Blog Discussion Group One
Blog Discussion Group One
Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on September 5 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on September 8.
Politics, the State, and Nation.
1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
Presidentialism & Parliamentarism
4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
5. Should the Unites States change its single member district/plurality system for elections to the House of Representatives to a proportional representation system?
After reading chapter one pg. 19 of (kesselman) “For the past two decades, the main topic for research in comparative politics has been democratization.” Question four of the blog questions really got my attention. I came up deciding that presidntialism is more democratic than parliamenarism. The reasoning I came up with this is because when something has to be settled they can just vote on it. And the top of power has to be elected into that position by voters. And the only way of knocking someone out of that power is by impeaching them. In parliamenarism someone of higher power can be voted out just by the people of that society voting and they would be removed. And with parliamenarism there is a better chance of fighting and war where with presidntialism there isn’t such a good chance of violence and war. Presidntialism is by far more democratic than parliamenarism.
ReplyDeleteI am really able to relate what I wrote about stability to what you are saying here. What stability does Parliamentarism offer, if leaders can easily be voted out by the people, when they decide that they no longer want them? Well, it does not. I think has human beings we thrive extremely well off of a stable environment. Presidentailism is a great example of stability. Presidents in the US are elected for either 4 or 8 years, and in that time they do as much as they can, that they see if best fit for us. Now, whether people agree with what the leader is doing, is a different story, but it is still stability. I do not think you have that with Parliamentarism.
DeleteWhich is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is a government system where citizens vote on public representatives and the vote individually on the president. Each member/citizen in society is given the right to vote for government officials whether it be state, local or federal positions (Kesselman). A good example of a Presidential Democracy is The United Sates of America. From what i learned in the past and what i read in the reading for this week is that in a parliamentary system citizens vote for members of parliament to represent them. From there the a Prime Minster is nominated and voted on by parliament. However, in a Parliamentary system "the chief executive is answerable to the legislature and may be dismissed by it" (Kesselman) A good Example of A parliamentary Democracy is Great Britain with parliament and and a Prime minister.
I believe after understanding the difference between the two different types of Democracy i believe that the most democratic is the presidential system. The reason being that citizens vote on officials for most of the governmental positions such as president and members of congress. Even the positions that citizens do not vote on the representatives who represent the citizens views will vote whether or not to confirm the appointment such as agency heads, judges and supreme court justices. The presidential system is more democratic because individuals citizens are allowed to vote on more things and express individual voices more.
Which is more democratic: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteWhen answering this question, you can go in a number of different directions. The direction I chose, for my response, was based on stability. Meaning, which of these two display better stability? I decided that Presidentialism is the better of the two. In his (Sartori) excerpt, he mentions "the honorable Yellow", who for thirty some years, was an active cabinet member, and was the minister of tourism, treasury, foreign affairs, and so on. How did his achievement as a minister reflect on those that he served? That is what Sartori explains to us. He says, and I quote, "People rise to their level of incompetence", according to the Peter Principle, that he also mentions. I have to agree with the statement. He supports this statement by saying the honorable Yellow knows that the longer he can stay within control/power, in no way relates to his achievements. He further goes on to say that, "if this is what 'substantial stability' truly stands for, then we are better off without it." That last part from his writing was my deciding factor that Presidentialism is more democratic than Parliamentarism. I believe it to be unsuccessful for the people, when government authorities make it a "goal", for lack of a better term, as to how long they can lead. It is better to have a leader with a limited term, who feels inclined to achieve as much as they can while serving their period. That is exactly what we see with Presidentialism. In America, our elected President has either four years or eight years, and in that time, it is their responsibility to do a much as they can, that is best for their people.
I totally with what you are saying. I love that the pieces from the text. Those were great and very helpfully when i was reading your post. The biggest thing that caught my eye was when you talked about having a leader at the top. In everything that I do I want a leader and i think if you have a leader more will get done and the tings getting done will be done better. It is very big for the USA to have a great leader all the time. Some people don't agree with our leaders and what they do but they are still on top and have to respect that. i hope this was helpful and i think that this was a great piece. Hope you enjoy.
Delete3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteA state is an "autonomous community formed by a territorial population subject to one government" (Hague and Harrop, p 13). A state must have boundaries, internal and external sovereignty, legitimacy making the state that "highest institution in society" (p. 13-14). A nation is much different from a state although the words are sometimes used interchangeably. Nations are imagined communities (p. 15) with people of like history, language, and culture. A special example of a nation is the Kurdish population because they have no state, rather they occupy several states to include Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.
Many states have more than one nation that reside in them. As a matter of fact, homogeneous nation-states, like Cuba, Japan, and North Korea are rare. So the question if it would be better to break up states with more than one nation is very dependent on the state of the state. For example if you take a state like Canada or the United States it would devastate the country if we divide it based on our individual nationalities that make us up. It is our diversity that has made us successful and prosperous. Such a division would cause catastrophic economic failure.
On the other hand if you look at the status of the Kurdish population and how they are divided into many states it might be a great consideration to give the Kurdish population their own state. Whenever conflict occurs for Kurds in one state, there is an effect amongst Kurds in the neighboring states. Because they are not the majority, many laws are biased against them and they are an oppressed population due the nationalism of the majority nations. If the Kurds had their own state, they would be able to govern themselves according to their culture, have a political voice, and be less likely to be victims internally. Many conflicts in the Middle East are based on nationalism not state loyalty, so if the nations governed themselves there would be less internal civil war and conflict.
4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteBoth presidentialism and parliamentarism are forms of democracy, specifically indirect (representative) democracy (Hague, 43). If I were to dance around the question I’d like to talk about how neither are really represented in their purest form in the world today, so a little bit of both with some tweaks would be the best form of democracy. But, if I was to truly answer the question I’d have to say that presidentialism. Presidentialism in its purest form allows for everyone to vote and have a say in the laws that are being made. Not only that, but there are fixed amounts of time that the elected official has (Sartori, 106). This is different than parliamentarism since with parliamentarism, rules are more flexible and decided by the powers that be.
With that being said, I’d like to bring up a point that is partially related to this. What do you guys think about the fact that even though technically everyone in America has a right to vote and can exercise that right, thats not actually the case? I have been thinking a lot about people who have been incarcerated and the consequences of that being the lack of ability to exercise your rights, including voting. Not only that, but the discrimination that goes on at the polls and corruption that happens after. If I were to think about this further in terms of countries themselves, we can think about the best two examples of these concepts in practice being the United States and Britain. When analyzing these countries, I might have to say that Britain is more democratic. Although the US has more structure in our elections, the fact that not everyone can vote, to me, overrides that fact. To explain myself further, I do not know much about the history of Britain, so I might be making up things, but I thought that was an interesting point to bring up.
Random thoughts on the topic: while reading Chapter 4 in Hague there is a section on Uzbekistans president. I’d just like to open the floor to anyone’s thoughts and reactions on how shocking it was to hear a president described in that way. If you do not remember this part, a relevant quote from it is, “He keeps tight control of the media, uses a traditional institution of local governance as an instrument of social control…” (Hague, 70) I was confused about where you draw the line between president and dictator? When is that transition considered and recognized? I guess I was just shocked by the fact that they were using the word president, but describing such an aggressively controlling power which I do not associate with the word president.
Okay, lastly, if you would like to comment on this, I've also been thinking about the first question, but more specifically something about the tone of the book, not necessarily the context. In the chapter about authoritarian rule, the authors speak about non-democratic versus democratic regimes. In general, I think they were saying that democracies tend to be more sustainable in the long run and can possibly ensure stable and “indefinite” (62) economic growth. I wasn’t sure if these statement were biased in anyway, or facts that can be backed up, because to me it wouldn’t make sense if these are simultaneously facts and nations that aren’t democratic. What do you guys think? Is it because not every nation desires stable economic growth? I don't want to impose my ethnocentric ideas onto countries, but also it just seems a little irresponsible to allow an unstable economy if you know how to create a stable one.
Okay I'm done.
Hi Mallory,
DeleteI also found that odd at first, but after some thought, it occurs to me that "President" is a title that refers to someone in a position of executive power at the head of government. Another title for an executive is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the head of a corporation, responsible for executing an organization's business plan, and to " implement corporate policy, as established by the board" (Business Dictionary 2017).
As Shugart pointed out, in a Presidential Democracy, the President derives their legitimacy from the vote (pg 14). In a Presidential autocracy, the President derives their legitimacy from some other source, such as military power. One way to accomplish this is to become president through the vote, but then use Commander-in-Chief in power or populist power to coerce the legislature into modifying the Constitution to grant the President unlimited terms in office, remove impeachment and recall procedures, and grant the Executive Branch out-sized power as "first above unequals" (Sartori 109) over the legislative and judicial branches, thus decreasing the likelihood that he would every be removed from office.
4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeletePresidentialism is more democratic. Under presidentialism, dates are fixed at specific dates every two, four, or six years, depending on the position of power. These dates are never changing. Under parliamentarism, however, this is not the case. The prime minister, for instance, can set the date of election themselves. The date of the election, however, must happen before five years have passed. They can use this power as a supreme advantage over the party that is not in power. A prime minister can declare the election date right after their party has received tremendous publicity. Because election dates are set in stone under presidentialism, politicians are held accountable, making it a more democratic system.
The system of checks and balances is another reason why presidentialism is a more democratic system. The three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) all have power over the other. Not one member of any branch can become too powerful. In parliamentarism, the prime minister is closely linked with parliament. It is a possibility that a prime minister could over power parliament. Because it is much harder for the executive branch to control the legislative branch under presidentialism, it is more democratic
I have to disagree with you on this one! I think that parliamentarism is definitely the more Democratic of the two systems. The people are represented more accurately with the Parliament, who are then more prone to work together to get things done, including electing a prime minister who can represent their interests sufficiently. Since the terms are shorter and the Parliament can give the prime minister the boot at any time, there's also more flexibility with accurate representation and the prime minister has more incentive to accomplish things more quickly.
Delete2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteThe direct answer to this question is fairly obvious, yes, there are some countries and world leaders that are more nationalistic than others and unfortunately in some cases, too nationalistic. We have seen this extreme nationalism past and are still seeing it in the present. All countries in some shape or form have their own nationalism, being that every country is unique in its own way. The idea behind nationalism is that each nation has the ability to freely govern themselves and make their own decisions or "determine their own destiny." (Hague/Harrop 16) However, extreme nationalism can lead to disastrous scenarios, like for example, world war one and two. But how can nationalism bring so many people to wage war or commit genocide?
"A national identity unites people who do not know each other but who, nonetheless, find themselves yoked together under common rulers and markets." (Hague/Harrop, 16) The author goes on to state that this "national identity provides a rationalization for participation in war, encouraging people 'to die for the sake of strangers' (Langman, 2006)." (Hague/Harrop, 16) When it comes to taking into account a country/ruler that is too nationalistic, North Korea is a prime example. Despite the UN telling North Korea to stop it's nuclear weapons program, it did nothing of the sort and still continues to conduct missile tests. Why? Because they wish to become a nuclear state and are thereby choosing "their own destiny." The holocaust is another prime example of what is possible when a country becomes too nationalistic. Under Nazi leadership, Germany exterminated 12 million people due to the fact that they did not fit under their national identity, vision or just got in the way. So what can be done to avoid these situations? I find the most important thing is the continuous education of these past atrocities for future generations so that situations like so can be avoided. If people know how awful they were, hopefully they can learn from past mistakes. France, in their most recent election didn't, but almost voted, a far-right nationalist for office whose campaign slogan was "France is for the French." This disaster was avoided by individuals not voting for the far right candidate. The promotion of a global identity and acceptance in future generations would also be useful. People should not just work for the common good of their nation, but the entire human race.
It is sad to see the rise of nationalism today. I can't look at the news without seeing an article that causes me to worry about North Korea. Nationalism has infected the minds of its leaders and has seeped down to the citizens through propaganda. It is hard to say what can be done to fix this problem. Trump thinks ending business with countries that continue trade with North Korea will solve the problem to a degree. I do not think this will have any effect.
DeleteInefficiencies in Government.
ReplyDeleteInitially I would just like to say that I just got into this class. My point being that I am only answering this based on my own opinion and do not have a source of information from the book.
I think that Government’s all over the world show different inefficiencies. Some have monetary issues that are challenging as far as growing a good economy and creating jobs. The United States isn’t necessarily one of these countries with that problem, but we do lack in other ways such as passing legislation due to the inability to do bipartisan politics. If we are segregated into basically a 2-party system, lawmakers will do what’s needed to appeal to their political party. I think that if people were elected based on their merit and accomplishments, and if we got rid of the 2-party system, this would help connect voters to the people they truly share their beliefs with. Health care is a very relevant topic now because congress failed on several bills to get the new legislation to pass, thankfully it didn’t. This happened because a few republicans voted across the aisle to do what they believed to be right. I feel like we are seeing a lot more of this during the Trump administration because no one wants to be affiliated with his views. But when governments try to solve the problems that people cause, when they try to deal with social issues like addiction, teen pregnancy, and poor health choices. Those human problems have deep roots. The human condition varies very widely, and no one has figured out how to make sure everyone has what they need to feel happy and healthy
I agree that some issues that truly have their deep roots. In that case, government have to clear it out step by step, which is not a immediate progress. However, it cannot be a reason for the inefficiencies in government. Though it is a long progress, we should see the little improvement at same time. Whether the measures about it have been taken well or the legal system is being perfected, which are the things we want to see.
Delete1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
ReplyDeleteAll governments will have some degree of inefficiency or ineffectiveness, but it seems to vary according to the type and size of government considered. A government loses power (effectiveness) as it loses its ability to provide public services, enforce laws, and control its territory. It can also lose ability to perform if there is corruption or crime present in the governing body, or if it can't collect taxes to support itself.
Generally speaking, larger governments tend to be inherently wasteful and inefficient. They tend to overspend and create debt. While raising taxes may compensate for this spending to some degree, we in the US can witness that taxation decreases unity among the different classes of citizens (think of our recent venture into the provision of "affordable healthcare"). This leads me to one of the most important pieces of the puzzle to build a strong and effective government: unity.
Political identity provides legitimacy. "When a regime is widely accepted by those subject to it, we describe it as legitimate" (Hague & Harrop, 13). A strong sense of national unity, or rather, a weak one, can cause loyalties to lie in many different places as opposed to a single government or governing body.
The inability to create a prosperous economy or build positive economic relationships is another big contributing factor to a weak government. When there is a lack of interpersonal trust and unity, the economy begins to flounder as it becomes more difficult to provide services and exchange goods in a society that is divided. Attempting economic reform may help, but if the government cannot provide unifying institutions, there is a larger underlying problem.
A good example of a weak and ineffective government that many of us are familiar with is the Articles of Confederation set forth by the 13 colonies who fought in the American Revolution. According to the Articles, Congress could not collect taxes or regulate commerce. There were no branches of government to enforce the Articles, and no judiciary system to follow through with. While the colonies had united against a common enemy, there remained division between them and they often struggled to maintain trade amongst themselves because of the lack of power given to the governing body. Each state printed its own currency, made its own trade deals, and had its own militia, important factors that led to economic chaos.
When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, many things were changed that helped to improve the effectiveness of the American government- and we see today that in this instance, it was successful.
I myself think that as long as there are strong institutions in place to unify the people, many of the other problems that can create a weak government can be overcome with the right framework and leadership. What do you guys think?
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase, " A strong sense of national unity, or rather, a weak one, can cause loyalties to lie in many different places as opposed to a single government or governing body." Could it be written as, "A weak sense of national unity can cause loyalties to lie in many different places resulting in congressional quagmires where few bills get passed. But a strong sense of national unity results in a single governing body, thereby ensuring easier passage of bills put forth."? I see that "Unity" is the gist of your argument but I'm not sure if institutionally enforced "unity" has ever been a thing. That starts creeping toward unchecked state control to nullify intellectual individuality which is an asset. Now "unity behind a common cause" I can totally see bringing disparate parties together. But individual lawmakers, of course, see causes differently based on their personal world-view and the feed back of their constituents; resulting in loyalties lying in different places, right? So maybe the best middle-way would be if the entire governing body could be more "centrist" in their political attitude instead of extreme Radical/Reactionary polarity so that they could at least "talk" to each other.
Delete3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteBy its definition a multinational state combines a range of national identities under a single government. ‘a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’. Examples of a states with more than one nation is the United Kingdom, United Sates, Russia, Nigeria, and China. I don’t feel it would be a good for the population if these states to broke off into separate states. Breaking off these states into separate states would make it harder to govern. Additional each state is unique in its cultural and religious beliefs keeping these states under one nation allows us to be diverse.
3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDelete- The definition of a multinational state is a state that combines a range of national identities under a single government. (pg 16, Hague) In many multinational states, more than one nation is fundamental to a country's politics and assimilation to a dominant nationality is unrealistic. Examples of states with more than one nation include Britain, Canada, Belgium, South Africa, and Pakistan. It would not be a good idea if these states broke up into separate states. This is because these states would be harder to govern as a whole and because each state is so unique in religious beliefs and cultural idealizations.
I agree, that it would not be a good idea if a state with multiple nations broke off into separate states but I also believe that the separation of the states would increase each states unity. I personally enjoy states with more than one nation because it brings diversity and views from many different cultures. If a government succeeds in uniting its people then together a state with many nations has the ability to be very powerful.
DeleteThe United Kingdom, Canada, Nigeria, and Afghanistan are examples of multi-national states which are sovereign territories that contain two or more national identities under a single government. The U.K. for example, "has long been divided between English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish nationals."(Hague and Harrop, 17) These nations have their own unique culture, history, ideology, and often language (U.K.- English, Welsh, Gaelic). But these relationships are not always easy. History and current day are full of violent conflicts between uneasy regional and international bedfellows. The efforts of power in a central authority to contain and control all of the resources within its boundaries in order to be a competitive player on the world stage can be a serious driver of strife. This strife can lead to the breakup of larger states into into smaller states composed of ethno-cultural majorities. The decomposition of colonialism comes to mind.(Hague and Harrop, 32-33)
ReplyDeleteSo would it be better if such multi-national states broke up into separate states? I think the answer would come from asking the question, "How, and to what extent, does the hosting government recognize or even allow the nations within its borders?" Does it go the way of Canada by officially recognizing the Quebecois in 2006 or the way of Turkey by trying to eliminate any kurdish element. The international stage has more and more included cultural regions of larger countries as important players. "Now foreign policy consists mainly of adjusting the domestic policies of the states - of what they do with or to their own people."(Hague and Harrop, 35) So, if a diverse portfolio is a profitable position in international affairs as it is in business, it might behoove the host state to see the multicultural nations as an asset rather than a liability.
1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
ReplyDeleteIt is true that government have inefficiency and ineffectiveness, which is inevitable in every country, because nothing can keep its perfection all the time.
As far I am concerned, the main reason for it is the inner mechanism. If the management mechanism inside is not serious and compelete, people are easy to break it down or lower their guard. In that case, the whole management system will be loose.
At the same time, the law system must be strengthened. First, the monitor system ought to be all-round, people can see affairs happen, can make jugdement and suggestion of it. And then the law to punish the guilty people must be severe, which can let people afraid of making mistakes.
DeleteI agree that ineffective and inefficient government policy characteristics are inevitable in certain governments but I do not agree that it is in all countries.
Inefficiency and ineffectiveness relate to how well resources are used for productivity and how close the success of such use attains the desired results.
A democracy, whether presidential or parliamentary, has inefficiency and ineffectiveness built into the design, but it is to protect the civil rights of the individuals who run the government, which is supposed to be the people. As stated by Hague and Harrop on page 8, "democracy employees the philosophy of liberalism which is an effective shield for defending individual rights against government access." There may definitely be some in efficiencies and ineffectiveness due to humanity as mentioned above but essentially the systems of checks and balances and elections by the people are what prevent policies that may negatively affect a person's civil rights.
On the other hand and authoritarian regime does not have the same accountability to the public to uphold their civil rights. An authoritarians ability to legislate and implement laws are smoother, and as a result policy-making is much more effective and efficient. As stated by Hague and Harrop on page 9, "Rulers stand above the law and are free from effective popular accountability." Hague and Harrop mention the constraints of an authoritarian regime to their alliances but the ultimate decision of policymaking is left to the authoritarian leader or leaders.
3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteA state is an "autonomous community formed by territorial population subject to one government" (Hague and Harrop, p 13). A state must have boundaries, internal and external sovereignty, legitimacy making the state that "highest institution in society" (p. 13-14). A nation is much different from a state although the words are sometimes used interchangeably. Nations are imagined communities (p. 15) with people of like history, language, language, and culture. A special example of a nation is the Kurdish population because they have no state rather they occupy several states to include Syria, turkey, Iran, and Iraq.
Many states have more than one nation that reside in them. As a matter of fact, homogeneous nation-states, like Cuba, Japan, and North Korea are rare. So the question if it would be better to break up states with more than one nation is very dependent on the state of the state. For example if you take a state like Canada or the United States it would devastate the country if we divide it based on our individual nationalities that make us up. It is our diversity that has made us successful and prosperous. Such a division would cause catastrophic economic failure.
On the other hand if you look at the status of the Kurdish population and how they are divided into many states it might be a great consideration to give the Kurdish population their own state. Whenever conflict occurs for Kurds in one state, there is an effect amongst Kurds in the neighboring states. Because they are not the majority, many laws are biased against them and they are an oppressed population due the nationalism of the majority nations. If the Kurds had their own state, they would be able to govern according to their culture, have a voice, and be less likely to be victims internally. Many conflicts in the Middle East are based on nationalism not state loyalty, so if the naruins governed themselves there would be less internal civil war and conflict.
I definitely agree with you that it is important to take a careful look at the condition of a state before you take any actions and that there is no general approach. However, I am not fully convinced that creating a new state based on certain nations would ever be better. While there would be less abuse and discrimination internally, more than likely the new Kurdish state would be neighboring the countries that have been causing them to suffer and it could to lead to all out war. Additionally, unless a state dissolves, the land for a new nation-state would have to come from a state that already exists which would further increase tensions as oppose to easing them like a separation was supposed to do.
DeleteDiscuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent government?
ReplyDeleteImmediately after conception most of government resources are spent on problem solving. These problems may stem from the size of the country or the economic status of the general population. One major problem for some governments that leads to inefficiency is that elected politicians might disagree with each other on fundamental issues. Such as how “Presidential systems lack means of ensuring that the president will enjoy the support of a majority in congress” (Shugart 31). A problem that can cause ineffectiveness in government is over the course of an elected officials term they might lose the support of the public. If the lack of support reaches critical levels the public will start to ignore rules and regulations created by the disliked official. Governments can always work to become more effective. Parliaments are hyper polarized and must work hard to keep their governments efficient. For example, Germany uses both a constructive vote of no confidence as well as a 5 percent barrier to representation to protect the efficiency of their elections (Satori 111). Governments will always have problems to deal with, that, either cause inefficiency or stem from inefficiency. At the end of the day governments will never be perfect because humans will never be perfect.
I agree with this. I feel like there will always be inefficiencies in our government no matter which it is. I feel like we have a huge lack of participation from the people. I feel like depending on what party is elected is to what has been added to congress and in our house of representatives. I feel like the people are more at odds with each other over this last election. Everyone wants to complain but no one wants to make the means to change the way things are today. And most feel like with electing a President that they don't have a voice and that it is majority rules but some people sit at home complain and never even take the initiative to vote and make a difference or make there voice heard. I feel like that in its self makes inefficacies and it just snowballs from there.
DeleteWhich is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteParlimentarism is more democratic. Parlimentarism is more of a proportionate system where more voices are heard because groups are more likely to come together to elect a Prime minister. Although the Prime minister is not directly elected by the general population, the general population can elect the people in the parliament to make decisions in their interest and put the best fit person in office. Parliamentarism is also much more flexible because it is easier to remove a prime minister from office and the people in the parliament serve a term of two years whereas the presidents term last four years.
I agree with this. After our discussion in class yesterday and being explained the way that parliament has a certain percentage of every party in the room voting, I realized that this was the more democratic system. I think I was quick to say in my post above that presidentialism is more democratic only because that is what I am used to hearing being an American and living in America is that we are so democratic and since we have a president I kind of just assumed. The only thing about this that would bother me is the inability to predict what will happen in the future and the possible inefficiencies with giving every single party a voice. I kind of like knowing that no matter what the president will be in office for four years and if I do not like them it is kind of annoying, but at least there is some form of predictability. I am torn because I think it's important to give everyone a voice but I couldn't imagine anything getting done too quickly if everyone is trying to look out for their best interest. Anyway, good thoughts! I agree.
Delete4. Which is more democratic: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteI think Parliamentarism is more democratic. In Parliamentarism only the legislature is directly elected and terms for the executive and legislature are not fixed. It is a more proportionate system that needs a coalition to make leadership decision therefore you have more of a representation of the peoples opinion. This also allows confidence relationships to be built with leadership and should that confidence shift it is easier to remove leadership unlike Presidentialism. You are more likely to find disciplined political parties in the parliamentary systems as well as proportionate/consensual systems. With Presidentialism, fixed terms of four years create inflexibility and often suffer from immobilism due to a divided government. "Unlike presidential systems, in which the chief executive is separate from the legislature and independently elected, the executive in parliamentary government is organically linked to the assembly. The government emerges from parliament and can be brought down by a vote of no confidence."(Hague and Harrop pg. 305)
I totally agree with you. I feel Parliamentarian is more democratic. In Presidential they are elected for a fixed term. Meaning that usually the person we elected in a presidential government for minimum of four years. In a Parliamentarism, we elected a Prime Minister to represent the people for much shorter periods of time. Allowing more flexible within the government in case we disagree with their perform.
Delete4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on how you define democratic, presidential democracy and parliamentary system, and on which you consider to be the most valuable attribute of government: stability or accountability.
A. Let’s start with Shugart and Mainwaring's definitions (pg. 14).
Democracy ––must exhibit three characteristics: 1) Open competitive elections for policy makers. 2) Universal adult suffrage. 3) Basic guarantees of traditional civil rights.
Presidential democracy –– must exhibit two characteristics: 1) The president is popularly elected. 2) Terms for the president and assembly are fixed.
Parliamentary system –– must exhibit two characteristics: 1) The PM (executive) is elected by Parliament. 2) The terms of office are not fixed.
Both presidential democracies and parliamentary systems meet all three definitions of democracy. Even in the case where PMs are elected by Parliament, the PM is indirectly elected by the polity who elected Parliament, so the executive office is competitive and influenced by popular vote. In all but a few of either system worldwide, basic civil rights are guaranteed or protected.
It might seem that since the PM can dissolve Parliament to increase their party power and the parliament can remove the PM, that the parliamentary system is less democratic, but a disapproving the polity can in turn elect a parliament that issues a no confidence vote and remove the offending PM. The benefit of not having fixed terms is that the polity can more readily remove ineffective or offending assemblies and executives without having to wait out terms.
In a presidential democracy, the assembly and executive are directly elected, and cannot be easily removed except in cases of felony, fraud, or treason. Since terms are fixed, a disappointed polity must wait for the next election cycle to replace ineffective or offending office holders. It’s also more difficult to replace all of the assembly in one election cycle.
B. When we weigh in stability and accountability, parliamentary systems tend to be less stable, but more accountable, and presidential democracies tend to be more stable, but less accountable. That is when we measure stability is in terms of office holding power and accountability in terms of removal from office, when office holders fail to effectively govern or enact effective desirable policies. In parliamentary systems, assemblies are generally most effective during the first six months, then thereafter try to do very little to avoid being dissolved by the PM. Presidents and their parties must rush to compete their goals during one or more terms, while they hold a majority (pg 30).
Given the pros and cons of both systems, I’d say that neither is more democratic than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. It just depends on which a particular society needs to implement its negotiated goals and policies.
I tried to post this last night and it said it published it and I sent an email to you Geroge on this. But I am reposting as I don't see it on the feed tonight.
ReplyDeleteWhich is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
I feel that parliametarism is the most democratic. In parliamentarism the people will vote in a cabinet of people. People of all different walks of life and different parties. There terms are shorter then those of the presidentialism. They are 2 years verses the typical 4 year time frame. The parliamentary cabinet is able to talk with the people and hear their concerns and then help change the laws as they are a small cabinet that work together to help the people of the country. They would like to be well liked so that they are continued to be voted in term after term. If the people do not like what the cabinet does then they will have them kicked out of the cabinet after there time is up. In Presidentialism we elect a president and they are in a position for 4 years. In this form it is near impossible to impeach the president and it doesn't matter what the people like if we do not agree with the President then we have to just wait til the next presidential election comes so that we can elect some one different. Parliamentarism is by Far the most democratic.