Blog Discussion Group One
Blog post due at 11:55pm on September 8 and comment due at 11:55pm on September 11.
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?
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?
ReplyDeleteWhether it be in politics, business, team sports, or everyday tasks, the biggest detriment to effectiveness and efficiency is the failure to communicate. Communication can vastly alter the direction of your process, as effective communication can essentially hide the weaknesses in skill of those involved. Governments, both in today's society and over the course of history, have experienced inefficiency and ineffectiveness due to a lapse in communication as a whole. The majority of our class has had the opportunity to learn about the American system of democracy throughout our education, and based on that alone we can see the inefficiency behind such a broad system. Involving citizens in the form of a vote takes years to develop, creating, passing, and processing legislation is a lengthy process, and judicial review can take years to come to fruition. A democracy in general is almost too broad, involving too many people, to be effective. Not to mention the clash in political views, morals, and values of those within these individual moving parts. In contrast, a Parliamentary system seems to be a stronger form of government in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. In our readings we were exposed to the English parliamentary, in particular the effectiveness of Margaret Thatcher during her time as prime minister in 1979-1990. "Like few others, she set the tone and redefined the goals of British politics," (Kesselman 53). Her conservative regime was able to pull Britain out of painful economic stagnation, and her ability to facilitate both executive and legislative processes was crucial in the jump start of Britain during the 1980's. The ability to essentially house executive and legislative powers together is an example of a more effective government, as communication can be more concise and focused without as many moving pieces being involved.
Thinking back to World War II, history was exposed to some of the greatest rule over the history of time. While I do not agree with the positions taken by these men, it is difficult to argue that Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini were not effective leaders and controlled effective governments. Forms of government that involve less pieces, such as a dictatorship or monarchy eliminate the need for extra communication, leaving less opportunity for error between branches. When one party or person can directly make decisions and put those decisions into law, things become much more efficient and effective and can better benefit the goals of those in charge. Ultimately, I believe too many channels of communication, and the inability to effectively communicate, is the reason that governments show inefficiency and ineffectiveness. These issues seem to be inherent to certain forms of government, while not plaguing others as badly. However, since communication is a variable that can be improved and we have seen effective, efficient democracies in the past, it is likely we see one again in the future, and hopefully our country and allies will see the benefits of that improvement.
You raise some very interesting, and I believe valid, points. The size, diversity, and separation of a government definitely seem to correlate with how efficiently, or inefficiently, it can function. Because of this, I agree that a Parliamentary system, in theory, is less cumbersome than our own Presidentialist system, and that both of these systems fall short of the efficiency inherent to monarchies and dictatorships. I appreciate the examples you use, as they are powerful demonstrations of both Parliamentary government at its best as well as dictatorship at its worst. Furthermore, I believe your point about communication is very intuitive and intriguing. The more communication between moving parts a certain system of government requires, the less efficiently it can move - but, as your example of Margaret Thatcher shows us, even in the 'bulkier' models of government, a certain degree of efficiency can be achieved.
Delete2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteYes. Some countries are more nationalistic than others. Some of the most nationalistic countries are USA, Venezuela, Australia, and South Africa (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/02/world-national-pride-oped-cx_sp_0701patriot_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=20000).
Nationalism could be increased by high quality of life standards, lots of effort exerted by the government to promote nationalism, and strong commonalities among the people under the government.
There is definitely such a thing as "too nationalistic". Although nationalism does have its benefits, here are a couple of downsides:
---People may be so enamored by their country that they are not as critical as they should be. Citizens may overlook, and therefore perpetuate, major flaws in their government.
---Nationalism often leads to people thinking their country is superior to other countries. Many US politicians have called ours the "best country in the world", which is very problematic because it implies that we don't have anything to learn from other countries (since we're already the best). Plus, such statements cause other countries to have a negative perception of the US.
Solutions:
Countries could stop having elementary school students recite the pledge of allegiance when they are too young to even understand what they are saying. This, to me, is a form of brainwashing--a policy enforced by the government to promote nationalism. Have you ever seen the musical or movie "Annie"? By telling students to recite the pledge each morning, these governments might as well be prompting the children to say, "We love you, Ms. Hannigan". Another solution: what if governments stopped the tradition of singing the national anthem at the start of sporting events? I think this tradition excludes people from the sporting world who do not share warm feelings toward their government.
I agree that there is such a thing as a country being “too nationalistic.” Not only does US nationalism cause other countries to have a negative perception of the US, but also some politicians go so far as to use nationalism to advocate a racist, anti-immigration policy. This adds to the negative attitude. A term often used by some is “American exceptionalism.” This fallacy, nationalistic in nature, matches nationalism to arrogance. Also, the Nazi Germany platform promoted racism under the guise of nationalism. This extreme view contributed to the genocide of the European Jewish population.
DeleteI also agree that having students recite the pledge of allegiance is brainwashing. If nationalism is achieved by high quality of life standards, then there is no need to have students recite the pledge of allegiance. It is a negative and unnecessary way to encourage nationalism.
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?
ReplyDeleteVarious levels of inefficiency are inherent in the different forms of government. To what degree a government can function “effectively” depends in part on what form the government takes. For example, an authoritarian government that vests all of its power in the hands of a few officials can function very efficiently; there is no one to block these figures from unilaterally attempting to achieve their own agenda. A less efficient form of government is democracy, including Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. However, this inefficiency is inherent and intentional, and serves a good purpose.
Democracies intend to protect the people they serve from governmental abuses of power. To achieve this goal, democracies have separations of power. In the American government, this separation is found in the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In the UK, the Parliament and the Prime Minister must work together to achieve their goals, though the ruling party maintains a large enough portion of power to prevent legislative gridlocks. In these forms of government, different branches and parties may seek different goals. This puts the various factions at odds and may appear to cause inefficiency; however, to an extent, this serves the healthy purpose of protecting the people.
The fewer checks there are on power, the more streamlined and efficient a government can be. While higher degrees of efficiency can theoretically by achieved, they are not necessarily desirable. Dictatorships can be incredibly efficient and effective, though history shows us that they often have disastrous consequences. Perhaps instead of trying to eliminate all inefficiency, the better goal would be to seek the ideal balance of efficiency and divided power, so that the government can achieve the goals necessary in running the state without being granted enough power to jeopardize the welfare of its people.
I definitely agree with everything you said, Bradley. Forms of government with fewer channels will always be able to act quicker, but at what price to its people? Throughout history there have been numerous examples of efficient governments taking advantage of groups of people within their state because there was no opportunity for checks and balances. On the other hand, at times justice, legislation, and order takes a long time to develop in government's with multiple branches, but in general, more security and opportunity for citizen involvement is present. If there was a way that a parliamentary or presidentialist form of government could act as efficiently as others, we would be in a very good place as a state!
DeleteI agree with the content of your post overall. But I have always had the question concerning how we avoid the risk of granting too much power to leadership even with the checks in balances that maybe in place. It's is difficult for any human being to avoid being corrupted by that level of power over time. It is appears that any leader who shows any moral or ethical perseverance will not last very long as a leader. Especially if they advocate for the people.
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?
ReplyDeleteAn example of a state with more than one nation is Israel. The majority of the population is Jewish. Though there is also a large population of Arabs who make up the population; with several small groups that make up the remaining balance.
Also the United Kingdom is an example of a single "state" that has several different populations of people. Because this "state" contains four separate nations England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each has its own population of people.
As far as Israeli is concerned, it would seem that there is already a great divide between the two groups of people. They go to different school, practice different religion and rarely mingle between the two groups. So it would seem that really even though they are sharing a space, they have already divided the state into two separate nations.
The United Kingdom seemed just as divided. They have separate Legal system and laws between the separate states. Though the main language in the United Kingdom is English, the official language of Wales is Welsh. Religion is not a distinguishing factor in the United Kingdom, so that is not a dividing factor regarding the split of this "state". Though this group of nations have different legal systems and laws they seem to be a pretty coherent state and there would be no reason to break apart these nations.
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?
ReplyDeleteExamples of multinational states include the United Kingdom, Russia, and Switzerland. The United Kingdom has different regions such as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Some of the nationalists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales want to separate from England. Last year, Scotland even voted on the idea of self-determination and independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29270441) Northern Ireland has a history of violence with nationalists (known as the Irish Republican Army) fighting against the UK’s rule. Russia is multinational now but had even more nations when it was under Soviet rule. Switzerland has both French and German speakers. These speakers represent different nations but are not entirely culturally French or entirely culturally German.
Few states should be broken up into separate states to better fit the needs of each nation. For instance, the Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland would be much better off in Northern Ireland became a part of the rest of Ireland instead of the United Kingdom. Although there is not as much violence now as there previously has been, a united Ireland would help more people out. The region is under an occupation of the British which infringes on rights of Irish in Northern Ireland. This causes Northern Ireland to be behind in terms of social issues from both Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Same-sex marriage is legal in the rest of the UK and recently in Ireland as well but is not allowed in Northern Ireland. However, states such as Russia and Switzerland do not have the same amount of nationalism-based protest and violence. It is impossible to want all states to fit perfectly with a nation, so most multinational states need to be multinational. If they are divided up by nation, they will be too small to reliably govern and will likely not have the necessary external sovereignty.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe United Kingdom, United States, Nigeria, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and China are examples of multinational states. In these states, it can be hard for one to be of more than one culture at times. For example, it could be hard to be African American, Jewish, or Arabic in the United States. There are harsh labels that can/are associated with some of these cultures.
It is not necessarily a good idea to separate these states. This leads to the blending of nationalities and cultures. It leads to constant learning and teaching of others about different places other than their native culture.
This blending promotes the melting pot societies in which different people from different cultures can learn about other cultures while teaching about their own. This constitutes a stronger sense of pride of one's own heritage and understanding of another's. This can also help lead to a better relationships with countries that a country may already be in business with, and can build new bonds with other countries to promote new business relationships.
I agree. I also did not realize that the US is a multinational state. Including more than one nation in a state can be positive for the reasons Holly pointed out, but it can also be negative because if there are more people under one state, it may make it harder for the state to provide for a diverse array of peoples--especially if the people are of different cultural and national backgrounds. It seems like there is more room for dissent when a state has multiple nations.
DeleteI agree because United States is made of different cultures with different ideals and point of views. It makes us unique and diverse. We are able to learn from one another without the expense of going to another country.
Delete2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteYes there are some countries that are more nationalistic then others. I believe that the Unites States is one of them. I think that we, as a country have an ego. An ego, that is perpetuated throughout the citizens and the world. Growing up, I have always heard that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, but why? What makes up the greatest nation? Is it because of the way we treat immigrants, refugees, illegal aliens? is it because of how we treat our veterans, our poor, or the elderly? Is it merely for the promise of opportunity or “freedom”. We sell an America Dream and maybe compared to many countries it is champagne Dream and Caviar. Really How much better are we than the United Kingdom, China, or Australia. We all have rules and regulations that have been out into place by a government that may have difference in opinion. Without out each other, none of us could self-sustain for an extended period of time.
We all need one another to live and progress. Continuing to trade, import and exports can reduce many nationalistic beliefs and efforts. The share knowledge and ingenuity can lead to explorations, discoveries, and cures beneficial to everyone. A better way of life, potentially for us all. Of course to all things good there are some negatives to sharing all that is known with all that ask so there will need to be some parameters set and some discretion exercised.
This post makes a lot of sense and really makes the reader think. I agree in the sense that as a country, I feel like we are more interested in everything else besides our own people. I do not like that we seem to be bullied at times in foreign affairs, are indecisive with our military action, and act on legislation that does not directly benefit our people. We fail to back education, which is an investment in our own future, take care of veterans, and provide job opportunity for many seeking employment, just to name a few. In terms of our ego, I almost wish we cared about ourselves a little more.
DeleteHistory has proven that states who focus on themselves first tend to be leading world powers, which is a place the US has generally been and I would like for our international strength to again be prominent.
Your post does a great job in opening the readers eyes to some of America's growing issues. Patriotism is a great thing for a nation to embrace willingly, but how patriotic can we as Americans be when we neglect those among us who risked their lives for their nation. With little to no help transitioning our veterans back into civilian life after years of military life, we are now seeing veteran suicide on the rise with an astonishing average of 22 veterans taking their lives daily. If our nation were to come together and demand attention be brought to these issues, it would bring a balance to Americas seemingly overbearing nationalism. This would at least make me a much prouder citizen of a nation that boasts to be the best.
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?
ReplyDeleteGovernments that do not have common goals of the populations beneath them will prove to be ineffective. Thomas Hobbes idea of government included creating a "plurality of voices, unto one will" resulting in common wealth for a population. In our textbook "Political Science" you will find that authoritarian regimes are an example of governments where the population has no effective means of controlling its rulers. The leaders of these governments go out of their way to ignore the voices of its people with extreme means such as jailing anyone voting against them.
These ineffective ways can simply be overcome with communication between the governments leaders and its people. When the voice of the people is not only hear, but also used in overall decision making, the government at hand would then be providing its people with the common wealth government was designed to create.
I really liked your discussion of Hobbe's "plurality of voices." It does seem on appearance that that authoritarian regeims are successful because of their blatant disregard for the people as a whole. But when it comes to ways of overcoming their oppression and domination when it manifests itself to such an extensive degree, I believe more drastic measures will generally be undertaken (such as revolution or military coups) by the people and for the people, as opposed to mutual communication. I agree that the public's interests are integral towards successful political administration, but do you truly believe that human societies (as they stand today) have the capability to have a unified voice with consolidated virtues effective enough to impose change upon a powerful authoritarian or totalitarian government?
DeleteAs we have already covered in our course material this semester governments have inefficiencies whether they are a democracy, communist, or authoritarian. Much of these problems come from trying to create a system of checks and balances that will make a balance in power within the government. This balance of power also can lead to ineffectiveness when opposition exists between the political parties. Democracies have tried to remedy this problem by electing Presidents or using the Parliamentary system, these are not full proof but exist to try and expedite the process. Also withing the Democratic system one party always has higher power depending on elections, this is why things can become so difficult if there is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Stalemates can occur along with filibusters and numerous other bureaucratic issues. On the other hand Communist and Fascist nation try and remedy this by having the government or leader command action to be carried out. The problems that cause inefficiency in these totalitarian systems is the lack of motivation or drive when people gain nothing by working harder or for greater lengths of time. A checks and balances system becomes corrupt for these same reasons when people of power desire to get a law or motion passed then political favors and even bribes can become quite common.
ReplyDelete4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteWhile both these systems of executive governance reflect similar ideals of the democratic process though there are remarkable differences in each that will delineate the two though I believe it is hard to say which would be more democratic than the other because an individuals accepted definition of democracy will change on a case by case basis and vary upon that individuals philosophical beliefs. Based upon M. Kesselman et al.'s definition of democracy, we understand that it is "a political system featuring: selection to public offices through free elections; the right of all adults to vote; political parties that are free to compete in elections; government that operates by fair and relatively open procedures; political rights and civil liberties; an independent judiciary; and civilian control of the military." (p. 17)
Taking this interpretation into account, and examining this understanding of democracy from an efficiency standpoint, I believe one of the critical differences between a presidential or parliament system of government would be the concept that there is a disparate confidence relationship between the two. While a parliamentary elected official is subject to being voted out of office at any point in their term through majority vote from other members within the chamber, an elected official in the executive or legislative branch of a presidential system is contracted to serve a fixed term in their office. In terms of efficiency of passing laws and enacting policy on a national scale, the presidential system is clearly more efficient in conducting governance than a parliamentary system. But is this ability to easily influence policy and enact laws, despite the public's disapproval of such political action, a good representation of democracy? I would argue that the parliamentary system is a better representation of a functional democracy. Primarily, because it allows a higher level of accountability for the officials to serve the social interests of the people. It also allows for a expanded variety of social representation due to the manifestation multi-party system that parliamentary governments will often exhibit, in addition to the proportional or consensual of representation. This contrasts the binary party construct that is seen in American politics today which is arguably responsible for the increased stratification of bipartisan interaction within the House and Senate, and the lack of the ability compromise in any given political issue currently affecting the 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?
ReplyDeleteThink for a second about the numerous different types of governments in our society today, and in the past for that matter. Why are there so many? In my eyes no one has found the exact right way to do it yet. If the perfect way to run a nation was established there wouldn't be so many other forms or methods of doing so. Honestly I don't believe that we will ever find the exact right way to run a country effectively. It is simply in the nature of things to not be perfect. Subsequently, many governments today exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Some have it figured out much better than others, of course. But still every government runs into problems running their country.
One thing we can focus on is representation. With so many people that are a part of a nation, it is close to impossible to justifiably represent each and every one of them. This is just something that cannot be done flawlessly. Especially in America, there are only two main political parties that citizens can choose from to vote for (with the minute exception of third parties). They have to choose between one or the other and best judge which represents them in the best way. This also poses a challenge for the representatives of the citizens of finding a way to please all those they represent. In our readings we were introduced to the democratic type of government. "Citizens may invoke the democratic idea to demand that their government be more responsive and accountable..." (Kesselman 23). Citizens usually want this form of government so they have more of a say in how their nation is run. Even though conceptually it seems that it will work out very well, democracy and governments in general usually fail to reach their full potential.
Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteParliamentarism is more democratic because the power is distributed among many people, compared to the presidentialism which is one person.
ReplyDelete3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
Here is a short description of a Nation, State, and Nation-state.
Nation: a large group of people linked by a similar culture, language, and history
State: a political unit that has sovereignty over a particular piece of land
Nation-state: a state that rules over a single nation
Multinational state:
1. United Kingdom
2. United States
3. Nigeria
4. Turkey
5. Bosnia
6. Herzegovina
7. Montenegro
8. Brazil
9. Russia
10. India
11. South Africa
12. Australia
13. Canada
14. China
Generally the main reason that a state is broken up into separate states is due to the states being considered too large for population management. An example within the United States is California. There have been suggestions to break up California into six individual states.
Examples of the Six California’s
Jefferson
North California
Silicon Valley
Central California
West California
South California
Which is more democratic: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteBoth fulfill all the requirements of democracy and both governments are held accountable to the people.
The major difference between the two systems is how they are elected. The Presidentialism, the President is elected by the people in the country. The executive leader of the Parliamentarism, the Primer Minister is elected from the Legislative branch.
In the USA any citizen has the right to vote in elections as long as they are 18 years of age. Presidentialism system is a little more democratic because the elections dates are fixed and can not be changed. This makes them more accountable and cannot be protected from their fate and they have to stand before the people in the country.
The Parliamentary system, The Prime Minister can set dates of the elections, but it can not be a five year gap. This helps set up the election to coincide with good publicity for the Prime Minster and their party.