Blog Discussion Group One
I was unable to post these blog discussion questions last weekend due to the failure of internet connections in my home. I would allow you to turn them in (both blog post and blog comment) by midnight on Sunday (Jan. 20). Please answer one question from the following list.
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?
Question 4 - Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteMy Post:
As we have learned through our readings, both are very democratic governments. However, I would have to say that presidentialism would be more democratic. In this era of liberal democracy, parliamentarism still has a leader that is chosen by the reigning party, not the people.
For example - British democracy focuses more on the sovereignty of Parliamentarism where American democracy elects all leaders including the President, and spreads power to among the three federal institutions as well as state and local governments.
I do agree with you. But I also question how the procedure of a president being elected holds up to the idea of liberal democracy. By this, I feel that the influence of a reigning political party can overshadow the influence of the people when electing a new president. I feel like an example of this, would be the electoral college. If there is a reigning party within the electoral college (such as in the last election) it can ultimately determine the outcome of who become president rather than it being a decision by the people.
DeleteI also agree that both are very democratic governments, but I believe that both of them can take steps to ensure that they are being more democratic such as ensuring that people's votes carry enough weight to determine a president.
question 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?
ReplyDeletegovernments will always come across ineffectiveness and inefficiency due to their structures. every government will not run the same. some will be more concerned on their military than their economy , but these two things relies on one another to be successful . governmental bureaucracy which is inherently so this makes it flawed. my thesis from the readings will justify my comments . Professionalism in governmental bureaucracy and the power of the civil service pose a distinct threat to democratic control that is, they are self-serving rather than serving the public interest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDeleteAre some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
I think it’s first important to establish the difference between nationalism and nationality. Nationality has to do with the nation and government a person identifies with, that often is coinciding with the nation for which they born. Nationality on the other hand is the doctrine that a nation has the right to govern themselves. (A Comparative Introduction, Hague and Harrop, pg. 16) While not always, this can often fall into situations of believing your country is better than all others on a dangerous slope. Moving on to specifics, today nationalism is appearing in many countries alongside patriotism. Patriotism is a vigorous devotion to one’s country. According to Business Insider, the United States has the highest level of patriotism, polling at 41% of Americans believe the USA is the best country in the world. Number five on that same list is Saudi Arabia with a quarter of their citizens believing it be the best nation in the world. One could argue that their riches in oil add to this. There are also arguments to be made about countries like North Korea. The outside doesn’t know much about the nation, but something that has become very clear is that from a young age citizens are conditioned to believe North Korea to be the ultimate state and all other countries, especially the United States, to be beneath them. To control them, the government hides a majority of international relations from the citizens and enchants their totalitarian dictatorship. This is what happens when nationalism, combined with other variables, goes too far. Now leads to the question of what we can do about this. For many countries, such as the first two listed alongside ones like France and Australia, their nationalism is relatively healthy. They manage to balance international relations with nationalism. However, countries where this has gone too far or has the potential to is tricky. One argument is to give more exposure to other cultures. Such as integrating it in the school systems or presenting their news alongside ours. Ultimately, solutions for these are dependent on the country itself.
Colson, Thomas. “RANKED: How Patriotic 19 World-Leading Economies Are.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 23 Nov. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/yougov-19-most-patriotic-countries-in-the-world-2016-11#6-thailand-1
“Political Concepts.” Political Science: a Comparative Introduction, by Rod Hague et al., St. Martin's Press, 1993, pp. 15–16.
I agree with your solution to the idea of overly zealous nationalism being exposure to other cultures. I can't help but notice that countries that are surrounded by and interact with other countries such as France, Germany, Norway, and Finland seem to have lower nationalism whereas countries with fewer neighbors and less interaction such as the United States, North Korea, and Australia appear to have stronger nationalism. I think it'd be interesting to see if people could come to a consensus on when strong nationalism becomes too strong. Like if France has healthy nationalism, and North Korea has unhealthy nationalism, what about countries like Saudi Arabia or Thailand?
DeleteWill Jeffries
ReplyDeleteQuestion 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?
Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and India are all examples of multinational states. India and Pakistan, in fact, are examples of a state (India) which was split up into two states (India and Pakistan) in an attempt to create two nation-states with stronger unification through the commonality of religion (India becoming predominantly Hindu and Pakistan becoming predominantly Muslim). The 1947 partition offers a fine example of a break up that went very poorly, leaving a feeling of animosity among both parties, even to this day.
The United States, known as a melting pot, features miniature examples of nations from across the world. Iran features Persians and Azerik, Iraq features Arabs, Syria features Arabs and Alawites, Turkey features Turks, and all four of these countries house substantial Kurd populations. Canada houses Quebec. The UK famously encompasses the English, Northern Irish, Welsh, and Scottish.
I certainly do not believe that one can answer the question, "Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states?" with one answer, as each situation demands a certain amount of discretion when considering the results of such an action. There are situations in which the nations formed from a split would surely fall, as is the case in the United Kingdom. During the 2014 vote for Scottish independence, many people believed that Scotland would very quickly fail financially without the assistance provided by the United Kingdom, as their infrastructure could not support independence.
On the other hand, there are situations in which the nations within a state become so antagonistic towards each other and in such great numbers that there seems no chance of reconciliation. In such situations, it may be advantageous to divide the nations, though of course they would never be able to agree on who got what land and how much of it, which would only go to produce greater disdain and antagonism. I cannot think of any examples of nations acting in such a manner, as this is an extreme case. In general, there is likely a better solution beyond separation; perhaps legislative action to guarantee rights or representation or reparations would be a safer route.
In short, it depends, but in general, there is probably a better solution that might not breed contempt or animosity.
“Political Concepts.” Political Science: a Comparative Introduction. Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. St. Martin's Press LLC, 2013, p. 16.
"December 2017: India-Pakistan Partition." Mytheli Sreenivas. Origins.osu.edu. http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/december-2017-india-pakistan-partition.
"It's the economy stupid: how Scotland's voters approach the independence vote." Severin Carrell. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2014/feb/12/scotland-referendum-sirtomhunter
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?
ReplyDeleteGovernments have inefficiencies or ineffectiveness because of the very nature of government and how the government may be constructed. For example, in the U.S.A the government is split into two parties that are elected to hold office and these two parties have and have always had very different believes and philosophies. Also within the structure of government in the U.S.A. there is separation of power and the government is broken up into three different branches to keep one branch from becoming uncontrollable in its power. Because of this structure and the opposing philosophies of the two major parties, there are disagreements over legislation, the interpretation of law, and also over the way in which the law is applied. This is also true of other democratic countries or parliamentary states. Because politicians and civilians disagree on ways of life, this results in political conflict which leads to government being inefficient.
Another way that government can be inefficient is when it comes to spending money. Government funded programs are very expensive in most cases and funding these programs can lead to inefficiencies. Governments trying to put in place federal programs such as healthcare or welfare is very expensive for the taxpayer, especially when that money is not used effectively. Outdated programs, abused programs by users, and programs that can be done more efficiently as a private company are all examples of how government is inefficient with spending.
Some of these problems are inherent by the nature of government, but they can be fixed with reform to spending and by parties being more willing to come together and compromise for common sense solutions to issues. There will always be inefficiencies because I do not believe a government can run perfectly. Governments will always have disagreements and the civilians in a state will never completely agree with governments decisions and philosophy.
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/50-examples-government-waste
I agree with the statement that the government will never be perfect. I believe that in theory there are many different ways to reform the government however I do not have much faith that they will work out again given the nature of our government as you have stated. I also believe that the parties that the US is spit into lead to major inefficiencies in the country and that both sides have issues that lead to the downfall of the government. However the statement about the parties coming together for common sense is confusing because the reason they don't get along is because each side has their own beliefs of common sense. That is why there are issues that divide the US population, each side believes that their views are the right/rational thing to do, so the idea of coming together for common sense seems a little difficult.
DeleteWe are seeing examples of this right now with the government shutdown here in the US and the Brexit strategy in the UK. The conflicting agendas and lack of willingness to compromise is causing some serious problems.
DeleteFor the US, one's employment should not be used as leverage while government tries to make decisions, especially knowing that the competing parties have very different goals.
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 a community from one territory all subject to one government, while a nation is united by common rulers and markets. In order for a nation to become a state they need to have territory, and they need to be recognized by other states as one as well. Therefore, there are states with many different nations within it, one example is the United Kingdom. The UK has four different nationalities within its state. Another very good example of a state that has many different nationalities is the US. Within the US there are many different people who identify with different nationalities however still unified under one state. The idea of nations within a state breaking off and becoming their own states is a very complicated question. It is not clear cut because each situation would be different. In some cases like for scotland leaving the UK would be beneficial because they will get what they want. However it is different according to different circumstances so there is no clear cut answer that would apply to all multinational states.
Walker, Andre. “Scotland Will Never Get What It Wants Unless It's Independent.” Observer, Observer, 17 May 2017, observer.com/2017/05/why-scotland-wants-independence/.
DeleteI agree that every circumstance with multinational states if different. I personally believe that United Kingdom is one of the easier multination states to analyze. Right now, there is clearly a conflict with Scotland but for the most part it’s been clear that a state system is mutually beneficial. A more micro-example of a multinational state is South Africa. Since its home to many different ethnic and groups and nationalities, it cannot be considered just a nation state. I feel as though highlighting these types of systems is important as well because their politics are as well impactful. For example, the ethnic tension in Sir Lanka, a state with two nations, is impactful due to the alliances it has resulted in.
Bekerman, Lauren. “Sri Lanka.” Prezi.com, 18 May 2012, prezi.com/yondp_hsoil5/sri-lanka/.
“Is South Africa a Nation-State, a Multinational State or a Multi-State Nation?” Enotes.com, Enotes.com, www.enotes.com/homework-help/south-africa-nation-state-multinational-state-6219
#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?
ReplyDeleteSome examples of states with more than one nation would be states such as Brazil, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. I feel like the possibility of multinational states breaking up into their own individual states could potentially be a dangerous and violent possibility. Many intrastate and Civil Wars occur from these very reasons. If the transition could happen in a peaceful way, then it would be great! But history has shown us in many different ways that most states may not be willing to relinquish control of the nations within them without a war ensuing.
The fact that a substantial amount of wars and conflicts in recent history have consisted of intrastate conflict is most likely attributed by the fact that "International migration is moving many, perhaps most, states in this direction." As this migratory trend continues to grow, states should be looking for ways that nations can live within the same state without the threat of civil war ensuing.
“Chapter 1: Political Concepts.” Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, by Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, 7th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 17.
3. I recall Holly Kozak's presentation about Kashmir, India and Pakistan. I hadnt seen any other reason for the dispute aside from entitlement to claiming land. The people of Kashmir, Pakistan, and India have completely different nationalities, cultures, religions, beliefs and ideologies, and the region of Kashmir is split between three different countries rule. There has been tension, conflict, and war since 1947 over the regional disputes causing what seems like never ending suffering and bloodshed. Think this is an example of different nationalities being present in one technical nation, although Kashmir's borders have constantly been in dispute. It might be a better example of territorial disputes caused by diverse nationality. In this case, there is no answer to whether or not it would be better split into two nationalities. Kashmir is a multi-ethic region with multiple individual sub-regions, with individuals who all want different things or have separate policy goals.
ReplyDelete4/5. I think that there are downsides to both the presidential system and the parliamentary system. For instance, the proportional representation system in its essence would benefit the US, as I see its unfair that democratic candidates have won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote in two of the last five elections. Although in the PR system, it also seems unfair that the general public does not directly elect the leader. In another class I learned that the framers had no guidelines or requirements for the states appointment of their electoral votes, causing me to think that from the beginning the system was positioned against people of color or minorities and operated in favor of comprehensive dependent relationship the northern elites and southern plantation owners.