In recent years the debate about party politics in the UK have been broadly discussed for several reasons, some argued that two-party politics in the UK is over and now it have been replaced by multi-party politics; in the other hand some argued that two party politics is not over and it may remain for the next years to come. This essay will discuss “The era of two-party politics in the UK is over.” Do you agree? If you do, what is replacing it: multi-party politics or no-party politics?
Political parties are now complex multilevel organizations, united by a common identity and, sometimes, shared objectives. ‘A party is not a community but a collection of communities, a union of small groups dispersed throughout the country and linked by co-ordinating institutions’ as Duverger described. Now, the question for the twenty-first century is whether we are witnessing a crisis of parties or merely a change in their structure.
Party politics in Britain date from the nineteenth century, and by 1900 systems of organization and electoral competition were well established. A dual system of Conservatives and Liberals was modified in the early twentieth century by the rise of the Labour party and a three-party system existed until about 1931 when the eclipse of the Liberals ushered in a new two-party system. In addition, after 1945 the two parties, Conservative and Labour, totally dominated until the 1970s when the Liberals revived and, in Scotland and Wales, nationalist parties enjoyed a short-lived boom. By the 1980’s two-party politics appeared spent as the Liberals allied to a new party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and gained 25.9 per cent of the Great Britain vote in the 1983 election, only just behind Labour.  So is revealed by history and facts that even when two-party politics remains and they still are a pillar in UK politics they suffer “up and downs” and that basis makes many scholars to believe that the political system is changing into multi-party system. However it does not mean a loss of power by the main parties that rule Britain. Today most of British history over the last 200 years has appeared to be a two-party duopoly Whigs and Tories, then Liberals and Conservatives and more recently Labour and Conservatives. But still a two-party system that appears to sustain. And as a matter of fact most of the seats in the House of Commons (and sometimes nearly all of them) have belonged to the two major parties since 1945. It could be argued, however, that “Britain’s two-party system was in part a product of an electoral system which severely penalizes third parties, particularly those (like the Liberal Democrats) whose support is not concentrated in particular areas”. 
Hoy 14 de Febrero se conmemora el día de San Valentín también llamado día del amor. Para todos aquellos que tengan la gracia de disfrutar estar acompañados de la mujer/hombre de su vida o ‘un peor es nada’ hoy se recuerda ese sentimiento tan humano llamado amor. Y es que a la final; eso es lo que importa. El amor: por quienes te rodean, por lo que haces, por lo que eres y por donde estas; que a su vez tiene como consecuencia que las demás cosas alrededor de ti fluyan como deben fluir y contribuyan a tu crecimiento como ser humano. Pues sabemos que no hay nada más humano que el amor. Pero ¿que tal el amor entre países?.. ¿Existe? Las organizaciones sin fines de lucro y ayuda humanitaria lo hacen…..por amor? En este aspecto escritores como Larry Diamond (The Spirit of Democracy); afirman que los países actúan principalmente según sus intereses. Y que las relaciones diplomáticas no creen en amor sino en bienestar y cooperación ya sea nacional o internacional. En todos los sentidos se busca hacia la paz; es lo que se quiere sustentar a corto y largo plazo en cualquier nación pero… ¿amor? No me parece. ¿Por qué? Porque entre países se hace es guerra, no se puede hace el amor. Veamos que sucede en el mundo acerca del ‘amor’ entre países actualmente:
Since its beginnings armed humanitarian intervention has represented a dilemma to war, peace and international ethics because it involves the moral issue of when to intervene and if these interventions are justifiable. Moreover there are the different theories in favour and against of armed intervention. This essay will discuss: Can armed humanitarian intervention ever be justified?
In order to make this essay clearer is to believe that a couple of definitions should be made beforehand; humanitarian intervention and armed intervention. Firstly, ‘humanitarian intervention is traditionally defined as the use of force by states to protect human rights. This definition presumes that states should do the intervening in order to maintain civil rights and of course the welfare and peace in society’.Nowadays, it is sometimes argued that this traditional definition is obsolete because humanitarian intervention is increasingly a matter of collective action under UN auspices, not action undertaken by states acting on their own authority and under their own law. Secondly, we speak of armed intervention when that exercise involves the use of military force. An armed intervention is humanitarian when its aim is to protect innocent people who are not nationals of the intervening state from violence perpetrated or permitted by the government of the target state. Additionally, armed intervention to stop a massacre is likely to be only the first of many measures needed to restore order to a chaotic society and prevent subsequent massacres. If prevention is important, then is to believe that the challenge for humanitarian policy is to move from responding to humanitarian crises to forestalling them.
Since the middle 70’s most scholars would agree that the adoption of democracy along the countries worldwide have been wide and far. Today democracy is a global concept that states are willing to take. However, there is the broad discussion about the elements for democracy to emerge and whether if it’s likely or not; this essay will discuss: Can democracy emerge in any country, or must there be some pre-requisites in place beforehand?
Yes, democracy in theory is able to emerge in any country as it don’t know any boundaries, whatever the political past is; it can be argued that has to do mostly with people and mentality towards a democratic change rather than anything else. Though in practice is different; reason are explained next.