The way our parliament operates is as a representative democracy. That means that the people vote politicians in based on their policies and ideals as well as promises. They are likely to be re-elected if they are able to satisfy the people. They must act in a way that's representative of the people in order to be re-elected thus it's preferable for them to legislate in a certain way in order to keep up public satisfaction.
This means that parliament will often avoid controversial, 'necessary' legislation in order to keep up public approval. If something's controversial, it's unlikely to be legislated or even considered, thus acting as a check on their law-making ability.
However, the point I've been using all year is that there shouldn't be an effect on the law-making power of parliament as they were elected based on their promises to the people. Assuming the people know who they're voting and the parliament is able to keep their promises, then there shouldn't be any issue with regard to their law-making ability. Of course, in practice this doesn't work.
I would also just say 'to a medium extent' because the chief examiner LOVES those words.
Home
Help
Search
Login
