To what extent are judges better guardians of rights and civil liberties than Parliament or the executive? - Edexcel - A-Level Politics - Question 4 - 2016 - Paper 2

Judges are independent from Parliament and the executive, allowing them to make decisions without political influence. This independence enables them to protect individuals’ rights, particularly in cases where there may be overwhelming state power.

While judges maintain an essential role, Parliament is often viewed as the ultimate guardian of rights because it enacts laws and frameworks, such as the HRA and the FOI Act, within which judges operate. Parliamentary decisions directly shape the extent of rights and liberties.

Judges are sometimes accused of political bias, which can compromise their role as neutral arbiters. This contrasts with Parliament’s ability to respond more readily to public grievances, potentially making it a more proactive defender of rights.

The executive can have a significant influence on rights and liberties, especially when a strong majority exists. In such cases, the executive may impose actions that could infringe upon rights, with judges often seen as reactive rather than proactive in these scenarios.

In conclusion, while judges have crucial mechanisms to protect rights through legal frameworks and independence, Parliament, with its law-making capabilities, and the executive, with its practical power, also play pivotal roles in the overall protection of rights and civil liberties.