Blog Discussion Group One
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Feb. 3 and comment due at 11:55pm on Feb. 6.
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?
In response to question #4 'Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteParliamentarism is more democratic, in my opinion, than presidentialism, especially considering that democracy translates from the original Greek as 'rule by the people'. Although the President and the legislators are elected by the people to represent their interests, the presidential system is an adversarial one where cooperation is not often encouraged. The checks and balances of the US presidential system, where the President can veto the legislators, they can override him, and the judiciary can declare them both unconstitutional, is a setup for a fight. And if your elected representative in our presidential system does not promote your interests, you are stuck with the, as a practical matter, until the next election.
By contrast, under the parliamentary system the Prime Minister is compelled to cooperate with his legislature or receive a vote of no confidence, basically a termination. Although this rarely happens, the threat does promote more of a partnership among the players involved - thus serving the people.
What about the fact, though, that many parliamentary systems have no limit on the time they can serve? Do you think it is more democratic to have a president who will be gone in 8 years, regardless, or a prime minister who could serve indefinitely, as long as his or her party stays in power? I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, I'm just wondering. I do find the idea of a parliament intriguing, though, and I think you do have a good point as to why it may be more democratic.
DeleteGovernments may be ineffective or inefficient when there isn't a proper division of power, or a proper interest in the entirety of the people. In governments where there isn't a proper division of power, and all of the power is in the hands of one person, this person has the ability to abuse their power and oppress the people. North Korea is a great example of a government that is ineffective due to an improper division of power. It is a failed state, run by tyranny and absolutism, without any regard for the free expression and free speech of the people. The government controls everything, and when the government is in complete control, the people live in fear, and they become trapped. When the people have the power to fight back, they may have the chance to overthrow their oppressors. There aren'y too many successful government systems where there isn't some sort of division of power. A democracy seems to be the most practical way of giving citizens an opportunity to participate in government operations to some extent, but at the same, within a democracy there tends to be a separation of agendas, and efficiency drops because everybody wants something different. In terms of the economy, the government has the ability to regulate it and make it fair for everybody. Democracy and capitalism seem to pave the way for an effective and efficient government, but there will always be error and malfunction in government.
ReplyDeleteThere are several countries with nationalistic leadership, or nationalistic parties, especially in Europe or the Middle East. In Europe, nationalism has definitely strengthened through the last decade, primarily because of the European Union. The European Union is trying to unify countries of Europe with national sovereignty to be a fair rival for either Asia or America economically, despite the Europe’s territorial dividedness. This resulted in an increased nationalism as a reaction to the idea of unification. I think it is questionable whether it is right or wrong, but in the case of Europe, it is not beneficial.
ReplyDeleteInstead of too nationalistic, I would call some forces national chauvinistic. These political powers regularly argue against immigration in order to preserve the nation, and often times it also goes together with blaming other nations for anything which is wrong about a country.
In countries like Israel, without a nationalist government, Israel would probably have no chance to survive among the Arabic countries.
Question 3
ReplyDeleteOne Nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Can the United States of America still hold this to be true or are we a Nation divided? In my opinion we cannot say we are one nation. A Nation is defined as an imagined community, people belonging to the nation. We are a melting pot for all nationalities this is true but many don't claim to belong to this nation yet they reside here. There are several different languages spoken, different cultures grouped together forming their own communities and there are different rights for people from different nations residing within the US. They live here, work here, use our natural resources but don't have to abide by all of our rules. Several different gods are worshiped and revered. Although all of the United States is governed by the same with the exceptions for a select group of citizens I don't feel we need to turn The United States into The United Nations.
I just learned India was faced with the same divisions within their nation. India was a nation divided and they made the decision to separate into two separate nations - India and Pakistan. India was divided is several more areas than we are. I think at that time that's what they needed for their nation.
I agree that we should not divided the United States. I find it kind of interesting to interact with people from different nations; it enlightens me on how other people do things. Its one thing to read about African culture, but it is another thing to actually sit and talk to someone with that background.
DeleteThe ineffectiveness of the US could be attributed to the lack of contribution of its citizens. As a nation we have adopted a mentality of passing the responsibility of action onto others. Because we don't see the immediate action and repercussions of legislation that we no longer have a urge to act. It is only when issue appear at our front door do we feel the need to react. This mindset also has a lot to do with the ineffectiveness of the government. Politicians these days provide us with empty promises and hallow generic speeches that we as a people have lost faith in them, therefore lack in motivation to follow them. Now this is not necessarily true for all people, but for most the trust in government has declined drastically. I believe that there is hope for change, but it is going to have to be a combined effort on behalf of US citizens and our officials.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 99 percent of what you have said, but am curious about whether you think that these things are merely a sign of our times, or maybe a symptom of our governmental setup? I believe that our setup in America was a protective one, a reaction to our repression rather than a proactive one looking to the future.
DeleteI agree. The newer generations aren't being educated on the importance of letting their " positive speaking " voices be heard. Many don't have a voice to begin with. Grandparents were supposed to be important teachers of the family. If your grandparent is thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years older than your parent and either aren't educated on the importance of this alarming situation then each generation will become less and less involved. This is a growing epidemic with no end in sight unless it is stopped. In my opinion too much freedom of speech, choice, life, liberty or anything you choose to do or not do has condemned the creativity, ambitions, and goals of our future children. We need to step up, educate our children and new citizens of the USA on the importance of electing officials we feel will positive a positive impact on our communities before th people lose that right.
DeleteSo true. When I was growing up, in some families; you listened, did what you were supposed to do, without any negotiations. Our young generation do need to understand that what they have to say is important. Because it is their voices that will help shape our country both economically and politically.
Delete"Nations have either achieved statehood or are states-in-waiting," (15) claims Hague and Harrop. This seems to me to be somewhat flawed logic, however. There are plenty of nations states — Japan, for example, or France. But there are also a number of states with nations inside of them that seem more or less content. While Scotland has recently made a bid for freedom — and may or may not be better off outside the UK — Wales has shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, the US contains many groups which refer to themselves as nations — for example, the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois, themselves made up of the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Mohawk and Tuscarora tribes (which might be considered nations). While I would hardly claim the United States has done right by Native American tribes, the system of reservations has given some autonomy to their nations while still keeping some of the benefits of statehood (citizenship in a large, reasonably stable nation).
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, self determination is a powerful force and one that should be respected. I mentioned Scotland earlier. I do not know if Scotland could have thrived as a separate nation outside of the UK, particularly if the EU did not allow them in. At the same time, I'm inclined to let them try if a majority of people in the nation want it. Same with Catalonia, or the Donetsk Republic, or the Kurds, or any of the other nationalist movements. Just because I do not think a separate republic is wise does not mean that they should not be allowed to try it, presuming it can be done peacefully and does not cause wide spread hardship through the newly divided territories. The partition of Pakistan and India is, to my mind, a prime example of nationalism gone horribly wrong which resulted in far more suffering than was worth it. Many states, though (particularly former British colonies, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.) have managed to peacefully and successfully create states of their own through nationalist movements.
In response to the third question: What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteI do think it would be better for states to have their own "state", if there is no compromise. By definition, a nation is a group of people who have claimed a territory, in which they decide on the culture and politics (Hague, p. 15). If several states claim one territory then a mass of problems can arise. According to Kesselman et. al, "A major source of political instability can occur when state boundaries and national identity do not coincide" (p.11). If members of a certain heritage do not agree with the political structures of the other nation, then the state's poltical legitimacy could be at risk.
Multinational states can also result in ethnonationalist conflict. This is violent conflicts over the nations' views on ethnicity, religion and language. An example of this issue is with India and Nigeria; these states have experienced mutilpe acts of violence due to ethic conflicts. Violence can also occur when one nation goes outside the state's borders to form alliances with other nations that identify with their heritage (p.11).
Now I also think that it could be possible for mutliple nations to co-exist in one state. We do that here in the United States. People of diverse national backgrounds are mixed among our 50 states. Not to say that we don't have issues of our own, but for the most part we don't have one nationalist movement trying to overpower others. On the other hand, I believe the key to our co-existence is that everyone is free to practice their own ethincity and religion.
Question 4.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is needed to bridge the gap between individual preferences and what is best for public as a whole. Ineffectiveness can occur when a government doesn't place enough emphasis on how individual actions can be a threat to the public good. People tend to do what is most beneficial to themselves without thinking of long term or greater effects. Governments need to use their power to try and create a balance between individual interests and what is best for a group. This can be a difficult task because of the many different opinions and beliefs which are inherent in nature in a government and nation. I think that governments should relay information in multiple ways to make people think about an issue in different ways. For example the issue of pollution displaying the issue scientifically, morally and economically could help make people see the different sides of the issue.
Question #2
ReplyDeleteWhat happens in countries all over the world has an affect on other countries and other world leaders. They are constantly influenced by world trade and domestic policy to insure their people are protected and are guaranteed the welfare all other countries endure. Naturalism can be positive or negative depending on the countries motives and or intentions. When leaders come together to achieve a goal to elevate their country for growth and enhance economical stability this promotes positive leadership. But naturalism can also lead to violence where countries are at war to achieve "status", downgrading other countries to gain independence to change political systems or oppressing cultural identity. We all are different and from different backgrounds; it would be extraordinary to see this world be globally structured.