în Portugalia. Aceste Curti sau Tribunale au pe lângă
control de constituţionalitate a legii şi alte atribuţii.
If presidentialism basic principle is the preservation of powers,
parliamentarism reflects the fusion of powers; semipresidentialism or dual
government is in fact a mixture of presidentialism and parliamentarism
together; it is a balance between the two. There is both an elected parliament
and president. The president is thereafter the one appointing the ministers and
he is also the one, most often, ruling over the government’s work. The main
rule is that the president can not be removed from power by a vote of no
confidence4. Government and, eventually, as a result, the president as well,
may be overthrown by the parliament which means that the parliament may
interfere with the executive’s affairs. But in the same time, the president has
the same powers as the parliament; in case he is not content with theirs work
he may abolish it and convoke new elections.
Semipresidentialism is trying to avoid both the risks of both the
presidential and parliamentarian systems.
Semi-presidential government: is an amalgamation
between the elected president and the prime minister
who leads over a cabinet accountable to a parliament.
As a general rule, prime minister is elected by the president; his main
responsibilities are the relations with the assembly while, the president, on the
other hand has an oversight role, is responsible for the foreign affairs and
sometimes takes emergency powers.

4
For more informations please see Annexe 2

14
3. Political Ideologies

Venturing into the world of politics is very slippery; we are all different and
most of us have different views and this is why we see the world with
different eyes. We all have presumptions and theories or assumptions about
the surrounding world but when it comes to the study of politics we need to
start from the political traditional theories or definitions which most often are
named as “political ideologies”5. Terms like liberalism, socialism,
conservatism, feminism, fascism, and so on they all present different views
over the political life.

Approaches to the study of politics

The origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and as
tradition it is usually referred to as “political philosophy”. This involved a
preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive or normative questions,
reflecting a concern with what “ought” or “must” be brought about, rather
than with what “is”.
Plato and Aristotle are usually identified as the founding fathers of this
tradition. Their ideas resurfaced in the writings of medieval theorists such as
Augustine (354-430) and Aquinas (1225-74). The central theme of Plato’s
work, for instance, was an attempt to describe the nature of the ideal society,
which in his view took the form of a benign dictatorship dominated by a class
of philosopher kings.
Such writings have formed the basis of what is called the “traditional”
approach to politics. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines
that have been central to political thought. Most commonly, it has taken the
form of a history of political thought that focuses on a collection of “major”
thinkers (that spans, for instance, Plato to Marx) and a canon of “classic”
texts.
Concepts, models and theories
Concepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis.
A concept is a general idea about something, usually expressed in a
single word or a short phrase. A concept is more than a proper noun or the
name of a thing. There is, for example, a difference between talking about a
cat (a particular and unique cat) and having a concept of a “cat” (the idea of a
cat). The concept of a cat is not a “thing” but an “idea”, an idea composed of
the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character: “a furry
mammal”, “small”, “domesticated”, “catches rats and mice”, and so on. The
concept of “equality” is thus a principle or ideal. This is different from using
the term to say that a runner has “equalled” a world record, or that an
inheritance is to be shared “equally” between two brothers. In the same way,
the concept of “presidency” refers not to any specific president, but rather to a
set of ideas about the organization of executive power.
5
For a comprehensive ideology worksheet please see Annexe 3

15
 What, then, is the value of concepts? Concepts are the tools with which
we think, criticize, argue, explain and analyse. Merely perceiving the external
world does not in itself give us knowledge about it. In order to make sense of
the world we must, in a sense, impose meaning upon it, and this we do
through the construction of concepts. Quite simply, to treat a cat as a cat, we
must first have a concept of what it is. Concepts also help us to classify
objects by recognizing that they have similar forms or similar properties. A
cat, for instance, is a member of the class of “cats”.
Concepts are therefore “general”: they can relate to a number of
objects, indeed to any object that complies with the characteristics of the
general idea itself. It is no exaggeration to say that our knowledge of the
political world is built up through developing and refining concepts that help
us make sense of that world.
Concepts, in that sense, are the building blocks of human knowledge.
Nevertheless, concepts can also be slippery customers. In the first
place, the political reality we seek to understand is constantly shifting and is
highly complex. There is always the danger that concepts such as
“democracy”, “human rights” and “capitalism” will be more rounded and
coherent than the unhappily realities they seek to describe. Max Weber tried
to overcome this problem by recognizing particular concepts as “ideal types”.
This view implies that the concepts we use are constructed by singling out
certain basic or central features of the phenomenon in question, which means
that other features are downgraded or ignored altogether.
The concept of “revolution” can be regarded as an ideal type in this
sense, in that it draws attention to a process of fundamental and usually
violent political change. It thus helps us make sense of, say, the 1789 French
Revolution and the eastern European revolutions of 1989-91 by highlighting
important parallels between them. The concept must nevertheless be used
with care because it can also conceal vital differences, and thereby distort
understanding - in this case, for example, about the ideological and social
character of revolution. For this reason, it is better to think of concepts or
ideal types not as being “true” or “false”, but merely as more or less “useful”.
A further problem is that political concepts are often the subject of deep
ideological controversy. Politics is, in part, a struggle over the legitimate
meaning of terms and concepts. Enemies may argue, fight and even go to war,
all claiming to be “defending freedom”, “upholding democracy” or “having
justice on their side”. The problem is that words such as “freedom”,
“democracy” and “justice” have different meanings to different people. How
can we establish what is “true” democracy, “true” freedom or “true” justice?
The simple answer is that we cannot. Just as with the attempt to define
“politics” above, we have to accept that there are competing versions of many
political concepts. Such concepts are best regarded as “essentially contested”
concepts (Gallie, 1955/56), in that controversy about them runs so deep that
no neutral or settled definition can ever be developed. In effect, a single term

16
can represent a number of rival concepts, none of which can be accepted as its
“true” meaning. For example, it is equally legitimate to define politics as what
concerns the state, as the conduct of public life, as debate and conciliation,
and as the distribution of power and resources.
Models and theories are broader than concepts; they comprise a range
of ideas rather than a single idea.
A model is usually thought of as a representation of something, usually
on a smaller scale, as in the case of a doll’s house or a toy aeroplane.
In this sense, the purpose of the model is to resemble the original object
as faithfully as possible. However, conceptual models need not in any way
resemble an object. It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that a computer
model of the economy should bear a physical resemblance to the economy
itself. Rather, conceptual models are analytical tools; their value is that they
are devices through which meaning can be imposed upon what would
otherwise be a bewildering and disorganized collection of facts. The simple
point is that facts do not speak for themselves: they must be interpreted, and
they must be organized. Models assist in the accomplishment of this task
because they include a network of relationships that highlight the meaning
and significance of relevant empirical data. The best way of understanding
this is through an example. One of the most influential models in political
analysis is the model of the political system developed by David Easton
(1979, 1981).
The terms theory and model are often used interchangeably in politics.
Theories and models are both conceptual constructs used as tools of political
analysis. However, strictly speaking, a theory is a proposition. It offers a
systematic explanation of a body of empirical data. In contrast, a model is
merely an explanatory device; it is more like a hypothesis that has yet to be
tested. In that sense, in politics, while theories can be said to be more or less
“true”, models can only be said to be more or less “useful”. Clearly, however,
theories and models are often interlinked: broad political theories may be
explained in terms of a series of models. For example, the theory of pluralism
encompasses a model of the state, a model of electoral competition, a model
of group politics, and so on.
However, virtually all conceptual devices, theories and models contain
hidden values or implicit assumptions.
This is why it is difficult to construct theories that are purely empirical;
values and normative beliefs invariably intrude. In the case of concepts, this is
demonstrated by people’s tendency to use terms as either “hurrah! Words”
(for example “democracy”, “freedom” and “justice”) or “boo! Words” (for
example “conflict”, “anarchy”, “ideology”, and even “politics”. Models and
theories are also “loaded” in the sense that they contain a range of biases. It is
difficult, for example, to accept the claim that rational-choice theories
(examined above) are value-neutral. As they are based on the assumption that
human beings are basically egoistical and self-regarding, it is perhaps not

17
surprising that they have often pointed to policy conclusions that are
politically conservative. In the same way, class theories of politics, advanced
by Marxists, are based on broader theories about
What is political ideology?
Generally speaking, an ideology is “a sum of ideas, beliefs and doctrines
representatives for a period of time, society or a class” (Le Petit Robert,
1993:1122).
One of the most representative ideologies is that of Marx and Engels
who, in one of their early works, The German Ideology took up the idea of
the “ruling class” which with other words was considering the maintaining of
the class system and the perpetuate exploitation. Their basic idea was that
ideas of the ruling party at the time are also ideas ruling the society. The idea
is that the class which has the mental production at its disposal also has the
control over the means of Mental production. (Marx and Engels, [1846]
1970:64)
The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas,
but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the
imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material
conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing
and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a
purely empirical way. The material conditions existing at a given time period
Marx refers to as the means of production.
Any given time period’s ideology is most clearly revealed by uncovering the
material conditions of production: the means of production, as well as the
relations of production (the ways the society structures the relations between
individuals, particularly through the division of labour), which together make
up the mode of production: "life involves before everything else eating and
drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act
is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of
material life itself". For Marx, it is the materiality of human production that
directly influences ideology: "Life is not determined by consciousness, but
consciousness by life". As Marx and Engel explain further in The German
Ideology, Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out
empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of
the social and political structure with production.
The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-
process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in
their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they
operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material
limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.
This belief that one can directly access the real conditions of history
(sometimes referred to as "reflection theory" or "vulgar Marxism") is
questioned by neo-Marxists, particularly in the wake of Althusser”s Lacanian
rethinking of ideology. Marx is, in fact, more complicated on this issue,

18
however, since at other times he suggests that some aspects of ideology (for
example, literature) can have a semi-autonomous existence; that is, that such
cultural products can exert an influence that is at odds with the dominant
mode of production
Summary
 Government is any mechanism through which ordered rule is
maintained, its central feature being its ability to make collective
decisions and enforce them. A political system, or regime, however,
encompasses not only the mechanisms of government and institutions
of the state, but also the structures and processes through which these
interact with the larger society.
 The classification of political systems serves two purposes. First, it aids
understanding by making comparison possible and helping to highlight
similarities and differences between otherwise shapeless collections of
facts. Second, it helps us to evaluate the effectiveness or success of
different political systems.
 Regimes have been classified on a variety of bases. “Classical”
typologies, stemming from Aristotle, concentrated on constitutional
arrangements and institutional structures, while the “three worlds”
approach highlighted material and ideological

19
CHAPTER III
POLITICAL PARTIES
Democracy is a blender of self-governing processes, both social and official
in nature. They are visible not just as participation in public life (for example,
advocacy, voting, assembly, contributing time and money to groups) but also
in the form of state, political, and social institutions (constitutions and the
bodies they establish, credible rights, a free press, electoral and judicial
processes, shared values, and social organizations) that both sustain
participation and restrain its excesses. Links and balance between
participation and institutions are essential: Participation without institutions is
chaotic, ineffective, and likely to serve the few at the expense of the many.
Institutions without participation are an empty exercise at best—and more
often, at worst, tools of control from above. People are most likely to
participate politically in vigorous, sustained ways when they have a stake in
the outcomes
The twentieth century seemed to be the century of parties. While in the
Western Europe, lots of political parties struggled for more electorate, in
communist and fascist states the ruling parties monopolizes the power in their
attempt to control the country in order to organize the society and to obtain
results over a large number of citizens. In most of the cases it was a matter of
people dealing with elections for the first time and most surely it was a matter
of uncertainty, manipulation and creation of new ideologies or orientations.
The main “role” of a political party may be as such:
 Political party’s role is that of giving directions to the government and
see to the orientation of it for the best interest of the people
 Political parties work best as elite recruitment; they should elect and
prepare people for future public representation
 Parties act like interest aggregation they choose, “compress” or
combine interests. They are a bridge between the people and the state
 Political parties are a way of interpretation for the contemporary world,
they are a point of reference
Political parties are permanent organisations competing most
often for positions within the government. Unlike interest
groups whose mission is mainly to influence the government,
political parties try to stabilise the state.
The European system of parties reflects the way parties are organized;
membership is to be paid, parties ought to have a strong ideology and strong
ideology. By contrast, in America parties are weak; the political parties barely
exist except elections. Party presidents hardly impose themselves from within
a party they most often come from the outside and seek to gain support on
different procedures.

Parties and democracy

20
Paradoxically, while democracy is a public good, self-interest is critical to its
vitality. Open, competitive, and fair participation within a framework of
legitimate, credible institutions enables citizens and groups to defend their
interests, to act on issues they care about, and to hold officials accountable for
their decisions. Institutions enlivened by contention among socially rooted
interests can moderate conflict; aggregate demands into public policy backed
by a working consensus, and earn legitimacy. Political parties are among the
most crucial institutions in these processes.
Parties embody both participation and institutions, and they are
essential to negotiating a balance between them. In their many forms, they do
not just contest elections, but also mobilize and organize the social forces that
energize democracy, on a continuing basis. Even the most determined
democrats require a lasting organizational base, a pool of resources, and legal
standing in the political process. Parties connect leaders to followers and
simplify political choices, framing them in terms of citizens” own interests. In
many societies, parties provide a range of non-political benefits as well,
including social activities, recognition and status for people and groups
(consider the old ethnic “balanced ticket”), and a sense of security,
connectedness, and efficacy.
Parties also perform critical moderating and commitment functions
identified long ago by E.E. Schattschneider but frequently overlooked
today.10 Simply put, where parties are strong, interest groups need them more
than they need interest groups. Party leaders can, and usually must, be
brokers, working out compromises and seeing that these are honoured. Strong
parties emphasize points of commonality and discourage excess—not in the
name of civic virtue, but in the name of winning elections. Parties by
themselves do not preclude people seeking power through arms, bribery, the
power of a charismatic leader, or the strength of the mob, and parties
themselves are open to a range of abuses. But without them, citizens and
societies have few genuinely democratic alternatives.
PARTIES, POLITICAL CONTENTION
Competition
Parties, and the party systems they collectively embody, should offer realistic
chances at influence to a diverse array of interests and candidates. Ideally, that
means an opportunity to win elections, but sometimes losing contenders can
shift the terms of debate, too. Competition requires that the rights to vote and
run for office be protected for all, and that electoral procedures be honest and
open to public scrutiny. The ability to contribute funds likewise enhances
competition, both directly, by providing key resources, and indirectly, by
giving parties incentives to build their connections with popular
constituencies. Competition works best when it is orderly—two or three
alternatives are preferable to 40—and decisive, with clear mandates and
winners. Real opportunities to compete for power, as well as for votes and
contributions on a broad social scale, create incentives for parties to contend

21
on issues, and in ways that reflect popular values. They also are good reasons
for losers to accept the results of one election while preparing aggressively to
win the next.
Organization
Sound parties give effective voice to popular discontents and aspirations,
providing a continuing structure for mass politics. They organize legislatures
and their staffs, executives (at times including civil servants, though therein
lie risks), and affiliates such as foundations, think tanks, charities, social
clubs, labour and trade organizations, and mass media. Loyalty and, at the
elite level, discipline are maintained through diverse appeals ranging from
policy commitments, popular leaders, and social activities to political
patronage and the dislike of competitors.
Strong parties also build a base of volunteers motivated by the party’s
long-term goals. Poorly organized parties may resort to whipping up ethnic,
class, and ideological discontents; worse yet—because they cannot motivate
voluntary efforts through credible political promises—they become dependent
upon paid political workers, worsening their resource problems and leaving
their structures and agendas hostage to the short-term interests of political
mercenaries.

22
CHAPTER IV
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT IN THE UK. HISTORIC
BACKGROUND; THE FIRST SIGNS OF THE PRESENT
PARLIAMENT
Nowadays United Kingdom is a unitary state including the Geat Britain
(England, Scotland and Walles) and North Ireland. The founding acts were the
1536 law which unified Wales with England; the Act of Union (1706) and
later the Union with Scotland Act (1707) which unified Scotland and England
and the Act of Union (1801) which unified Ireland to the United Kingdom.
Although Scotland, and partly Ireland as wellhave maintained their juridic
powers, the legislative power still remained in the hands of the souvereign
Parliament of Westminster.

Along the history English kings enjoyed an authority and power which could
be envied at any time by the French monarchs. The crown represented the
unity of England. The crowning ceremony was underlining the semi Devine
powers of the king. Yet, even though the king had been had consultant or
advisors along time, it is still difficult to give a certain date for the foundation
of the English Parliament.
The royal administration – which dealt with the implementation of the
legal decisions, with the decision making and the establishing of the fares and
taxes – was spreading to the extremities of the British Islands and towards all
directions. King’s administration implied cooperation. In every committee,
the sheriffs and the new peace judges worked better if they had the help of the
noblemen whose interests were closely related to the king’s interests. In fact
this former one was the representative of the only source of wealth and power
from the contiguous.
The Parliament and its representatives from the House of Communes
were to play an important role in the governing in the late medieval epoch.
Under a monarchical system of government, monarchs needed to seek
consultation on the decisions they take, otherwise nobody will obey the
monarchs, or their decisions. The English Parliament evolved at a time when
the monarchy lacked a police force or a standing army to enforce their laws.
Therefore subjects who held any degree of power in the kingdom had
to enforce them. The monarchy had agents in every part of the country.
However under the feudal system that evolved in England following the
Norman invasion of 1066, the laws of the Crown could not have been upheld
without the support of the nobility and the clergy. The former had economic
and “military” power bases of their own through major ownership of land and
feudal obligations, and the Church - then still part of the Roman Catholic

23
church and so owing ultimate loyalty to Rome - was virtually a law unto itself
in this period as it had its own system of religious law courts.
The English Parliament, unique among the Medieval European
Parliaments, was involved as much in important matters as in some minor
matters advised by the members. It was in fact a standpoint for the taxes
monopoly; they were voting new law projects and modify the old ones. In
time, even the members of the House of Commons have earned privileges
such as the right to free opinion, or immunity which made impossible their
arrest as long as they were employees of the Parliament.
The Parliament remained in essence a governing instrument at the
kings’ clearance, yet it was still the Parliament the one allowed to address
critics to the royal politics and to the ministers, even though it wouldn’t allow
itself to address critics to the monarch himself.
The king, the court and the ministers were residing mostly in
Westminster, London and Windsor. The altar of the English Parliament was
the Westminster Abbey so that the meetings usually took place at
Westminster. Gradually the meetings were also taking place at London which
became one of the most populated and wealthy town; later on in the medieval
eve, the city will become the main British city and the English capital.
In the 12th Century, the Great Council, as the Parliament used to be
called, would consist out of archbishops, bishops, abbots, barons and earls;
which werw the pillars of the feudal system. These Great Councils were
loosely based on the structure and concept of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot,
although the importance of the latter institution to the later development of
parliament can be over exaggerated. In order for the nobility and clergy to be
willing to participate in enforcing the rule of law as laid down by the king,
they had to be in agreement with what he was doing. Therefore, post-1066
English monarchs formed Great Councils consisting of the entire nobility and
senior members of the clergy from whom they sought consultation and
consent when taking major decisions.
In fact the British parliament established since the medieval time
survived in this form up to the Act of Union from 1707 when the bases of the
Parliament of the Great Britain were set out and which will later become, the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. The modern Parliament of the United
Kingdom is one of the oldest legislative bodies in the world, supposing the
oldest, and for this reason it is sometimes referred to as the "Mother of all
Parliaments". This parliament will later include Ireland, as a result of the Act
of Union from the 1800.
Today’s parliament is bicameral, whith an upper house, the House of
Lords, and a lower house, the House of Commons. The Queen is the third
component of the Parliament. The House of Lords includes two different
types of constituencies: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church
of England) and the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage); its members
are not elected by the population at large but are appointed by past or current

24
governments. The House of Commons is a democratically elected chamber
with elections to it held at least every 5 years. The two Houses meet in
separate chambers in the Palace of Westminster (commonly known as the
"Houses of Parliament"), in the City of Westminster in London. By
constitutional convention, all government ministers, including the Prime
Minister, are members of the House of Commons or, less often, the House of
Lords, and are thereby accountable to the respective branches of the
legislature.
The English Parliament traces its origins to the Anglo-Saxon
Witenagemot. A thousand years ago, before the Norman Conquest in 1066,
decisions were taken only after consulting with the Great Council which was
an assembly of “representatives” of people from each district. In 1066,
William of Normandy brought a feudal system, where he sought the advice of
a council of tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastics before making laws. After the
Norman Conquest to 1215 the king ruled by himself and took decisions on his
own; after this date he was forced to sign Magna Carta6 which took away
some of his powers.
The Constituency of the Commune Chamber representing the
consequence of an historical evolution linked especially to the necessity of the
solutioning in a constructive way of the state matters related to the taxes or
national charges7.
The so-called "Model Parliament" was adopted by King Edward I in
1295. By the reign of Edward II, Parliament had been separated into two
Houses: one including the nobility and higher clergy, the other including the
knights and burgesses, and no law could be made, nor any tax levied, without
the consent of both Houses as well as of the Sovereign. The Great British
Parliament would contain all the representatives that were entitled to be part
of the parliament. The Laws in Wales Acts of 1535–42 annexed Wales as part
of England and brought Welsh representatives to Parliament.
The parliament was still subordinated to the king up to the XIV century,
when it was to be separated into two chambers and because from 1351 these
two groups used to have separate meetings, they start meeting in separate
buildings as well, the Chamber of Lords and the Chamber of the Communes.
But at this time the institutions did not have yet the attributions of a
legislative power. It was in the XV century, that the parliament receives new
attributions: so that one of the chambers receives the law project and than
send it to the other chamber for approval and than afterwards it was to be sent
for signature to the king; whether approved, it was to become regulation.
It was during this period of time that the parliament was to become
more powerfull. So that in 1399, King Richard the IInd was to be overthrown
by the parliament.

6
See Annexe 1
7
Benone Puşcă, Andy Puşca – Drept constituţional Comparat

25
 When Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by the Scottish King James
VI, (thus becoming James I of England), the countries both came under his
rule but each retained its own Parliament. James I's successor, Charles I,
quarrelled with the English Parliament and, after he provoked the Wars of the
Three Kingdoms, their dispute developed into the English Civil War. Charles
was executed in 1649 and under Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of
England the House of Lords was abolished, and the House of Commons made
subordinate to Cromwell. After Cromwell's death, the Restoration of 1660
restored the monarchy and the House of Lords.
Amidst fears of a Roman Catholic succession, the Glorious Revolution
of 1688 deposed James II (James VII of Scotland) in favour of the joint rule
of Mary II and William III, whose agreement to the English Bill of Rights
introduced a constitutional monarchy, though the supremacy of the Crown
remained. For the third time, a Convention Parliament, i.e., one not
summoned by the king, was required to determine the succession.
A meeting in 1295 became known as the Model Parliament because it set the
pattern for later Parliaments. In 1307, Edward I agreed not to collect certain
taxes without consent of the realm. He also enlarged the court system.The
first English Parliament was formed during the reign of King Henry III in the
13th century.
In 1265, Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, who was in rebellion
against Henry III, summoned a parliament of his supporters without any or
prior royal authorisation. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons
were summoned, as were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from
each borough. Knights had been summoned to previous councils, but the
representation of the boroughs was unprecedented. De Montfort's scheme was
formally adopted by Edward I in the so-called "Model Parliament" of 1295.
William of Normandy brought to England the feudal system of his native
Normandy, and sought the advice of the curia regis, before making laws. This
body is the germ from which Parliament, the higher courts of law, and the
Privy Council and Cabinet have sprung. Of these, the legislature is formally
the High Court of Parliament; judges sit in the Supreme Court of Judicature;
and only the executive government is no longer conducted in a royal court.
Estate debated independently; by the reign of Edward III, however, the
Parliament had been separated into two Houses and was assuming
recognisability in its modern form.
A characteristic of the United Kingdom is that the kingdom does not
have a constitution; in fact the relationship between the major institutions of
the state is based on different historical documents – such as Magna Carta
(1215), Bill of Rights (1688), Act of Union (1707) and Parliament Acts (1911
and 1949); these documents do not have the status of a written constitution
nor that of a supreme law. Therefore the British constitution is formed number
of flexible laws, the Court of Justice decisions, conventions; customs and
traditions. The concept of the queen’s parliamentary souvereignity through

26
which the Queen would have ilimited powers in the Parliament, had remained
the fundament of the constitution over a number of years and had embraced a
dualist comprehension between the national and international legislature.

Type Bicameral
Houses House of Lords, House of Commons
Members 1,384 (646 MPs, 738 Peers)
Political groups Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats,
Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Féin,
Social Democratic and Labour Party, United Kingdom Independence Party,
Ulster Unionist Party, Respect – The Unity Coalition
Last elections May 5, 2005
Meeting place Palace of Westminster, Westminster, London, UK
Web site http://www.parliament.uk/

27
CONCLUSIONS:
Résumé des principaux résultats, exposé des limites théoriques et
méthodologiques. Discussion des résultats en relation avec les résultats
connus dans la littérature sur le sujet, conclusion.

28
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Literature:

Bondel, J. (2002), “Party Government, Patronage, and Party Decline in

Western Europe”, in Gunther, J.R.Montero & J.J. Linz , Political Parties: Old
concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, PDF format
Deac Livia, Nicolescu Adrian British life and Civilization Editura Didactica
Si Pedagogica Bucuresti 1983
Puşcă Benone, Andy Puşca – Drept constituţional Comparat, Ed. Evrika,
Braila, 1998.
Clark Alistair Parties and political linkage: towards a comprehensive
framework for analysis, Dep. Of Politics and International relations,
University of Aberdeen, 2003, PDF format.
De La Boetie Etienne The Politics of obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary
Servitude, 1975, Canada by Black Rose Books, Montreal, The Mises Institute,
Auburn, Alabama
Genoveva Vrabie, Les Regimes Politiques des pays de l’UE et de la
Roumanie Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, Bucuresti 2002
Johnston Michael, Political parties and democracy in theoretical and
practical perspectives National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
Political Finance Policy, Parties, And Democratic Development, the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2005
Nicolescu Corneliu, Anglia si spiritul englez de la celti la imperiu, Pro Vita,
2005
Maurois Andre, Istoria Angliei, Ist volume, Editura Politica, Bucuresti –
1970
Maurois Andre, Istoria Angliei, IInd volume, Editura Politica, Bucuresti –
1970
Richard Musman and D’Arcy Adrian-Vallance, Britain today Longman
House, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex, England, 1989, printed in Romania, 1993,
Coresi SRL, Bucharest
Political Parties, Classroom Law Writing Project /Croatia, Delaware,
Maryland and Oregon,
Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics 7th
Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Revised and updated, may 2007

29
Internet links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Philosophy
http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/6/9/6/16960/16960.htm
http://infomotions.com/alex/?cmd=search&query=president
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/subjects/
http://www.e-book.com.au/freebooks.htm#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

30
ANNEXES

Annexe 1. Magna Carta

Magna Carta cum statutis angliae, page 1 of manuscript, fourteenth century

31
Annexe 2

In all the parliamentary systems, the head of state may be a hereditary

monarch, a directly or indirectly elected president. The position is however
hereditary or it has very little executive or ceremonial authority.

Figure 2.1 Parliamentary Governments *

32
Annexe 3:

33
Annexe 4: Ideology Worksheet. What is your ideology?

An ideology is a systematic set of values that enables a person to view public

policy issues in a consistent way. Your answers to these questions will
indicate if your political values lean toward the liberal or conservative
ideologies. Answer “T” for true or “F” for false in response to the following
questions.
____ 1. The federal government places too many restrictions on the way
corporations conduct their business.
____ 2. Unions reduce productivity by discouraging workers from performing
tasks not agreed to in a labour management contract.
____ 3. High government taxes discourage citizens from working hard.
____ 4. Most people on welfare would prefer a real job.
____ 5. Government should create programs that will reduce America’s large
number of poor people.
____ 6. The best way to help the poor is to set policies that help businesses
earn a profit so they can hire the underprivileged.
____ 7. Taxes should be used to redistribute income by taking from the
wealthy and giving to the poor.
____ 8. The government has a special responsibility to protect and assist
disadvantaged minorities.
____9. Government programs on behalf of the disadvantaged discourage
people from helping themselves.
____ 10. America’s high crime rate is directly traceable to the persistence of
poverty and discrimination.
____ 11. America’s high crime rate is due to courts being too lenient with
criminals.
____12. Crime, unemployment and poverty will be reduced if Americans
return to the traditional values of hard work, self-discipline and belief in God.
____13. Government should censor or restrict films and publications that
undermine the nation’s moral fibber.
____ 14. The First Amendment should protect pornography from government
censorship. Adults must be free to think and speak as they wish.
____ 15. Most Third World unrest can be traced to Soviet attempts to inspire
anti-Western revolutions in these areas.
____ 16. Most Third World unrest is caused by weak governments and
economics, poverty, famine and internal conflicts – a legacy of Western
political and economic imperialism.
____ 17. Gays should be allowed to serve in the US Armed Forces.
____ 18. Jobs and the economy are more important than saving endangered
species.

34