Political Spaces, Equality, and Ideology: Participation and Constraints in the US and UK Systems

PART A

Question 1 - What are the main spaces of politics?

The main spaces of politics refer to vital areas of politics in terms of practical activity and information sharing. These are the official bodies like the parliaments, governments, and courts in which policies and laws are enacted and adopted. Further, political parties and other interest groups have also a role in making and implementing policies within these institutional frameworks. Another type of sociopolitical civil society; includes NGOs, community organizations, and social movements that seek certain objectives and can develop peoples awareness (Dahlgren, 2005). The media is also a very active means and can be considered as a means of political communication and as an area where the vision of societys concerns and political processes can be consequently formed and voiced. Secondly, the internet, especially internet-based social networks or discussion forums is almost an inevitable component of the modern political process and may become a fast means of disseminating information and making a call for action to the supporters. Last of all, the so-called private world, the sphere in which alone people discuss politics and arrive at decisions, cannot be omitted. Altogether, this makes it possible to overcome the ideas, interests, and powers that define the political landscape (Habermas, 1996).

Question 2 - What is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome?

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can be referred to as two different ideas that are used in social justice debates. This implies that there should be no prejudice as everyone is supposed to be given an equal opportunity hand where he or she can exploit it to accomplish something without being sabotaged by unequal opportunities. This one is about providing them equal opportunities to succeed in society through policies such as education, health, employment, etc. For its part, equality of outcome focuses on the outcome of equality in accomplishment and quality of life of the people regardless of being equal or otherwise in one or the other way (Sen, 1992). This approach is usually characterized by equalizing mechanisms intended to minimize disparities concerning income and other factors to establish equality in peoples quality of life. Critics argue that it skews rivalry and undermines meritocracy, enlists applicants, and that chance differences that equity cannot overcome. Even though both are ends oriented towards equity, the premise of each towards the attainment of social justice is different (Rawls, 1971).

Question 3 - What are the main features of the arguments that ideology ended?

The notion that ideology is over may be associated with the end of history of Francis Fukuyama and it holds the view that most of the significant ideological battles characteristic of much of the 20th century have reached their culmination and that liberal democracy and Anglo-American brand of free-market economics represents the apex and the final stage of human political and economic evolution. This so-called end of history theory is an assertion that given the start of the Cold War and the emergence of the defeat of communism to all other political systems, the world is at its final state of history (Fukuyama 1992). Among such aspects that should be emphasized in this argument are such as the triumph of liberal democracy, freedom, and consumption over tyranny, despotism, and command economies. However, left-wing critics have a different opinion on this stating that the given concept does not capture the reappearance of ideology and the emergence of new forms and issues; nationalism, religiosity, and populism, which are still there in politics today. Ideology critics argue that ideology has not faded as it determines the political acts and movements and the transformation process (Mouffe, 2005).

PART B

Question 6 - In what ways can citizens participate in political life? Discuss different understandings of politics.

Political activism implies that, as participants in political life, the citizens do engage in activities concerning which the different meanings of the word politics may be attributed. In general, participation can be classified in two ways; that is conventional and unconventional participation as well as the theory of democracy and political system theory as applicable might suggest.

Conventional Participation: Mainstream politics refers to activities that are legal and these are activities that are known by the existing legal frameworks to be part of political actions. These are exercising the general voting, contesting for an electoral seat, being a candidate for a political party, and campaigns. Voting is the oldest form of political participation through which, in one way or another, people can vote their leaders into power and also, decide on the policies that shall prevail in the country (Verba & Nie, 1972). For instance, being an active member of the political party, for instance, joining a political party, one can influence the party manifestos as well as the nominated candidates. Moreover, voting, volunteering, contributing, and canvassing during political campaigns help the citizens to make choices of the political leaders and policies that they want (Smith, 2009).

Unconventional Participation: Any act that is not an election activity forms a non-conventional participation strategy and is often employed to force change on the decision-makers or as a sign of protest. This is the kind of activism that is inherent in demonstrations, protests, marches, strikes, and protests online activism. Such forms of participation are essential in various theories including direct democracy and participatory democracy whereby the citizen is encouraged to do more than just vote (Pateman, 1970). That is because these social movements and organizations are involved in non-traditional methods of effecting change as well as expressing the interests of issues that are not covered by politics. New media also provides forms of non-conventional political participation such as the use of hashtags and online petitions as the means through which the citizenry can easily and efficiently express their anxiety (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013).

Deliberative Participation: Another concept of political participation is deliberative democracy where people engage in routine and structured discussion. People participate in large-meshed communication to make comments in large group discussions, deliberative polls, and town hall meetings to make decisions in matters affecting society (Habermas, 1996). It is an informed decision-making on an issue because it usually leads to consensus or at least an informed opinion in the audience.

Civic Engagement and Community Participation: Besides voting or giving their contributions to political parties, the citizens also actively participate in politics through civil activism as well as volunteerism. Such practices include engagement in civil organizations, being on the committee of civil organizations, and adding service to projects within the neighborhood. Such actions Increase social capital and civil infrastructure crucial for the process of democratization as stated by Putnam (2000). As such, citizens are afforded the chance to be directly involved in governance as well as the formulation of the immediate societies by tackling real-life problems.

Barriers to Participation: To say that there are multiple opportunities to participate in the political processes, as stated above, is also to note that there are potential challenges. Such aspects include education, income levels, and the like, which may reduce an individuals participation level. Nonetheless, it is also conceivable that institutional factors such as restrictive voter laws and deficient information can constitute the same. Additionally, apathy in politics and minimal self-confidence in the polity also contribute to discouragement to participate (Verba et al. 1995).

In conclusion, the limitations to participation are not apparent, and by both orthodox and non-orthodox definitions of politics, there is much potential for citizen participation in political actions and processes. From the voting booths to protests, public meetings, or engagements in various community activities, it is the citizens who matter for the good health of democracies. Each form of participation has its advantages for the political process in that it affords the chance to hear from a wide range of people and remains loyal to the principle of democracy.

Question 9 - The US President is more constrained by Congress than the UK Prime Minister is by Parliament. Discuss.

When comparing the limitations in which the US President and the UK Prime Minister have to operate, it is evident that the differences are rooted in the political contexts and environments of the USA and the UK. The extent of constraint is dependent on the structure of the constitution, the division of powers among branches of government, the roles of parties, and the practices of institutions in a country.

Separation of Powers: This is carefully achieved due to certain restraints in place following the principle of separation of powers that exist in the US whereby the president is subject to powers of check by other arms of government. The government has three branches, which are the executive, legislative, and judicial branches hence eliminating the possibility of concentration of powers within one branch (Tomkins, 2003). This branch of the government possesses fairly large authority over the Presidents actions in government and includes the Senate and House of Representatives. For example, congress can reverse presidential vetoes, set budgeting preferences, and approve or deny appointments to higher positions (Neustadt, 1990). Furthermore, the Senate ratifies treaties and removes a president or other officers, which provides the citizens with other ways to regulate the executive branch.

Parliamentary Sovereignty: At the same time, the so-called parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom's legal system allows the Parliament to be considered the highest legal authority in the country. The activities are exercised through the Prime Minister as the head of government derives his/her powers from the leadership of the majority party in the House of Commons. This however comes with a lot of influence on the Prime Minister to spearhead legislation and policies in the country but at the same time, the position automatically comes with the responsibility to ensure that their party is kept in power in parliament. However, shared nature of the power between the executive and legislative with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in the Parliament, makes activities more informal than in the US system (Bogdanor, 2009).

Party Discipline and Dynamics: The issue of party discipline is relevant in both systems as a constituent of the political process but operates differently. For instance, in the UK, discipline within the majority party would mean that the Prime Minister, whose party majority has control of the house, can go through legislation freely in the house without much opposition. Civilian uprisings that may cause rebellions or insurgencies within factions can be an issue but these sorts are usually handled internally by the parties. On the other hand, in America, the President may find himself or herself being shut down not only by the members of the other party but by the members of his or her party as well. This can result in significant legislative maneuvers as observed when one party occupies the white house while Congress is controlled by another party (Mann & Ornstein, 2016).

Impeachment vs. Votes of No Confidence: This is also evident in the ways how one can be expulsed from leadership as it portrays variation in constraints. In the United States, impeachment is a legal action that can be a drawn-out affair that may be rife with politics; it requires approval by a simple majority in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Such a high threshold of impeachment makes it a very rare occurrence and nearly unattainable (Fisher, 2016). For instance, the UK Prime Minister can be dismissed by a vote of no-confidence in the House of Commons, although this is just as Politically Sensitive as the other methods but far easier to initiate and does not require a two-thirds margin (Harris, 2009).

Conclusion: Therefore, it is possible to identify crucial differences in the extent and nature of the constraints that the US President and the UK Prime Minister face from their respective legislative chambers. The constitution also limits the absolute power of the US President and the Presidential power undergoes strong legislative and judicial restrictions which systematically create formidable barriers to its operation. Within this parliamentary system of government, he is quite strong but overwhelmed by the fact that to undertake most of these measures he requires party support and confidence in Parliament.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank