Ethical Judicial Restraint and the Rule of Law: Strengthening Constitutional Integrity in the UK

Abstract

This article establishes the theoretical framework for evaluating the concepts of ‘elective dictatorship’ and ‘partisan politics’ within the broader context of UK rule of law and ethics. It critically examines these notions to diverge from the conventional practice of parliamentary sovereignty in instances of power abuse. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ describes a scenario where an elected political party wields substantial power without effective checks and balances, leading to a concentration of power within the ruling party. This situation raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and potential power abuse. Closely linked to this is the concept of partisan politics, where alignment with a particular political party leads to abuses of power, challenging the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Various factors contribute to this dynamic, including ideological, social, and economic considerations. In a healthy democracy, political parties play a crucial role in representing diverse interests and offering voters choices. However, when partisan politics becomes overly polarised and prioritises gaining and maintaining power at any cost, it can foster an elective dictatorship. This article reviews existing literature in this domain and addresses these concepts within the context of the rule of law and ethics. It aims to fill a gap in the literature by establishing the conceptual parameters for ‘elective dictatorship’ and ‘partisan Politics’, and argues that when both are used to undermine the judiciary, the court has a duty to depart from traditional norms. It further recommends that courts assess any legislation enacted by the government and Parliament against the rule of law, morality, and ethics. Keywords: Elective Dictatorship; Partisan Politics; Ethics; Rule of Law; Parliamentary Sovereignty.