Benefits and drawbacks of a Bill of Rights
1.Does a bill of rights help or hinder social change? Give examples (make sure you consider the arguments for and against)
2.Do people need new means of participation in the political system to maintain the health of democracy?
3.Should the government be more accountable to the public for out-sourcing government services. How might this be achieved?
1. A bill of rights which is also known as a charter of rights or a declaration of rights are a list which articulate the primary rights which citizens of a company have. The purpose of the document is to provide protection to the citizens’ form the other citizens and public officials towards the infringement of their rights. The bill or rights provides basic rights to the citizens which are necessary for their proper stay and enjoyment in the society. The bill of rights provides protection to the society for arbitrary government and rough politician action. It also severs as a necessary standard in relation to administration of government policies and formation of laws. The bill of rights provided an official recognition to specific human rights which may be regarded as the pillars of social change. It provides protection to the minority section in the society which will help them improve their position in the society which would evidently facilitate social change. The bill of rights also enhances the reputation of the country in the international community (Williams and Williams 2016).
However it is also argued the bill of rights may politicize the judiciary which would definitely hinder social change. Another way through which social change may be hindered through the incorporation of the bill of rights is that the capacity of the legislature to formulate laws is restricted and its sovereignty is eroded. The bill of rights may further be regarded as undemocratic as it would provide unelected judges virtually executive powers and would lead to weakening the required checks towards good governance which would evidently hamper social change as without good governances positive social change cannot be facilitated. With respect to the general and simple language which is used in a bill of rights, it can be stated that legislations would be weaker as compared to common law which has existed since ages (Weins and Flynn 2014). This means that social change would not be facilitated as the law would still be based on the old principles of common law. however in favor of the situation that the bill of right does enhances social changes it can be stated that as the powers of the judges would be enhanced towards subjective interpretation of the legislations which would ensure that the judges are able to interpret a provision based on the existing circumstances. Thus it can be stated that although there are several positive impacts of the bill of rights which provides protection to the citizens, there are also some detriments which the rights brings towards hindering social changes. Moreover it has been stated by (Galligan and Morton 2017) that the bill of rights is against the traditions in Australia. The bill also politicizes the courts and limits the rights of a person however comprehensive the bill is, it would not been able to adopt with the changing time and society. Further it can also be argued that the bill of rights does not make the society better automatically, however it has the potential of hampering social change.
The need for new means of political participation
2. We are living in a period where the interest in the democracy in increasing and the faith which people have in the system is declining. According to Stoker (2016) elections are not an appropriate method of enhancing participation of citizens in politics to ensure a healthy democracy. It can be stated that the basis of a democracy is formed through elections. However it is the sole uselessness of elections which incorporates a theater of misguided and empty promises which undermines trust in the democratic process. Democracy has been wrongly conflated with elections and they are merely a result of maintenance of an outmoded system where we stay in a technological era which asks for and can also provide for more informed and enhanced participation. Elections can be described as the fossil fuel of politics. This is because in the initial states elections provided a huge boost to democracy like oil provided to the economy however in the present day as oil provides huge problems to the economy of its own, elections in the same way are causing problems to politics and democracy. A remedy to this situation can be that of what is called “sortition” this is a system which had been operated in the Renaissance states of Florence and Venice. The idea is that a small number of public is selected randomly through a lottery and power is provided to them towards studying a specific issue as at large the population’s representatives. Each area of debate or legislation could be covered by different representatives who are randomly selected. Through the use of the method issues in relation to representation and identity are dealt theoretically. Accurate representation by sexual, women and ethnic minorities as well as different age groups can be provided through the use of this system towards addressing any issue. This would also ensure that the attention in relation to common good is increased and election and corruption fever is reduced. Thus system is operating quite successfully in relation to the jury system. Here 12 random members of the public are selected to make an informed decision in relation to most far-reaching and heinous. Thus in the given situation the system can also be successfully deployed in relation to governmental and political realm (Bennett 2016).
However it can be stated that the above arguments look quite idealistic or optimistic. For example the system of jury functions properly in situation where the evidence is simple and straight forward. The evidence does not demand for expertise and where such demands were present the decisions of the jury has been highly criticized by the media. Among such problems in the political system where for instance an expensive transport is recommended by the sortition of the public which is not working out than who is an opposing response in relation to it is registered. There is no option of voting out the public in the situation. In this situation a job which is fulfilled by the politics is that they work as democratic punch bags. Thus, although elections may not be necessarily productive and edifying it is essential in the present situation towards maintaining heath of the democracy (Roberts 2015).
3. The accountability of the government towards the public for outsourcing public services is highly consented. While the government insists that the accountability is retained it is provided by the analysts that there is an accountability deficit. In Tingey (2014) the deficit in relation to the accountability of the government towards the public was confirmed through the use of Commonwealth Job Network. The government now days prefers to opt out of direct public service provisions and instead go for outsourcing the services to private independent contractors. it is the thinking of the government that the public has no issue in relation to who provides them the public services and only care for how effective the services are. However it is clear thorough various opinion polls and surveys that there is significant public scepticism and unease in relation to the functions of private companies towards delivering public services (Bovens, Goodin and Schillemans (2014). This creates a gap between the perceptions of politicians and voters. It is evident that where the government indulges in outsourcing public services there is a risk of corruption and mal practices involved in the situation. Further wherever a risk of corruption is present the ratification of accountability should also be there. Thus in the given situation it is the duty of the government to be accountable to the public where they indulge in an act of out sourcing public services. When public services are outsourced the control which the government has in relation to such services are reduced. Further such services directly impact the public who has faith on the government that they are going to provide the best possible services to the public. When the services are outsourced to the private sector their primary motive is to make profit and not public sector. Thus as the public has significant trust in the government they should abide by the trust. The government and fiduciary of the public must ensure that they are held accountable to the public in case anything goes wrong with the process of outsourcing (Hoque and Pearson 2018). The accountability of the government to the public in situation where public services are outsourced can be enhanced by application of new system which would enhance scrutiny of the public service outsourcing. Further any form of tolerance in relation to the evil of corruption has to be abolished through the use of analytics and big data. These tools have been successfully used worldwide in relation to the abolishment of the corruption. The tools are used to identify corrupt behavior and fraudulent activities. In addition the issue of accountability can be further addressed through the publication of public government financial statements on a regular basis. In addition the government may also publish a proper plan available to the public in relation to the action of outsourcing public services.
The accountability of governments when outsourcing public services
I do not totally agree with the above response. The question which has been asked is that does a bill of rights help or hinder social change. There are several benefits which the bill of rights has in relation to the society. The bill or rights provides basic rights to the citizens which are necessary for their proper stay and enjoyment in the society. The bill of rights provides protection to the society for arbitrary government and rough politician action. It also severs as a necessary standard in relation to administration of government policies and formation of laws. The bill of rights provided an official recognition to specific human rights which may be regarded as the pillars of social change. It provides protection to the minority section in the society which will help them improve their position in the society which would evidently facilitate social change. The bill of rights also enhances the reputation of the country in the international community.
In the light of such benefits there are also some disadvantages which the bill of rights has in relation to social change. argued the bill of rights may politicize the judiciary which would definitely hinder social change. Another way through which social change may be hindered through the incorporation of the bill of rights is that the capacity of the legislature to formulate laws is restricted and its sovereignty is eroded. Further it can also be argued that the bill of rights does not make the society better automatically, however it has the potential of hampering social change.
Yes, I agree with the above post I also share similar view in relation to participation in the political system to maintain the health of democracy. Democracy is a government which is “of the people, for the people and by the people”. This signifies that the active and total participation of the public is system is of utmost importance for the purpose of ensuring its health. However the current way in which people participates in the system like elections are not being able to ensure the health of the system. Democracy has been wrongly conflated with elections and they are merely a result of maintenance of an outmoded system where we stay in a technological era which asks for and can also provide for more informed and enhanced participation. On the other hand there are also very less alternatives which are present against the use of elections in the system. There have been several alternative and new ways proposed against the current system such as the sortition proposed by me and internet use proposed by my friend. However these systems cannot solely provide a solution in relation to the current issue. This is because there are several flaws which are present in the newly proposed alternatives as well. One of the primary flaws in relation to the use of internet is the fear of hacking. Social media platforms can be easily hacked by hackers which would provided contrary results that what is desired by the public. Thus, although elections may not be necessarily productive and edifying it is essential in the present situation towards maintaining heath of the democracy
References
Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., and Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook public accountability. Oxford University Press.
Hoque, Z., and Pearson, D. (2018). Accountability reform, parliamentary oversight and the role of performance audit in Australia. VALUE FOR MONEY, 175.
Tingey-Holyoak, J. L. (2014). Water sharing risk in agriculture: Perceptions of farm dam management accountability in Australia. Agricultural water management, 145, 123-133.
Galligan, B. and Morton, F.T., 2017. Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights. In Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights (pp. 27-50). Routledge.
Weins, W. J., and Flynn, S. J. (2014). Bill of Rights. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Williams, A., and Williams, G. (2016). The British Bill of Rights debate: lessons from Australia. Public law., 2016(July), 471-490.
Williams, G., and Reynolds, D. (2017). Bill so frights: Out on a limb: Australia’s troubling exceptionalism on human rights. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (38), 40.
Bennett, W. L. (2016). News: The politics of illusion. University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, N. C. (2015). The age of direct citizen participation. Routledge.
Stoker, G. (2016). Why politics matters: Making democracy work. Palgrave.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
