There is so much more to a comparison of what is Parliamentary Sovereignty and what is Popular Sovereignty than what I could write down here and not become all academic and technical. I want to keep my writing to a format that I personally would be comfortable reading on a bus on the way to work without having to google technical terms and historic examples.
What I have written here is a middle of the road comparison. The reason I have done this is because right now in the UK we live under a Parliamentary Sovereignty model. I don't like this, and feel as Scotland moves closer to joining the rest of the world as a normal independent country, we need to start considering our own personal rights as citizens of Scotland, and how far we the people should allow the politics of our country to go.
Popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty are two distinct concepts in political theory, highlighting different sources of authority and decision-making processes within a government system.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle that emphasises the supreme authority of the legislative body in making, amending, or repealing laws. In this system, the Parliament has the ultimate power to shape legislation, and its decisions cannot be overruled by other institutions. It is associated with countries like the United Kingdom, where the Parliament is considered the highest law-making authority.
On the other hand, popular sovereignty asserts that political power ultimately resides with the people. It emphasises that the government's legitimacy and authority derive from the consent and will of the governed. Popular sovereignty promotes the idea of political equality, participation, and the protection of individual rights. It often manifests in democratic systems where citizens have the right to participate in decision-making through voting, referendums, and the election of representatives.
While parliamentary sovereignty emphasises the power of the legislative body, popular sovereignty emphasises the power of the people. Parliamentary sovereignty may have limited checks and balances, potentially raising concerns about accountability and the protection of minority rights. In contrast, popular sovereignty places a strong emphasis on the participation of citizens, protection of individual rights, and the idea that the government serves the interests and needs of the people.
In the context of Scotland, where there is a discussion about potential independence, the concept of popular sovereignty becomes particularly relevant. It prompts considerations about the rights and powers of the people in shaping the future governance and decision-making processes of an independent Scotland. Questions about accountability, citizen participation, and the protection of individual rights become crucial in this context.
When evaluating politicians' stances, it is important to inquire about their views on popular sovereignty versus parliamentary sovereignty. Advocating for parliamentary sovereignty alone may raise concerns about their commitment to inclusive and participatory governance. Understanding their positions on these concepts can provide insights into their perspectives on democracy, citizen participation, and the extent of government accountability.