Parliamentary Sovereignty

Read Complete Research Material


Parliamentary Sovereignty in Theory and Practice

[Name of the Institute]

Parliamentary Sovereignty in Theory and Practice


Parliamentary sovereignty also termed as parliamentary supremacy or parliamentary supremacy refers to the legislative law of some parliamentary democracies. In parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative or governmental body has an ultimate authority over other institutions of the government, which includes any judicial and executive, governmental bodies. This concept also holds that a legislative body entitled to modify or revoke any legislation that developed previously. This means that such bodies are not bound to follow a predefined structure or pattern, and have the authority to influence any change or alteration. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is different from that of popular sovereignty, where people have the ultimate authority and with the judicial review, Supreme Court can topple legislation that considered being unconstitutional. Among the countries, where parliament is the supreme authority, includes the United Kingdom, Israel, Finland, New Zealand, Barbados, Jamaica, Solomon Island and Papua New Guinea, among other nations.

Origin and Evolution of Parliamentary System

The parliamentary system originated in England as the assembly government which brought about the birth of modern constitutionalism. With enormous success, says Karl Loewensrein the Long Parliament of England (1640-1649) dominated and ruled as sole holder of power until he was unresponsive by Cromwell and the army. Since the exact monopoly power, not founded by a convincing political theory, the field of Parliament provoked the vitriolic criticism by the anti-parliamentary players in the fledgling democracy personified in the absolute figures of the independent and the Levellers. In English constitutional history, the assembly government was like an episode for which there is hardly a memory, and succeeded immediately by the restoration of the monarchy and then by the Glorious Revolution with his fledgling parliamentary and cabinet government.

He characterized the following scheme: a) the Legislative Assembly elected by the people, endowed with the absolute dominion over all other state bodies, b) the executive, strictly subjected to the Assembly, may be appointed or removed at the discretion of the Commission; c) no state agency legally authorized to interfere in the autonomy or the monopoly of power exercised by the Assembly; d) there was no right of government to dissolve parliament, but could be a solution by the central electorate (Loewenstein, 1965, pp. 411-427).

The production of legal rules has been consistently derived from a single source of law. Even today, the right material result not just in the institutions created specifically for its creation, such as a parliament or a referendum on the rule of bourgeois right. Thus, for example, can also be created by the legal institutions of the executive or case law, either as a legitimate case law, either in a veiled way through the pretence of an authoritative interpretation of the rules. Also, non-state social groups can contribute to the formulation of conventional law of general validity. In commercial law when general business conditions of monopolistic economic groups are given as a premise of the commercial relations contracts. In the labour law of the Federal Republic ...
Related Ads