Article review on a Revised British COnstitution Essay

Article review on a Revised British COnstitution - Essay Example cular importance because Blair’s proposal were seen as highly significant as the Britain is a unitary state with all centralized power vested on the central government not having much transparency in its working processes. The article primarily discusses seven major constitutional proposals of the Blair government which it intended to reform and implement. They are devolution of Scotland and Wales; election of Mayor of London and major urban areas; removal of voting rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords; incorporation of European human rights into British laws; freedom of information acts; electoral reforms at various level of government and referendum on changing the electoral system for member of parliament; and legislation for separate Supreme Court as independent judicial authority and stable government in northern Ireland. The Blair government was able to make significant inroad into the major constitutional reform proposals and help form stable governments in Scotland and wale after devolution. Even the problem of Northern Ireland, beset with internal violence, was relatively sorted out. Decentralization of power to local councils and mayors and right to information went a long way in creating transparency in government work. Referendums were held to encourage and promote public participation in government decision making were hailed as highly popular mechanism. The one area that became controversial was the reforms in the electoral system whereby though ‘single member district system would be retained but instead of casting a vote for one person only, electorate would rank candidates in order of preference, thus assuring majority rather than a plurality of vote for the winner’. The reform came under a lot of flak from major political parties because the constitutional reform had undermined their political supremacy over the smaller political parties with regional interests. Even the labor party members had shown their resentment against

The Carter Administration and the Evolution of American Nuclear Essay

The Carter Administration and the Evolution of American Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy - Essay Example Should one continue to play in the field to make sure that it is kept regulated Or should one insist on the moral high ground and stay away from an arena where the evil is both patent and inherent No other world leader has been hounded by this question more than Jimmy Carter, whose regime has seen the evolution of the American Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Though his good faith and commitment to his advocacy have remained unquestioned, many have voiced their opposition over a nuclear containment strategy that effectively cuts off US engagement from other States with respect to the development of nuclear arsenal, and restricts technology transfer with the end in view of achieving nuclear nonproliferation. It is submitted, however, that Carter is not to blame for the failure of his policies. The larger political landscape - both internal and external - must be examined. If at all, Carter must be lauded for boldly extricating the discourse of nuclear weapons from the neither-here-nor-there language of political ambiguity. His fierce and uncompromising condemnation of nuclear weapons has found resonance all over the world, and continues to affect American foreign policy, one A merican President after another. The history of American policy on nuclear weapons is indeed a colorful and protracted one. After the Second World War ended, the Soviet Union began the nuclear race. Desirous of preventing the Soviets from amassing nuclear arsenal, the US encouraged its allies to explore its nuclear capabilities as well. However, the infamous nuclear testing conducted by France radically altered policy and nonproliferation became the avowed goal. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was entered into by the administration of Lyndon Johnson. However, it was a secondary issue for all intents and purposes. America was made complacent by the absence of threats. When India detonated a nuclear device in 1984, a paradigm shift took place. Nonproliferation suddenly became an important issue. Then President Nixon gave word that he would supply nuclear reactors to Egypt and Israel so they may develop their own nuclear capabilities. Many raised fears, valid fears, that this would only lead to the unabated spread of nuclear weapons and it would reach a point when regulation would be next to impossible. Comes now Jimmy Carter, riding on the crescent wave of anti-nuclear weapon advocates. In his campaign, he always gave special importance to the issue of nuclear weapons. He knew why he wanted to do it - because the anti-nuclear weapons advocacy was at the core human rights issue, and how he would do it - by prohibiting the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium used in the creation of nuclear weapons. By arresting the technology transfer, Carter believed that he was paving the way for nuclear containment. This was a radical and total departure from the policies of Nixon on Ford, who believed in strategic engagement, even a little muscle-flexing, when the need arises. His was a complete declaration of war against nuclear weapons; not the case-to-case basis policy of previous regimes. Much opposition was generated by Carter's policy. In the strong words of Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, " a strategy of nonproliferation based solely on denial of equipment and technology will at most only delay, not prohibit this possibility." The legislature also