Blog Discussion Group One
Blog post due at 11:55pm on February 9 and comment due at 11:55pm on February 12.
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?
Some examples of multinational states are England, with English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish speakers; Canada, with English and French nationals; Belgium, with French and Dutch speakers, as listed in the textbook. I also believe the U.S. is a multinational state with English and Spanish speakers. The multinational state seems to be the future as there is more and more migration, especially from poorer countries to countries that offer a more promising life and future for individuals as well as their families. Though nationality is defined as a group unified by common sympathies which encourage them to work together in concert for the betterment of their society, this doesn't exclude one nationality from coexisting with another as unified under the same, preponderant convictions. I believe this coexistence has the potential to encourage tolerance and acceptance of our differences and allows us to understand one another better, despite and by virtue of those differences. Also, with technologies advancing, some of those poorer nations have the potential to become multinational states in the future by advancing their way of living and becoming prosperous, which in turn will entice migration their way, creating a stronger, more progressive state under a multinational umbrella.
ReplyDeleteThis seems very interesting. I just recently studied abroad in Ireland and it was amazing to see that most of the people in Ireland are Irish and seem to come from the same backgrounds and beliefs. Also other countries like France is mainly french speaking and Italy is mostly italian. In The US we have so many different people from different countries, all coming from different backgrounds all over the world, and different cultures as well. I think that is what makes the USA so different than all of the other countries.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is definitely a good description for these policies, pretty applicable to the modern world! Depending on the area the "multinational differences" may function better or worse, depending on whether or not the beliefs coincide. I really like the specific examples of how these ideas affect some regions. Perhaps it's also more possible for multinational states to become power-hungry or slightly more easily corrupted if they share the same ideas of "violence for prosperity."
DeleteThe question of whether or not a state with more than one nation is better if the states broke up into separate states is all dependent upon the stability of the current state. If the current state which is home to more than one nation is more stable and viable as one nation, then the benefit is to stay together. If the states breaking up into separate states would result an eruption of violence, fall in economy, and a disorganized government, then the benefit for the people would be to stay as is. If they can survive under their own autonomy and is favored by the people of that nation, then a slow transition could be beneficial. One example of a multinational state is the UK which encompasses England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Many Scottish nationals strive for independence from the UK and very well could be successful in their separation as state. Scotland already has a Scotland Parliament in place representing the framework for a stable government. On the other hand, Nigeria is a multinational state that is made up of 250 ethnic groups. With so many ethnic groups being this divisive, they could not separate into their own states and be viable states. Creating a stable government for each one would be impossible and would create a stronger religious divide among the ethnic groups which already struggle. Together, they could create a stronger form of state if they can work through their national/ethnic diversities. Their changes for success are higher as a state being a multinational state. That's not to say they wouldn't have their struggles given they do have so many ethnic nationalities. So the question can be answered both ways depending on the viability of the current state.
ReplyDeleteI think all these nations should be broken down into states, because it is my belief that if theyre broken down, they would get more done and accomplished.Because some of these world leaders get to money hungry and then they dont care about the people of there country at all, sometimes they dont care about there own families either. What would be the problem of breaking these nations down is also a good question to ask. Because I have seen that some of these elections might as well go the right way as well. Because just like the USA elections are sometimes corrupt. I cant imagine how corrupt these other nations are , what are the people actual really losing, maybe wages, living conditions, just might be a little better also if broken down. I was wondering if theyre any examples of a nation breaking up and it turned out well.
DeleteDiscuss 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?
ReplyDeleteBecause they dont have the backing of the American people, maybe because of color and because of what happened before they entered the office, I personally think that the government doesnt work for the American like we want they seem to be out for themselves. I have followed politics for a long time. I have been liking politics since, I was a young kid and I have enjoyed a lot of debates when I was in my history classes. But I think our current government doesnt really work for the people, because of religion, sexual orientation and some other reasons, no matter the party afflaition you cant go with your heart, the world wants you to go by the bible and I think that part is just real hard to, because you must bow down to the LGBT community and other corporation. The question is can anything be done about this I said say no, because of the fact of how the world is made up, because no matter what side you side are you even going to please everyone. So from Washington to the current President Obama, nothing has been working, because you are certainly cleaning up from the previous administration and also with the different policies that are implemented and it takes time for the policies to kick in and also lets not talk about the Supreme Court has done over the years.
In regards to the United States I haven't really been around long enough to see how it was years ago. I do know that since I've been old enough to understand it's pretty much whoever can pay them the most. It seems over the last couple decades everyone is out for themselves. It's not really about which party you are with and running for it's more so who's putting more money in your pocket. The country as a whole in the political sense have become greedy. A way that we can overcome this is to try and get some of the corruption out of the white house. Maybe even set limits on how long people can stay in the house and senate for. I do believe there are ways of trying to fix our government but it won't happen over night.
DeleteSome countries are more nationalistic than others. Although nationalism can be a great attribute to have, it can also handicap nations from compromising with other countries. Countries such as China and Korea are highly nationalistic, however this is almost to a fault.
ReplyDeleteI believe the United States was very nationalist at certain periods of time, particularly after wars or national disasters. As time as continued it seems that citizens of the US are less patriotic and more critical of the decisions made by our leaders on both sides of the aisle. Generationally there is a difference in the level of nationalism. In my opinion this is based on the experiences across generations. For many citizen’s nationalism is encouraged by the impact to the individual. For example, after September 11th, there was a restored nationalism in the US. There was a pulling together and exhibition of pride in our country. In my research I noticed that Israel was also highly nationalistic. This reinforced the theory that tragedy encourages nationalism.
Italy is a very nationalist country, almost to be point of arrogance in some areas. During a visit a few years ago I was surprised at the patriotism exhibited by citizens across a wide range of social and economic backgrounds. Italians are proud of their culture, their history and their impact on the remainder of the world. Many Italians here in the US are equally as patriotic of their heritage and history. During Silvio Berlusconi’s time as prime minister, the level of pride in Italy greatly increased. Berlusconi served three terms as prime minister and changed the impression of politics in Italy. Even though he resigned due to criminal activity, his impact to the Italian economy was great enough to cause some people to excuse his behavior.
Laura, I am interested in what you had to say about Italy and the significantly high amount of patriotism that Italians have for their country. My father is Italian and on many of my visits I saw many examples of the opposite in that many Italians are very critical of their government and its low level of legitimacy. Many Italians explained that they have lost hope in the politics of their country and therfore do not pay close attention to poltiics as a result. Going back on nationalism, in my opinion I believe that nationalism can be seen as dangerous and a threat due to the fact that it is a belief that nations will benefit from acting independatnly rather than together. Therefore placing more importance on national goals instead of international. Nationalism also allows the goverment to control their country with alot of "National pride", and we have seen examples historically of countries that have been run in a very nationalistic manner that have turned out destructive and oppressive on an interntional level. These have been the likes of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc. Nationalism discourages working collectively amongst other countries and prevents critical thinking of one's own government
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? When I saw this question I immediately thought about the USA and how our government works. I believe that with the system we have in place, our government will continue to be ineffective. There are so many people with different beliefs and religions, that come from all different backgrounds. Our country is so new compared to european countries. When I was in Ireland its mostly iIrish that make up the population. But in America we all originate from different countries. We elect a new president every 4 years which means the president who is elected ends up trying to change some things and by the time his 4 years is up, the person who comes in next will try to change what that president before him just did. I also don't believe that are system will ever change because the two sides, Democrats and Republicans, really can't come together as one and make things happen. The two sides have different views on issues and it takes a long time (if ever) to come to a compromise. In the second part of the question, I don’t think anything can be done to overcome these problems. The USA would never be willing to change the ways we have, because both the democrats and republicans seem to be to stuck up and proud of what they believe in, so therefore they arn’t willing to budge usually.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Democrats and Republicans can't come together to get anything accomplished because in the midst of the differences, the people that truly need the help get lost. I think both parties are much more content fighting about their differences instead of compromising to help serve the people of their country. I also agree that there are many people in the US with very different religious beliefs and cultures, but we also claim to be a country that celebrates both of these things freely. One would think that neither religion or culture would be a problem when settling differences since we celebrate it so freely, but it also tends to be the very reason most Americans can't see eye to eye.
DeleteI completely agree with these opinions. It appears our political parties are stuck in a vicious cycle of arguing claiming to want what is best for our country, but they can't figure out a way to come together to achieve great things for our country. They are indeed content in fighting to a point it has become a sport in itself. With as much diversity as we have in this country you would think it would make it easier to come together on issues, but apparently not. It makes me wonder if a parliamentary system would achieve more, given you don't have to wait till a specific term is up if the leaders aren't doing what they say they're going to do. It may force people to come together more otherwise it would be a perpetual turnover occurring in government.
DeleteThe distribution of power, which is greatly influenced by monetary wealth, has a paramount role on the effectiveness of a government to fairly and effectively maintain order and economic stability. When a government adopts or is founded on despotism or totalitarian principles, a majority of wealth and power is held by those in charge (the despot, dictators), and a disconnect between the bourgeoisie and proletariat formulates, resulting in an imbalance of economic fluidity and a rebellious lower-class. When a societal resentment of the government exists, transgressive behavior and revolt arise, often times causing little effectiveness by police and figureheads to maintain control, leading to an overall lack of governmental effectiveness. By reorganizing the structure of power, however, a system founded on dictatorship ideologies can become more effective by adopting democratic or socialist ideologies to benefit, in theory, all citizens rather than a concentrated portion.
ReplyDelete2. Some countries such as China, South Korea, Iran, and Russia are much more nationalistic than others. Countries that are nationalistic have a large population of people that were born and raised there. These countries are typically less likely to be accepting of anyone for a foreign country. Countries such as the US, New Zealand, and Thailand are much more likely to have a population made up of people born in all different parts of the world. Nationalism does not have to have a bad connotation along with it, although when it is related to a dictatorship there could be issues. Issues could be serious such as the genocide of millions of Jewish people or could be on a smaller scale such as wide spread racism. I don't think that current leaders of nationalistic countries could change their mind about this way of life with just one single act. It would take having new leaders with open minds who see the benefits of having diversity within their home countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement Meagan. Countries can overcome strong nationalism by exposing their citizens to different nationalities. Diversity has to be encouraged by leaders to familiarize citizens with other groups of people, which would reduce negative nationalism (people feeling superior to others).
Delete2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteClearly some countries are more nationalistic than others. North Korea's Kim Jong-Un, Iran's Hassan Rouhani, Israel's Reuven Rivlin, and even Easter European countries are more nationalistic than most western states. Direct correlation is economical and political underdevelopment. Nationalism prospers when citizens are closed off from outside views/standards. Some countries are too nationalistic because of strong dictatorships and lack of political diversity. Other countries isolate citizens and draw lines on religious differences. Economic growth and education would reduce strong nationalism. For growth and prosperity to occur countries would have undergo hard economic reforms and become transparent in governmental and military procedures.
To be a nationalistic country is to believe that your country is more important or better than others. I wonder if someone would say that the united states is a country that is nationalistic? I mean we are the "american dream" according to people who come here for a better opportunity. Its like the race to the moon idea. we HAD to be the first ones to set foot on the moon. look at what happened, we were the first ones. We always want to be the ones on top and be in control. Maybe we are, maybe were not. It was just a thought I had as I read this post. It was a great post, thanks!
DeleteHi Trey, I didn’t mean to make it sound like all nationalism is bad. Here in US nationalism is used to unite people, we’re all Americans and we have our rights protected by the constitution to life, liberty, and pursue of happiness. But countries where nationalism has been a divider (even by bloodshed) for hundreds of years, to suppress groups who don’t fill the mold of a nation, is where nationalism is simply bad. My solution is for government to open up economically to the world so citizens who are divided by nationalistic ideas can feed their families, educate their kids, have jobs to afford those basic items. “Bad” nationalism, one that blames others for the position its citizens are in, prospers in nations where basic human rights aren’t protected.
Delete4. Democracy seems to be more like presidentialism than parliamentarism because presidentalism and democracy both elect their officials by popular votes especially the head of state of the country. "There is powerful evidence of the strong appeal of democracy, that is, a regime in which citizens exercise substantial control over choice of political leaders and the decisions made by their government" (Kesselman 18). This shows that democracy gives the power to the people to decide the government. Presidentalism leaders are chosen through popular votes as well which makes these two closer to each other. Presidentalism and democracy also separates the powers of the government. Parliamentism does not the separates the power of the government. This are a few things that show evidence that presidentalism is more like democracy than parliamentarism.
ReplyDelete1. 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?
ReplyDeleteI think governments exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness because some of the people that run the government don't truly understand the needs of the people. For instance, healthcare has just become the law for our Country; however, healthcare seems to be something that should readily be offered to the people. Things such as healthcare and education, something that almost every citizen needs, should be openly available to the people of the country for the betterment of its people; however, the government would rather focus on the needs of the people running the government, such as making sure the wealthiest individual pays the lowest taxes while the common middle class family pays more in taxes and brings home less money. Another example of this is the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. After over a year of residents using contaminated water in Flint, the government is just beginning to act and the story has become nationally known. Government officials knew of this issue, but it seems as if when this story became a national headline and gained the public attention, the government started to move their feet on the issue though people have already died because of this problem. I believe that some of the issues of our government are inherent. The government is ran by people that do not always have the best intentions for the people that they serve. However; I believe that if the people that those officials serve had more control and knowledge of how to act when those officials needed to be elected and removed from office, we would see an increase in efficiency.
Tanesha,
DeleteI completely agree with your response in saying that the government inefficiencies may come from their ability to meet the needs of the people. often times I feel like the people in power to make and/or change the policies cater to areas where money is connected or can be made instead. I also believe but did not say I my post that corruption within the government is also a reason for its inefficiency and ineffectiveness. If you have parties that are all trying to out shine out spend and out rule the other nothing gets accomplished. I also really liked your example of flint Michigan. that was a great example of the a democratic government not providing a water source for people that pay taxes just the same as everyone else. That is a prime example of how inefficient the government can be. As I said before. I feel as though for these things to change, it starts with who we elect in our local government. The beliefs and policy agenda of the local government can roll up and have a major effect on policy makers in this country. I also said in my post and believe that they do not have the best interest of the people that helped get them into those positions and places, the everyday hard workers that pay taxes, follow the laws and abide by the laws of the land. It is sad, but it is very true and I think that all of the reasons that you and I both said are the same reasons why a lot of American citizens have lost faith in our government and reasons why other countries laugh at us.
1.
ReplyDeleteA major reason why some governments are ineffective or inefficient has to do with the amount of corruption in the government. (This is not to say that a government cannot function when it has corruption in it, only that a gratuitous amount of Machiavellian double-dealing and deadly decadence are almost always debilitating to any regime in question. After all, one need only look at a place like Saudi Arabia to see that corruption is not necessarily an immediate death sentence, politically speaking, just the first stage in a disease that eventually becomes lethal.) Properly defined, corruption is: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power. The corruption that most people think of, where businessmen in suits gather around a glossy wooden table and scheme of ways to further enrich the capitalist bourgeoisie, is fairly hyperbolic, considering the definition of corruption is pretty much ANY form of dishonest behavior by those in power. So, with the definition of corruption being what it is, any form of political trickery, even the act of pocketing so much as a single dollar from public resources, counts as corruption. This kind of corruption, cynical as it may sound, has been the norm since time immemorial, and where there are people ambitious for the trappings of power and office, there are also those greedy enough to line their own pockets with public funds. Corruption only really becomes a problem when three things happen: when there is no accountability for those who do commit corruption, when corruption is seen as the norm and overlooked, and when corruption is so prevalent that it is simply seen as an inextricable and irreversible part of the nation's political machine. Another thing that might make a government inefficient or ineffective is if the core of what the government was built around begins to decay from the inside out. By this, I mean to say, every government is built around something: the Roman Empire was built around the strength of its government and unquestionable sovereignty of the Emperor, Pre-Revolutionary France was built around the splendor and charisma of the king in charge, America was built around the idea that every citizen should have a say-so in the democracy that the Founding Fathers envisioned. Every nation is built around some ideal, and when that ideal begins to crumble, so does the country, as without a stable core, the nation is left unmoored. In terms of preventing corruption and the decaying of a nation's core, several things can be done, to ensure the continued survival of the country in question: government bureaucrats could be monitored more closely, those who occupy the uppermost echelon of political society could be held accountable, governments could work to ensure that the people they preside over trust them, and cultural traditions that recognize and celebrate the good in the past, yet also help people look toward the future, could be expounded upon.
2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteNationalism can be defined as a devotion and loyalty to one's own country. I believe we will always have countries in the world that will be more nationalistic than others, and this is due to many different factors. Population, economic state of the country, religion, military, and the form of government will all affect nationalism. China may be more nationalistic than the USA, but China also has about a billion more people. The USA has a strong democratic tradition, and China is a Communist State. China still has a lot of control over the economy and society, so this could alter peoples perception of nationalism. Whereas in the USA we choose when we want to be more nationalistic or less nationalistic. Both countries have their faults, but in my opinion the USA is very nationalistic especially when there are hardships to overcome. We as Americans forget that the freedom we have is in thanks to all the men and women who served this country. They sacrificed their lives, so we can argue and be extremely critical of the people in powerful positions. The freedom that we posses is due to the nationalistic views and efforts of the men and women of the military. Nationalism will rise and fall over time for all countries to due all sorts of factors. The USA will continue to be a nationalistic country as long as our military and population remember what it has taken to get to where we are at today.
3. Some examples of multicultural states include United Kingdom, Malaysia, Spain, South Africa, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. Perhaps it is better for such places to remain with more than one nation, as they can stay further united. This can promote more profitable values, a stronger military, and a better understanding of economic opportunities. Perhaps even less conflict is likely and a greater sense of community. There is somewhat of a chance that more struggles will be prominent from this if the policies of these places don’t conform with the people. If a questionable decision is made, that will have likely a greater impact on the residence of those in the area. If conflict is faced in these places, tackling such situations would be favorable to states with more than one nation. (As there would be a bigger collaboration spanning a wider variety of people) Many of these places have favorable traits. Separating them would offer more independent attention to the people of the area, just given the fact that the area would be smaller. Unfortunately, they may not stand as strong in some situations, many to do with physical conflict between widespread areas. Getting involved in such conflicts could possibly be less likely though, for the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. I think multinational states allow us to have a greater tolerance for the cultural differences between us. It offers a better learning opportunity and can definitely make the community stronger. Multinational states, also lend strength to the smaller nationalities and allow them to evolve with a better understanding of world concepts, such as war, economics, revolution, etc. I know it has it's pro's and con's, but it just seems to me that the strength revealed in multinational states can be more of a profit, especially to a smaller nationality.
Delete4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteFirst the quote that made me realize which one was more democratic then the other was "Democracy may result from a standoff or compromise among political contenders for power in which one group can gain sufficient strength to control outcomes by itself. The result is that they "settle" for a democratic compromise in which power is shared." (Kesselman pg. 19) With this being said I have to say presidentialism is more democratic. I say this because when we elect the candidates for office they can not be removed unless they are impeached. So it will rarely be the same parties in each section of government at the same time and even then not everyone is going to agree. So they have to settle on compromises to make a decision so riots or wars aren't started. Where as in Parliamentarism if the parties don't agree with the government they can be voted out with a a vote of no confidence. So this in turn is why it's not as much as a democracy as presidentialism
I agree, presidentialism is more democratic. One concern that I have with presidentialism is that politicians often get in office, don't perform and yet they are still allowed to remain in office at the tax payers expense. I would be curious to know the percentage of citizens in the EU that would prefer presidentialism over parliamentarism or if they are satisfied with their current system.
Delete
ReplyDeleteDiscuss 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?
Reasons why I see government’s exhibit inefficiencies is because they are not catering to the needs of the people. Using the word ineffectiveness means to me that the “intended” goal is not being completely met. Some forms of that government may be working but others are not. Many taxpayers may feel as though their money is not being spent correctly or could be spent in various other more suitable policies. How we as the general citizen and taxpayers are the ones that can measure whether we feel as though the government is effective in what they were elected to do. For this to change it starts with the local government that we elect. Also we have to look at the things or people that are influencing the government. In a democracy it is very hard to see or strive to see change because it is moved by majority rules. The majority of votes and push is where the funds get allocated toward, it is the policies that get the most attention. Since learning about how a democracy works it has always seemed to be almost vulnerable to me. I honestly do not know if this is something that can be fixed and if it is what would change that outside of the change starting with the local government we elect and such influences rolling up in something similar to the trickle effect upward into the government.
Which is more democratic: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteIn general, both presidentialism and parliamentarism can equally be seen as fulfilling the concepts and requirements that define "democracy". A good way to compare the two political concepts is by having a look at two developed and "democratic" nations from the likes of The United Kingdom and The United States. Both the United States and The United Kingdom are highly considered to represent democracy to a large extent due to the fact that both nations have Universal Suffrage (where all citizens have the right to vote), allowing the citizens to decide how they want their country to be run, and that all citizens hold their governments accountable. However when it comes to debating which nations system of goverment is more "democratic", it is hard to decide simply as both nations have many aspects that contradict the concept of democracy. I will however state that presidentialism can be considered slightly more "democratic"than parliamentarism due to the fact that in a presidential nation like the US, elections are fixed for every two, four, or six years. These dates cannot be changed and all elections must work in that scheduled manner. In a parliamentary nation like England, the prime minister can decide the dates of elections himself as long as it isn't more than five years from election to election. This can be seen as going against the concept of democracy in the sense that this way of handling and deciding elections can go in favor of the prime ministers party and for them to avoid bad news. Elections in a presidential nation like The United States hold politicans more accountable and have to work around the set dates no matter what. However, there are also flaws in the United States that dont go by the requirements of democracy that are not present in parliamentary systems like England. To conclude presidentialism is more democratic than parliamentarism for the simple fact that universal suffrage or voting in presidential governments is more free making the probability of polticians being voted alot less predictable.