Legal and Political Sovereignty | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 2 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 75 minutes
Legal and political sovereignty A-Level Politics revision is about a deceptively simple question: who actually has the final say in the UK? Edexcel requires you to distinguish sovereignty in legal theory from sovereignty in political practice, then examine whether power has moved between institutions. Parliament remains central because of parliamentary sovereignty [The nature and sources of the UK Constitution], but the Executive, courts, devolved institutions and electorate can all restrict how freely that sovereignty is exercised. Understanding this distinction is essential before deciding where sovereignty ultimately lies [The location of sovereignty in the UK].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define legal sovereignty and political sovereignty accurately.
Distinguish sovereignty in theory from sovereignty in practice.
Explain why Parliament remains the central location of legal sovereignty.
Analyse how political sovereignty may shift towards the Executive, judiciary, devolved institutions or electorate.
Explain why devolution disperses power without necessarily transferring legal sovereignty.
Evaluate competing claims about where sovereignty is exercised within the UK political system.
Revision Notes đź“š
What is sovereignty?
In this topic, sovereignty concerns where ultimate political authority is located.
The UK Constitution determines where this authority lies and how the institutions of government relate to one another. Edexcel's Component 2 therefore asks students to consider the powers of the legislature, Executive and judiciary and, ultimately, where sovereignty now lies within the political system.
The key difficulty is that there are two different ways of thinking about sovereignty:
what an institution is legally entitled to do
what an institution is politically able to do in practice
This creates the distinction between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty.
Legal sovereignty
Edexcel defines legal sovereignty as:
the legal right to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in theory.
In the traditional UK constitutional system, this points towards Parliament.
The specification defines parliamentary sovereignty as the principle that Parliament:
can make law
can amend law
can unmake law
cannot bind a future Parliament
cannot itself be bound permanently by an earlier Parliament.
This gives Parliament an exceptionally powerful legal position.
If Parliament passes valid primary legislation, another political institution cannot normally set that Act aside simply because it disagrees with it.
This connects directly to the unentrenched nature of the constitution [The nature and sources of the UK Constitution]. Because ordinary constitutional rules do not generally require a special amendment procedure, a future Parliament can change laws made by an earlier Parliament.
Political sovereignty
Edexcel defines political sovereignty as:
the political ability to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in practice.
Political sovereignty therefore asks a different question:
Who can actually get their decisions implemented?
An institution may possess extensive legal powers but face such powerful political constraints that it cannot realistically exercise those powers freely.
This is the central distinction.
Legal sovereignty | Political sovereignty |
Sovereignty in theory | Sovereignty in practice |
Concerns legal authority | Concerns practical political power |
Focuses on what an institution is legally entitled to do | Focuses on what an institution can realistically achieve |
Traditionally located in Parliament | May be distributed or shift between institutions |
Relatively stable | Can change according to political circumstances |
A sophisticated answer should therefore avoid simply asking:
"Is Parliament sovereign?"
Instead ask two questions:
Is Parliament legally sovereign?
How politically free is Parliament to exercise that sovereignty?
The answers may be different.
Why Parliament is legally sovereign
Parliament can make and unmake law
The most important argument for parliamentary legal sovereignty is straightforward.
Parliament possesses the legal authority to enact and repeal legislation.
This means that institutions which appear to constrain Parliament may ultimately depend on legislation passed by Parliament itself.
The 2024 Edexcel mark scheme made this central to the sovereignty debate, stating that Parliament remains legally sovereign because there is no legal limit preventing it from making or unmaking laws.
One Parliament cannot bind its successors
A Parliament today cannot normally create a law that a future Parliament is legally forbidden to change.
This is an important reason why the UK's sovereignty arrangements differ from those in an entrenched constitutional system.
A later Parliament can:
amend earlier legislation
repeal earlier legislation
create different constitutional arrangements
This reinforces Parliament's legal sovereignty.
The UK remains a unitary system
Edexcel defines a unitary political system as one in which all legal sovereignty is contained in a single place.
The UK has undergone substantial devolution, but the specification is very precise about what devolution means:
Devolution is the dispersal of power, but not sovereignty, within a political system.
This distinction is crucial.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercise substantial political authority in devolved areas, but the constitutional principle of devolution does not mean that legal sovereignty has simply been divided permanently between Westminster and the devolved institutions.
This builds directly on the operation of devolved government [Devolution].
Political sovereignty may lie elsewhere
Although Parliament possesses legal sovereignty, that does not necessarily mean Parliament independently controls every important political decision.
Political sovereignty may appear to lie, at least partly, with:
the Executive
devolved institutions
the judiciary
the electorate through referendums
The 2024 Edexcel mark scheme explicitly used these competing locations when assessing whether sovereignty lies in Parliament alone.
The key is to decide whether these institutions have gained legal sovereignty or have instead become powerful political constraints on Parliament.
Political sovereignty and the Executive
Why political sovereignty may move towards government
The Executive includes the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other government ministers.
In theory, government depends on Parliament to pass primary legislation.
In practice, however, a government with a secure Commons majority may dominate Parliament.
This links directly to executive dominance [The Executive and Parliament].
Edexcel uses the term elective dictatorship for a government that dominates Parliament, usually because of a large majority, and consequently faces few limits on its power.
Several factors can enable political sovereignty to shift towards the Executive:
a large Commons majority
strong party discipline
government control of much parliamentary time
loyalty among governing-party MPs
the operation of the party whips
A government may therefore use Parliament to implement an agenda largely determined by ministers.
The role of First-past-the-post
This provides an important synoptic connection to the electoral system [First-past-the-post].
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme links First-past-the-post (FPTP) with the elective dictatorship argument.
The logic is:
FPTP → single-party majority may result → party discipline → government controls Commons votes → political power shifts towards the Executive
The government may therefore exercise much of the political sovereignty that Parliament possesses legally.
Does this mean legal sovereignty has moved to the Executive?
No.
This is one of the most important distinctions in the topic.
A powerful government may dominate Parliament politically, but it still requires Parliament to pass primary legislation.
The 2024 mark scheme uses Theresa May's difficulties obtaining parliamentary approval for her Brexit policy as evidence that the Executive ultimately depends on Parliament to make law.
Therefore:
Strong government majority = possible Executive political sovereignty
but
law-making authority = continuing parliamentary legal sovereignty
When political sovereignty moves back towards Parliament
Political sovereignty is not permanently held by the Executive.
A government becomes more constrained when:
its Commons majority is small
it has no majority
its own party is divided
backbenchers rebel
opposition parties can defeat government proposals
This means the balance of political sovereignty may change even though the constitutional rules remain the same.
A majority government and a minority government operate within the same basic constitutional framework, but Parliament may exercise much greater practical power over the latter.
This shows clearly why legal sovereignty is relatively stable while political sovereignty is changeable.
Political sovereignty and devolution
Devolution disperses power
Devolution is one of the clearest examples of the difference between legal and political sovereignty.
The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly exercise important powers in areas devolved to them.
This means political decision making no longer takes place entirely at Westminster.
Political power has therefore moved geographically and institutionally.
However, the specification's definition is explicit:
devolution disperses power, not sovereignty.
The legal position
From the perspective of legal sovereignty, Parliament remains central.
Devolved institutions were created through legislation.
The 2024 mark scheme states that Parliament remains legally capable of changing the legislative arrangements underpinning devolution.
This supports the argument that legal sovereignty remains at Westminster.
The political reality
Political sovereignty is more complicated.
The devolved institutions have their own:
elected representatives
democratic legitimacy
policy responsibilities
It would therefore be politically extremely significant for Westminster simply to remove established devolved arrangements.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme identifies devolution as a political limit on parliamentary sovereignty because devolved government now possesses substantial legitimacy in the parts of the UK where it operates.
This creates a powerful distinction:
Legally possible does not mean politically realistic.
That sentence captures much of the difference between legal and political sovereignty.
Does sovereignty lie with devolved institutions?
The strongest answer is nuanced.
Legally: No. Devolution is defined by the specification as the dispersal of power rather than sovereignty.
Politically: Devolved institutions possess significant practical authority within their areas of competence and create strong political limits on Westminster.
Therefore, devolution demonstrates that political power can move away from Parliament without legal sovereignty necessarily moving with it.
Political sovereignty and referendums
Parliament and the electorate
Referendums create another challenge to straightforward parliamentary sovereignty.
Students have already examined the political impact of referendums [Referendums and how they are used].
Parliament authorises referendums through legislation.
From a legal perspective, this supports parliamentary sovereignty.
The 2024 mark scheme notes that Parliament:
decides when a referendum is held
establishes the question through legislation
is not necessarily legally required to follow the result.
Yet the political position can be very different.
The political authority of referendum results
A referendum gives the electorate a direct voice on an issue.
Once the public has voted, it may be politically extremely difficult for Parliament simply to disregard that result.
The 2016 EU referendum is used in Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme to demonstrate this political constraint.
This creates another legal-political divide:
Legal position: Parliament retains formal law-making authority.
Political position: The referendum result may create such a strong democratic mandate that Parliament feels compelled to act.
Political sovereignty can therefore appear to shift temporarily towards the electorate.
Referendums and major constitutional change
Referendums have also been used in connection with constitutional changes such as devolution.
This can give new institutions particularly strong democratic legitimacy.
The practical result is that reversing the outcome later may be much harder politically than the legal theory of parliamentary sovereignty suggests.
Again:
legal sovereignty remains with Parliament, but political sovereignty is constrained by democratic legitimacy.
Political sovereignty and the judiciary
The Supreme Court as a constraint
The judiciary presents another sovereignty debate.
The Supreme Court can use judicial review to examine whether actions of government are lawful.
This links directly to judicial influence over government [The Supreme Court].
Court rulings can:
constrain the Executive
protect Parliament against unlawful executive action
create significant political pressure
affect the development of policy
This gives judges considerable political influence.
Have courts gained legal sovereignty?
No.
The Supreme Court does not possess a general power to strike down Acts of the sovereign UK Parliament.
The 2024 Edexcel mark scheme emphasises that Parliament retains legal sovereignty because the courts cannot invalidate an Act merely because it conflicts with the Human Rights Act. Parliament ultimately decides how to respond to incompatibility.
Therefore, judicial influence must be carefully described.
The Court can be:
legally powerful in relation to unlawful Executive actions
politically influential in relation to Parliament
without becoming legally sovereign over Parliament.
Political pressure created by judicial decisions
Although Parliament may retain the legal right to reject the implications of a court decision, this does not mean doing so has no political cost.
A major judicial ruling may:
expose a rights problem
create public controversy
put pressure on government
encourage Parliament to alter legislation
The 2024 mark scheme treats judicial decisions concerning the Human Rights Act as a genuine political constraint on Parliament, even though Parliament retains its ultimate legal position.
This again demonstrates the difference between:
What Parliament can legally do
and
What Parliament is politically able or willing to do.
Courts can also strengthen Parliament
It would be a mistake to assume that greater judicial power always means weaker parliamentary sovereignty.
Courts sometimes constrain the Executive in order to protect Parliament's constitutional role.
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme used the Miller/Cherry cases to show how judicial review can protect Parliament against an Executive attempting to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.
This gives a more sophisticated relationship:
Judiciary constrains Executive → Parliament's position may become stronger
rather than:
Judiciary becomes stronger → Parliament must become weaker
Institutional relationships are not always zero-sum.
The European Union and sovereignty
The UK's former membership of the European Union provides another important example of sovereignty appearing to move.
This should be understood through your earlier study of the effects of EU membership and withdrawal [The European Union and UK government].
While the UK was an EU member, policy making in areas covered by EU obligations was constrained by membership arrangements.
This created an argument that Parliament's sovereignty had been pooled or limited in practice.
However, leaving the EU demonstrated Parliament's ability to alter the UK's legal relationship with the EU.
The 2024 mark scheme uses the EU withdrawal process as evidence for continuing parliamentary legal sovereignty.
This gives another example of the same pattern:
Political and practical constraints can be substantial without permanently removing Parliament's underlying legal sovereignty.
How sovereignty can move between institutions
The specification requires students to examine the extent to which sovereignty has moved between different branches of government.
It is helpful to think of this as movement in practical political authority, rather than assuming legal sovereignty physically transfers every time another institution becomes more influential.
Parliament to the Executive
Political sovereignty may move towards the Executive when:
the government has a large parliamentary majority
party discipline is strong
government controls the Commons agenda
backbench rebellion is limited
This creates the possibility of elective dictatorship.
Executive back to Parliament
Political power can move back towards Parliament when:
government has a small or no majority
government backbenchers rebel
Parliament defeats government proposals
ministers must make concessions to gain parliamentary support
The legal relationship may remain unchanged while practical power shifts dramatically.
Westminster towards devolved institutions
Devolution moves policy-making power away from Westminster.
However, Edexcel's definition makes clear that this is the dispersal of power rather than the transfer of ultimate legal sovereignty.
Political authority therefore shifts more than legal sovereignty.
Parliament towards the electorate
Referendums can give the electorate powerful political authority.
Parliament remains legally responsible for legislating, but ignoring a referendum result can become politically unrealistic.
Executive towards the judiciary
Judicial review enables courts to limit unlawful government action.
The judiciary therefore gains practical influence over how the Executive exercises power.
However, this does not mean that judges acquire Parliament's legal sovereignty.
Judiciary towards Parliament
Court rulings can create political pressure on Parliament, but Parliament retains its legal power to make primary legislation.
Political influence can therefore move without legal supremacy moving with it.
A model for understanding sovereignty
A useful revision model is:
Step 1: Identify the institution
Ask which institution appears powerful:
Parliament
Executive
judiciary
devolved institution
electorate
Step 2: Identify the type of power
Ask:
Is this legal authority or practical political influence?
Step 3: Identify the mechanism
For example:
Act of Parliament
government majority
party discipline
referendum mandate
devolution
judicial review
Step 4: Test Parliament's ultimate legal position
Ask:
Can Parliament still legally make or unmake the relevant law?
If yes, Parliament may remain legally sovereign even if its political freedom is heavily constrained.
Step 5: Judge practical reality
Ask:
Would Parliament realistically be able to use that legal power without major political consequences?
This determines the location of political sovereignty.
Competing locations of sovereignty
Parliament
Case for Parliament
Parliament has the strongest claim to legal sovereignty because:
it can make and unmake law
one Parliament cannot permanently bind another
the Executive depends on Parliament for primary legislation
courts cannot generally strike down Acts of Parliament
devolved powers remain based on legislation
referendums are authorised through Parliament
This is the classic constitutional argument.
The Executive
Case for the Executive
The Executive may have the strongest claim to political sovereignty when it controls a secure Commons majority.
Through:
party discipline
the whips
control of much parliamentary business
a majority in the Commons
government may largely determine what Parliament actually does.
The elective dictatorship argument therefore suggests that legal sovereignty lies with Parliament while practical power may be exercised by government.
Devolved institutions
Case for devolved political sovereignty
Devolved bodies exercise real decision-making authority and possess electoral legitimacy.
Although Westminster retains the legal ability to alter the devolution settlement, the political cost of removing established devolved powers may be extremely high.
They therefore possess substantial political authority without possessing ultimate UK legal sovereignty.
The judiciary
Case for judicial political influence
The Supreme Court can constrain unlawful Executive actions and its judgements can exert pressure on government and Parliament.
However, its inability generally to strike down Acts of Parliament means the judiciary does not replace Parliament as the location of legal sovereignty.
The electorate
Case for electoral political authority
Referendums demonstrate that the electorate can impose a powerful political constraint on Parliament.
A referendum result may become practically impossible for Parliament to ignore even where the legal doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains intact.
This is especially important for major constitutional issues.
Comparing the competing claims
Possible location | Claim to legal sovereignty | Claim to political sovereignty |
Parliament | Very strong. It can make and unmake law. | Significant, but constrained by other institutions and political realities. |
Executive | Limited because primary legislation requires Parliament. | Potentially very strong where government dominates the Commons. |
Judiciary | Does not normally possess supremacy over Acts of Parliament. | Significant through judicial review and political pressure created by rulings. |
Devolved institutions | Devolution disperses power rather than ultimate sovereignty. | Strong within devolved areas because of their powers and democratic legitimacy. |
Electorate through referendums | Parliament legally authorises referendums and makes resulting law. | Potentially extremely strong because referendum results are politically difficult to ignore. |
The table reveals why one-word answers to sovereignty questions rarely work well.
Different institutions may be sovereign in different senses.
Is sovereignty being transferred or constrained?
This distinction produces stronger evaluation.
Transfer
A genuine transfer of legal sovereignty would mean that another institution acquires ultimate legal authority previously held by Parliament.
The UK's current constitutional arrangements make that argument difficult to sustain.
Constraint
A political constraint means Parliament retains its legal authority but finds using that authority difficult, costly or unrealistic.
Examples include:
ignoring a referendum result
reversing established devolution
refusing to respond to politically significant court judgements
resisting a powerful Executive backed by a disciplined Commons majority
Much of what appears to be the "transfer" of sovereignty in modern UK politics is therefore better understood as a shift in political power rather than a complete transfer of legal sovereignty.
Why the distinction matters in an exam
Imagine the statement:
"Devolution means sovereignty has moved from Parliament to Scotland."
This is too imprecise.
A better answer would say:
Devolution has dispersed substantial political power to the Scottish Parliament, limiting Westminster's political freedom in devolved areas. However, because Edexcel defines devolution as the dispersal of power rather than sovereignty, this does not amount to a complete transfer of Parliament's legal sovereignty.
That distinction immediately adds analysis.
Similarly:
"The government is sovereign because it controls Parliament."
is incomplete.
A stronger answer would say:
A government with a large, disciplined Commons majority may exercise political sovereignty because it can dominate the parliamentary agenda. Nevertheless, Parliament remains legally sovereign because legislation must still pass through Parliament.
Legal and political sovereignty can point to different institutions
This is the most important overall idea.
In the UK:
Legal sovereignty can remain with Parliament while political sovereignty shifts elsewhere.
For example:
Parliament may be legally free to change devolution, but politically unable to do so easily.
Parliament may be legally free to disregard a referendum result, but politically under intense pressure to implement it.
Parliament may remain legally sovereign while a majority government dominates its voting behaviour.
Parliament may remain legally superior to the judiciary while court decisions create powerful political constraints.
There is therefore no contradiction in saying:
Parliament is legally sovereign but not always politically sovereign.
That is exactly the distinction the specification requires.
Overall assessment
The strongest claim to legal sovereignty remains with Parliament.
Its power to make, amend and unmake law, combined with the unentrenched nature of much of the UK Constitution, gives it an ultimate legal position that the Executive, judiciary and devolved institutions do not possess.
Political sovereignty is much harder to locate.
It can shift:
towards the Executive under a strong majority government
towards Parliament when government is weak
towards devolved institutions within their areas of responsibility
towards judges when court rulings constrain political actors
towards the electorate following a referendum
The result is not that legal sovereignty constantly changes hands. Instead, the practical exercise of sovereignty has become increasingly dispersed and conditional.
A useful final distinction is therefore:
Parliament remains sovereign in law, while sovereignty in practice can be shared, constrained or exercised by several political actors.
Your next step is to bring these competing claims together and make an overall judgement about where sovereignty now lies [The location of sovereignty in the UK].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Legal sovereignty | The legal right to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in theory. | Use when explaining Parliament's ultimate law-making authority. |
Political sovereignty | The political ability to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in practice. | Use when assessing which institution has the practical ability to control political decisions. |
Parliamentary sovereignty | The principle that Parliament can make, amend or unmake any law and cannot permanently bind future Parliaments. | Use when arguing that ultimate legal sovereignty remains at Westminster. |
Devolution | The dispersal of power, but not sovereignty, within a political system. | Use to distinguish the transfer of practical powers from a transfer of legal sovereignty. |
Elective dictatorship | A government that dominates Parliament, usually because of a large majority, and consequently faces few limits on its power. | Use when arguing that political sovereignty may be exercised by the Executive rather than Parliament. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Start by defining sovereignty precisely. The 2024 examiner report found that stronger candidates gave a sharp definition at the beginning and used it as the basis of their argument. Candidates who struggled to define sovereignty also struggled to explain whether it lay with Parliament.
Examiner hint:Â Distinguish legal and political power throughout your answer. Do not simply list organisations that constrain Parliament. Explain whether each example actually removes Parliament's legal sovereignty or instead restricts its political freedom.
Examiner hint:Â Keep Parliament and the Executive separate. The 2024 report identified confusion between these two branches as a recurring weakness. Government may dominate Parliament politically, but that does not make "government" and "Parliament" interchangeable terms.
Examiner hint:Â Strong answers used several competing locations of sovereignty. The 2024 report highlighted effective discussion of elective dictatorship, referendums, devolution, the EU and the Human Rights Act together with the courts. Answers restricted to only one constraint had less scope for a convincing overall judgement.
Examiner hint:Â Use synoptic links deliberately. The 2024 report praised links between referendums and democracy, FPTP and elective dictatorship, political parties and party discipline, and rights and the Supreme Court.
Examiner hint:Â Use examples to prove an argument rather than merely naming them. A referendum, court case or example of devolution should lead to a clear statement about which type of sovereignty is affected and why.
Examiner hint:Â Contemporary evidence is more useful when it is placed into context. Recent examiner reports have warned against relying entirely on historical examples without explaining how they illuminate the current distribution of power.
Examiner hint:Â Develop judgements during the essay. The strongest responses build mini-conclusions after competing arguments and then reach a final conclusion that follows logically from the evidence rather than simply repeating earlier points.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining legal and political sovereignty in exactly the same way
Why this is incorrect: The specification explicitly distinguishes between sovereignty in theory and sovereignty in practice.
How to improve: Remember:
Legal = right to exercise power.Political = practical ability to exercise power.
Then apply this distinction to every institution you discuss.
Mistake: Claiming that devolution transfers legal sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel defines devolution as the dispersal of power, but not sovereignty.
How to improve: Say that devolved institutions exercise significant political authority while Parliament retains the traditional claim to ultimate legal sovereignty.
Mistake: Treating the Executive and Parliament as the same thing
Why this is incorrect: The Executive is the government, while Parliament is the legislature that passes legislation and scrutinises government.
How to improve: When using an example, explicitly identify which branch is exercising power.
Mistake: Assuming that a powerful government has become legally sovereign
Why this is incorrect: An elective dictatorship describes political dominance. The government still needs Parliament to pass primary legislation.
How to improve: Use the phrase:
Executive political dominance does not remove parliamentary legal sovereignty.
Mistake: Saying the Supreme Court can simply overturn Acts of Parliament
Why this is incorrect: The Supreme Court does not possess a general power to strike down primary legislation passed by the sovereign Parliament.
How to improve: Distinguish judicial influence over Executive actions from the legal position of Acts of Parliament.
Mistake: Assuming referendum results automatically replace parliamentary sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: Parliament authorises referendums and retains formal law-making authority.
How to improve: Explain that a referendum may create an extremely powerful political constraint without automatically transferring legal sovereignty to the electorate.
Mistake: Saying sovereignty has "moved" whenever another institution becomes influential
Why this is incorrect: Influence and sovereignty are not identical.
How to improve:
Ask whether the example involves:
a transfer of legal authority, or
a constraint on the practical exercise of Parliament's authority.
Most modern UK examples concern the second.
Mistake: Discussing the Commons and Lords as if they were competing branches of government
Why this is incorrect: Both Houses form part of Parliament. A debate about their relative strength does not automatically show sovereignty moving from the legislature to another branch.
How to improve: Keep your branch categories clear:
legislature, Executive and judiciary.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define legal sovereignty. (2 marks)
Answer:
Legal sovereignty is the legal right to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in theory.
Question 2
Define political sovereignty. (2 marks)
Answer:
Political sovereignty is the political ability to exercise sovereignty, meaning sovereignty in practice.
Question 3
Explain one difference between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. (4 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A developed answer should identify that:
legal sovereignty concerns formal legal authority
political sovereignty concerns the ability to exercise power in practice
For example, Parliament may legally possess the power to change an arrangement but face such strong political opposition that exercising that power is unrealistic.
Question 4
A government has a large majority in the House of Commons and its MPs usually follow the party whip.
Explain how this could produce a difference between the location of legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should explain that:
Parliament remains legally sovereign
legislation must still be passed by Parliament
the government controls a large number of Commons votes
party discipline enables ministers to secure parliamentary approval
the Executive may therefore determine much of Parliament's practical activity
political sovereignty may consequently appear to lie with the Executive even while legal sovereignty remains with Parliament
Question 5
Explain why devolution may constrain political sovereignty without removing Parliament's legal sovereignty. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible developed points include:
devolution disperses power to institutions outside Westminster
devolved bodies make decisions in areas within their responsibilities
they possess democratic legitimacy through elections
reversing devolved arrangements could therefore be politically difficult
however, Edexcel defines devolution as dispersing power rather than sovereignty
Parliament therefore retains its traditional legal position while facing a significant political constraint
Question 6
Explain how a referendum can create tension between legal and political sovereignty. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response may explain that:
Parliament legislates to authorise a referendum
Parliament retains formal law-making authority
the referendum gives voters a direct decision on an issue
the result may possess strong democratic legitimacy
ignoring it may be politically extremely difficult
the electorate can therefore constrain Parliament politically without necessarily replacing its legal sovereignty
Question 7
Evaluate the view that political sovereignty in the UK lies mainly with the Executive. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
elective dictatorship
FPTP can produce single-party majority governments
party discipline and whips
government control of much Commons business
a large majority allows government to dominate parliamentary votes
Parliament may therefore approve an agenda largely determined by ministers
Arguments challenging the view may include:
Parliament retains legal sovereignty
the Executive requires Parliament to pass primary legislation
weak or minority governments can be heavily constrained by Parliament
backbench rebellion can reduce government control
judicial review can constrain unlawful Executive action
devolved institutions exercise substantial political power
referendum mandates can constrain government as well as Parliament
A strong judgement should distinguish Executive dominance under favourable political circumstances from permanent possession of sovereignty.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that devolution and referendums mean Parliament can no longer be regarded as sovereign. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view:
devolved bodies exercise substantial decision-making authority
devolved institutions possess electoral legitimacy
reversing established devolution may be politically unrealistic
referendum results carry strong democratic authority
Parliament may be politically unable to ignore direct public votes
practical sovereignty has therefore become more dispersed
Arguments challenging the view:
devolution is defined as dispersing power rather than sovereignty
Parliament retains formal legal authority
referendum processes are authorised through legislation
Parliament remains responsible for making the resulting law
one Parliament cannot permanently bind another
political constraints do not necessarily remove legal sovereignty
A strong answer should explicitly distinguish legal possibility from political practicality.
Question 9
Read the following source extract.
Parliament retains the formal right to make and unmake laws, and governments, courts and devolved institutions ultimately operate within constitutional arrangements created through legislation. This suggests that legal sovereignty remains firmly located at Westminster.Yet formal authority does not always reveal where real political power lies. Governments with secure Commons majorities may dominate Parliament, devolved institutions possess their own democratic legitimacy, court judgements can constrain political action and referendum results can be politically impossible to ignore. Sovereignty in practice may therefore be dispersed across the political system.
Using the source, evaluate the view that sovereignty lies in Parliament alone. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Strong responses should pair the competing arguments contained in the source.
Arguments that sovereignty lies in Parliament alone:
Parliament can make and unmake laws
Executive legislation depends on parliamentary authority
constitutional arrangements for devolution depend on legislation
courts cannot generally strike down Acts of Parliament
Parliament remains the strongest location of legal sovereignty
Arguments that sovereignty does not lie in Parliament alone:
Executive dominance may transfer practical political power to government
devolved institutions exercise substantial political authority
judicial decisions constrain political actors
referendum results create strong democratic limits on parliamentary freedom
political sovereignty is therefore more dispersed than legal sovereignty
For the highest levels, the judgement should not simply choose one side. It should identify which type of sovereignty lies with Parliament and explain why the location of political sovereignty may differ.
Comments