Chapter 3 The Constitution of the United States

After the United States attained independence, the federalists, who were most interested on the central government, fabricated a set of rules by which the country was going to be governed. One of the federalists James Madison believed firmly on the constitution. He even came to be know as the "Father of the Constitution." There was a lot of dispute over the constitution. The bigger states fabricated and supported the Virginia Plan, the smaller states, on the other hand, favored the New Jersey Plan. Eventually a compromise was reached, but there was yet another challenge; the anti federalists. In the end a compromise was reached with them as well, this was the Bill of Rights. Among the federalists who supported the Constitution were Jefferson and Hamilton.

James Madison was a central figure in the gatherings of Nationalists at the Constitutional Convention. He was a firm supporter of the central government and a firm believer on the importance of the Constitution. A key question in the debate about the new government was whether each state would have equal representation in the legislature or whether larger states would have more power than smaller states. The larger states came up with The Virginia Plan proposed; a bicameral national legislature, bigger states ought to have more power, an executive branch, and a judicial branch, right to tax for the government, and power to veto any act of a state legislature, and that the national government should have more power than the states. The alternative that the small states came up with was the New Jersey plan. Like the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey plan proposed that the government have an executive and judicial branch, and the right to tax. Unlike the New Jersey plan, this plan proposed that every state continue to have an equal vote in Congress. In addition, it ensured that the states would remain the most powerful governments in America. The compromise that was reached was that the legislative branch would be made up of two houses: the House of Representatives, and the Senate. In the house of representatives each state would have a number of representatives corresponding to its size. In the Senate each sate would have an equal number of representatives. Veto was refused. The Bill of Rights was the agreement that the federalists reached with the anti federalists. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect Americans from the powerful government the Constitution created. The Sixth Amendment, for example, ensured that the government could not put citizens on trial without a jury drawn from the people themselves.

The United States is currently ruled through the system of checks and balances. The government is ramified into the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch. The control that James Madison wanted is found in the system of checks and balances. So strong was the Anti Federalist demand for a Bill of Rights that Madison and other Federalists gave in to it. Jefferson wished the Bill of Rights had been more explicit in protecting the rights of citizens. Unlike Jefferson who never really trusted the government and remained idealistic about the people, Hamilton believed that governmental power could accomplish great things.

Forging a constitution was a convoluted process. Numerous compromises had to be attained. Among these were the the Bill of Rights, and the compromise between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Unites States eventually developed a system of checks and balances which consists of the judicial, executive, and legislative branch. James Madison, Hamilton and and Jefferson were all in favor of the formation of the Constitution.



The Constitution of the United States

Discovery of the Americas

In 1492 the Americas were discovered. During the following years a process of conquering and colonizing took place. Different countries from all over Europe acquired possession of different areas in the Americas. Europeans brought with them crops and animals that were alien to the newly discovered lands, and they brought back to their continent crops that they had just discovered in the Americas. This trade of crops and animals became known as the Columbian exchange. Unfortunately, Europeans also carried with them diseases to which native americans had no immunity for. Europeans and native Americans frequently came into conflict. The Europeans first tried to use the native Americans as slaves. The native americans, however were not accustomed to such harsh treatments, and quickly perished when used as slaves. As a result the Europeans engaged in the African slave trade.

The Spanish were the first to invade the Americas. Their purpose was to christianize the natives, gain wealth, and win fame or improve their status. The Spanish conquistadores nearly obliterated the culture of the indians in the Americas. They exercised their power over the natives through the encomienda system, which required Native Americans to farm, ranch, or mine for the profit of an individual Spaniard. In return the Spaniard was supposed to see their well being. By the 1550s the Spanish had established colonies in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South America.

The first settlement established by the English was Jamestown in 1607. The attitude of the English toward conquered people was different from the Spanish's. For them conquest was all or nothing. Unlike the Spanish they did not practice the blending of European and Native American societies. Initially there was conflict between Native Americans, and the English settlers. Uneasy peace was eventually established. However the Native Americans ended up carrying out a surprise attack against the English, and the English too struck back.

The French established Quebec in Canada in 1608. The Dutch established New Amsterdam (now New York) in 1626. Both the French and the Dutch traded knives, beads, and guns for fur that could be sold in Europe. Because the French depended on Native American trapping, Native Americans in areas of French contact remained more powerful than those in Virginia.

In 1630 the Puritans arrived in New England. They came fled from England to the Americas because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the
Puritans did not believe in religious toleration. They completely reformed the land in which they settled. They replaced forests with fields, cultivated wheat, barley, and corn, and raised domestic animals.

The era of conquering and colonization was of colossal change. Both the Europeans and Native Americans were introduced to new crops, animals, diseases, and cultures. Africans that were brought to the Americas to work as slaves, also introduced their culture to the Americas.The Europeans benefitted from this discovery. For the Native Americans, however, it was unfortunate more than anything. The Spanish, the English, the French, the Portuguese, all established settlements in different areas of the Americas, and they all faced some kind of conflict with the Native Americans. Some faced more conflict, others faced less. They all had different relationships with the Native Americans.


The Niña, the Pinta, And the Santamaria. The ships in which the Spanish arrived at the Americas in 1492.

Year End Reflection

This semester I learned a lot about politics. Before this course I had very little knowledge about them. I discovered knew things not only about their function, but about their development as well. We studied their history and how they came about. One of the most important concepts this course taught me, is that often certain characteristics that are commonly thought of as being exclusive to a particular situation, may apply to many other situations. For example; people tend to think that elections are held only in democracies. They think of elections as a characteristic exclusive to democratic nations. However, autocracies also held elections. It is examples like these that have helped me comprehend the whole purpose and structure of politics, and furthermore clarify ideas that I did not know were erroneous.

Chapter 14 & 15: Parliamentary and Presidential Government

The parliamentary government is conceptually simpler than the presidential government. It does not allow for any separation of powers. The parliament and the cabinet which operates only by the support of the parliament hold all the states' governmental political power. With this simple concentration of power, political decisions should in principle be made clearly and directly, with a minimum of delay. Presidential government is a democratic system in which the legislature and the executive exist independently and are elected independently of each other. Both parts of the governmental apparatus are responsible for the making and carrying out of law; but they are independent, so it often happens that they compete and find themselves in conflict. The executive and legislature are not forced into the kind of cooperation that tends to be ensured in a parliamentary system, where the two depend closely on one another.

The basic principles of a pure parliamentary system are: a parliament of representatives is elected by the citizens of the state. The executive power of the state is lodged with a cabinet of women and men who are selected by the parliament to conduct the affairs of the state. The cabinet retains power as long as it has the confidence of the parliament: that is, only as long as it can command a minority of the votes. Just as the parliament holds the cabinet in jeopardy the leader of the cabinet usually has the right to have the parliament disbanded, forcing a new election that will lead to a new distribution of power.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the parliamentary government. The advantages are that the government can respond fairly directly to changed circumstances because power is unified. Also the lines of responsibility for policy making are clear. Elections should mean more, because voters can know exactly whom to blame for their current situation. The disadvantages are that in a parliamentary system there are few protections for a minority that feels it is being wronged. A secondary disadvantage with the parliamentary system is that it may produce unstable government.

In a presidential system the political party may operate to soften the natural competition between independent executives and legislatures. Parties are often more loosely unified in presidential systems than in parliamentary systems. In parliamentary systems, the premier and cabinet hold over the heads of ordinary members of parliament the threat that they may not advance into executive office if they do not cooperate with the leadership. In a presidential system, the president has little control over the careers and advancements of members of the legislature and cannot force unity on them. Even when the president's party has a majority of the seats in the legislature, the president will usually not be able to control what happens in the legislature as closely as most cabinets can control their parliaments in parliamentary systems.

There is no guarantee that the party that holds the presidency will also control the legislature. The two parts of the governmental apparatus are elected independently; therefore, it may well happen that one party will have prevailed in the presidential election and another in elections for the legislature. For instance, throughout the 1980s, the Republican Party held the U.S. presidency and at times controlled the Senate, but the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives. And thee same situation held in reverse for much of the 1990s. When there is divided control such as this, cooperation between the two branches of government is even more fragile.

The main differences between a parliamentary and presidential system are; policy leadership is often more clearly lodged with a president than with a parliamentary cabinet. Responsibility for policy is more difficult to identify in a presidential system. Comprehensive policy is more difficult to accomplish in a presidential system than in a parliamentary system. Recruitment of executive leaders differs in two systems. There are special problems for review and control of the executive in a presidential system. The symbolic and political aspects of the executive are unified in a presidential system but split in a parliamentary system. Constitutional review of some sort seems to be more necessary in a presidential system, as is true in general of divided systems of power.

Overall the structure of the parliamentary government is less complex than that of the presidential government. Presidential governments are systems in which power is securely retained by a president, and the symbolic and political aspects of the executive are unified. In addition constitutional review of some sort seems to be more necessary in a presidential system. In parliamentary systems on the other hand power is more loosely lodged with a parliamentary cabinet. Responsibility for policy, and comprehensive policy are much more easy to identify in a parliamentary system as well.




Parliamentary government

Chapter 13: Structured Conflict: Interest groups and Politics

The interest group is an organized group of citizens one of whose goals is to ensure that the state follows certain policies. All sorts of organize groups may function as interest groups. A modern state contains a vast amount of interest groups, so vast that it is hard to calculate their number with precision. Interest groups are not exclusively destined for democracies or open societies; all states have interest groups. There are many different types of interest groups, and many different tactics that they can use. They tend two vary in two important ways. Pluralism and neocorporatism are two aspects related to interest groups.

Interest groups are probably the most frequent tool states use in order to represent public opinion and bring it to bear in an orderly fashion on the governmental authorities. Each interest group is free to present its group's wishes clearly and precisely. The task of representing the people's desires, then falls on the interest group. Interest groups generally accomplish this task very well but in certain cases barriers exist that keep them from functioning as well as desired in this area. The first one is that not all interest groups are equally organized, also, some groups command a disproportionate voice in the interest-group system because they have special advantages. Finally, most interest groups are not organized democratically; their leaders are not closely responsive to the members' wishes. The internal structure of interest groups is not very democratic; therefore, there is a real danger that their leaders may gradually drift away from the ordinary members and follow their own political line. Interest groups, then, are not on the whole democratically organized, and their leaders may depart considerably from the members' views.

Three major types of interest groups are sectoral; those that represent a sector of the economy, institutional which are set up primarily for purposes other than political activity and would certainly exist even if they did not deal with politics, and promotional which organize around an idea or point of view to support a cause.

Just like there are different types of interest groups, there are different tactics of interest groups. Control of information and expertise, electoral activity, use of economic power, public information campaigns, violence and disruption, and litigation. A general principle for the interest groups is that they will pick a tactic that best fits the group's resources and the political opportunities offered by those resources.

Interest groups vary in at least two important ways; the degree of organization, and the degree of direct involvement of interest groups in government and administration. Pluralism is a system in which all interests organize and compete freely and no one group is able to dominate. The government is open to pressure from the interest groups, and politics consist largely of the competition among these interest groups to see that the policies they favor are adopted by the government. Neocorporatism is another abstraction. It is a system in which all interest groups are organized and government deals directly with all affected interests at all stages in the making and administration of policy. Unlike pluralism, under neocorporatism the government does not merely respond to the interest groups' pressure but actively involves the groups in the job of governing.

Interest groups are organizations conducting politics within the decision-making structure of the state, but with a goal of influencing one or more policy outcomes rather than achieving overall governmental power. These groups are often able to accomplish the task of representing the desires of their people, however they often come across barriers. There are three major types of interest groups; sectoral, institutional, and promotional. Similarly there are different tactics that interest groups can use. They often chose one based on their resources available. Interest group systems vary in at least two important ways. With pluralism the government is open to pressure from the interest groups. With neocorporatism all interests are organized.

Chapter 11 Elections

Today elections are widespread around the world. This trend has occurred for several reasons. The first one is that even if countries are not democratic, they want to appear democratic. The second reason is that elections can serve more purposes for the state than merely the democratic one of allowing the mass of people to help in the selection of leaders and policies. Elections were invented to make democracy possible but once invented they turned out to have further uses. Autocratic systems would want to have elections because they can serve two main purposes; the purely democratic purpose of allowing the mass of people to have some direct say in the choice of leaders and policies, but also the more or less universal purpose of allowing the state to mobilize its people and to build up their support for the state by acting out support and participating in the process of government. There are different types of electoral systems, and there are certain kinds of electoral choice that a government may grant to its people.

Elections are not normally thought of as functioning to build support for the system, but they deserve this purpose as much in democracies as in autocracies. The state needs to maintain sufficient support among its citizens so that its authority does not lose strength. For democracies and autocracies alike, elections help ensure this popular base of support.

In many countries elections do more than just win support for the regime; they are the means by which leaders and sometimes policies are chosen by the people. For this to be the case an election must involve a choice between candidates or a choice whether a particular policy is to be followed.

If elections are to be used to choose political leaders, there must be some rule for translating people's votes into a particular selection of leaders. States need to design rules determining which people win office as a result of any particular result in the voting.; these rules are called the electoral system of the state. Two broad types of electoral systems are used in almost all democracies: single member district pluralist systems and proportional representation systems. In the SMDP system, the state is divided into a set of districts, usually having roughly equal populations. One representative is elected from each district to be a member of the legislative body of the state, and whoever gets a plurality of the votes wins the seat. SMPD electoral systems tend to encourage the emergence of two large parties rather than a variety of small parties. With a few exceptions, all PR systems have more than two major parties.

Many democracies restrict their citizen's involvement in the affairs of state to a vote that expresses their choice among potential political leaders. The states' policies are then set by the elected leaders, without any direct input from the voters. Some democracies, however, allow voters under some circumstances to choose directly, in an election, whether a given policy should be followed. Such an electoral choice is called a referendum.

Elections are common across the globe. Both autocracies and democracies make use of elections. Even of countries are not democratic they want to appear democratic. Aside from serving the obvious purpose; providing a means to select leaders and policies, elections serve as a means of building support. It allows the state to mobilize its people and to build up their support for the state by acting out support and participating in the process of government. There are two broad types of electoral systems; single member district plurality systems and proportional representation systems. Some democracies grant referendums to their people. They allow voters under some circumstances to choose directly in an election whether a given policy should be followed.

Chapter 16: Bureaucracy and the Public Sector

A part of policy making is done by a large number of people. Bureaucracy is the most common mode of organization. Certain defining characteristics exist for a good public administration. People often refer to the public administration as the bureaucracy, but a bureaucracy is a mode of administrative organization that was developed in the nineteenth century. There are certain problems with bureaucracy. Although it accurately translates leaders' decisions, and it prevents arbitrary behavior, it does not provide for local flexibility. As well as the very nature of it allows for incompetent administrators to hold their positions for a long time. Fortunately adjustments can be made to bureaucracy in order to improve it.

A significant part of the governmental power of any state is necessarily not under close political control. Good public administration should have: an honest, accurate translation of political leader's decisions into more specifically designed policies, flexibility in dealing with special cases at the point of delivery, flexibility should not be used arbitrarily, feedback of expert advice, active imagination, and assertive inquiry on the port of administrators, and efficiency.

Bureaucracy is one way to organize the public administration. It is a particular mode of administrative organization that was developed as a reform in the nineteenth century and spread widely to be the most generally used mode today. Under a system of bureaucracy; members of the public administration are promoted based on their qualifications for the jobs they are to do, special requirements of experience are set for the position, administrative procedures are standardized, clear lines of command are established, and political administrators are shielded from day to day political pressure.

Bureaucracy is particularly strong on the accurate transition of leaders' decisions and on preventing arbitrary behavior. However this means that it does not provide for local flexibility. Administrators under most version of bureaucracy tend to hold their advice until it is asked for. Another common problem of bureaucracies is a ramification of two factors. The first one is the difficulty in public transportation as compared with private business, of evaluating how well a person has performed a job, and the the second one is the requirement in a bureaucracy that administrators be shielded from direct political pressure, usually by a system of tenure. As a consequence incompetent administrators are rarely removed from their positions.

Bureaucracy is the principal mode of organization around the world. Adjustments can be made to a bureaucracy when it reaches a point where it becomes too bureaucratic. These adjustments include the office of ombudsman. An ombudsman is an official who listens to criticism and negotiates. Other adjustments include freedom of information laws, interference in administration by political leaders, and pressure from public opinion.

Bureaucracies are very common around the world. This term is so widely and commonly used that it is sometimes applied wrongly. The term bureaucracy specifically refers to a particular mode of administrative organization that was developed as a reform during the 19th century and spread widely to be the most generally used mode today. Bureaucracy has its advantages and its disadvantages. It is efficient, clear and prevents arbitrariness, but it does not provide for local flexibility and it is common for incompetent administrators to hold their positions extensively. However adjustments can be made to bureaucracy in order to improve it.

Chapter 12: Parties: A Linking and Leading Mechanism in Politics

A political party is a group of people whose main purpose is to ensure that their candidates attain and maintain power. However this is not their sole purpose. Ever since their creation in the 1820s political parties have served for diverse purposes. For example parties serve to incite movements, and meet crises, as well as they recruit and socialize leaders. Furthermore parties instigate feelings of identity and they, in addition, provide a channel through which one leader can exert force over another one. Organizational structures of political parties, their sources of money, and the type of political party, vary among different countries.

A political party is a group of officials or would-be officials who are linked with a sizable group of citizens into an organization; a chief object of this organization is to ensure that its officials attain power or are maintained in power. Parties are not exclusively for democracies, they may be used to seize control of the government by force. A party joins people together in a formally organized structure. The party's nature as a structure, tying together a large group of officials and citizens, provides an avenue by which one part may control or communicate with another.

The first parties developed with the first modern electoral democracy held in the United States. Well organized parties were in existence by the 1820s. The Democratic Party's roots can be traced back to this time. It is the oldest party in the world.

Besides their obvious purpose regarding elections, political parties may serve to mobilize the people for special purposes or to meet crises. Parties may serve to incite demonstrations and strikes, or movements against a regime. Many parties originate because their purpose is to overthrow the system. Today, the most important focus of opposition to many regimes lies with political parties.

Another use of political parties different from the usual one, is the recruitment and socialization of leaders. A political party seeks out promising young people, gives them experience at relatively small jobs, and gradually moves the most productive to more important jobs, while simultaneously inculcating them the necessary values.

In addition to achieving multiple uses, political parties become an important part of their participants' identities. For those who become quite active, the political party may become a vital and central personal concern. In a fluctuating political world, a strong sense of identification toward a political party provides continuity. Parties may last for centuries.

A final unpredicted event of political parties is they provide means for one leader to exert control over another political leader. Political parties spread so widely within the set of political leaders and out into the mass of people that it offers an excellent channel for power through which political leaders can control the actions either of political leaders or the citizens.

Organizational structure among parties in the United States tends to be loose and informal. Unlike with most organizations in the U.S., a formal membership is not required in order to be part of a party. Some other countries, however, do have parties with organizational structures. When somebody wants to join the party, they have to apply for a membership.

Many sources provide parties with the money they need in order to finance their activities. Parties in the United States do not have a monopoly on political finance. Most of their money is raised by candidates, individual contributors, and organized interest groups. Other countries, however, may raise their money through methods like public finance, individual memberships, bribes and kickbacks, interest group donations, profits from business enterprise, and subsidies from foreign countries.

Another aspect of political parties political scientists are concerned with are the patterns they form. A one party system is one in which only a single political party is allowed to be active. In such systems, the government and the party are closely identified, because the government enforces the rule that other parties are not allowed to be active. A dominant party system is similar to the one party system in that other political parties are allowed to function openly and with reasonable effectiveness. A common pattern of dominant party systems is a long term dominance that eventually gives way to true competition. A third variant is the two party system. Two party systems are characterized by the fact that no one party has power assured for itself, but only two parties can normally expect to have a chance at doing so. Most democratic systems are multiparty systems. They offer the voter a wider range of choice, and each party is more distinctive.

Political parties emerged after the first electoral democracy in the United States. Their main purpose is to ensure that their leaders will attain and maintain power, but they also serve other purposes. They mobilize the people for special purposes or to meet crises, they recruit and socialize leaders, they provide a sense of identification, and they provide a channel through which leaders can exert force over one another. Each country's organizational structure of political parties, sources of money, and type of political party, is different.


United States Political Parties

Democracy and its Recent Surge in the World

A democracy is a state in which citizens have the right to vote for their own leaders. Democracy is "government of the people." Democracy requires an implicit agreement by the conflicting groups in a state to accept the possibility that they will lose out in the making of a policy. This is the democratic bargain. Democracy is fragile. Minute inconveniences are enough to make it collapse. After the 1980s and 1990s a wave of democratization swept across the globe. Three consecutive waves of democratization took place. The third one is explained through four possible reasons. These growing fondness of democracy has given way to the rise of a dubious belief about having reached the end of history. Through the study of comparative politics, political scientists have learned 5 things.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall most of the Eastern European countries that used to be communist, threw off their old systems and established democracies. Three waves of democratization took place. The first occurred in Eastern Europe and Latin America. The second one occurred in Germany and Italy and the third one is considered to have started in the late 1970s with the successful reintroduction of democracy to Spain and Portugal. Political scientist justify this last wave with four reasons; fatigue of some authoritarian regimes, international pressures, people's desires for security against arbitrary abuse, and people's desire for economic development. Based on the preceding events, an author declared that capitalist democracy had won the great ideological debate of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and that history, as we have known it, had ended because there was nothing left to fight about.

Through comparative politics scientist have learned 5 key concepts. The first one is the importance of pacts. It is important for successful democratization that the democratizers form pacts with those whom they are ousting to ensure a smooth transitions and to lay a good base of support for the future democracy. The second observation is sudden changes. Many of the recent shifts to democracy have taken observers by surprise. a year before the Eastern European countries became democratic, nobody predicted it would happen. The third observation that has been made is that the results of a transition to democracy differ if the transition takes place while the state is undergoing a crisis or not. Politics that follow a crisis tend to be problematic, whereas politics that follow times of stability, remain stable themselves. The third observation is related to democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are related but not identical. Moving toward one means moving toward the other but there is not an automatic correspondence between them. Finally the fifth observation is about democracy and capitalism. Most democracies of the world have market based economies, however there is no automatic connection between democracy and capitalism.

The amount of democratic countries has increased impressively in the last years. The waves of democratization that have swept across the globe have been drastic. The third wave might have been triggered by a series of factors. These rapid changes have led certain authors to believe that history as we know it has ended because there is nothing left to fight for. Through comparative politics scientists have made prominent conclusions on pacts, sudden changes, crisis or non crisis, democracy and freedom, and democracy and capitalism.




Democracy

Autocratic Government

Democracy is fragile. Out of the 97 states that were independent for the last forty years, only 24 have had an uninterrupted electoral democracy. However autocracy is fragile as well. Most autocratic countries do not stay autocratic for long, or they oscillate between autocracy and democracy. The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government, in which the current government of a state is overthrown and overtaken by the military. A minute amount of countries in the world are ran by military governments, however. Several reasons account for this fact. The most common types of autocratic systems are one party states. One party states have a government in which there is a single party allowed in the state. "Court" Politics are a characteristic of many autocracies.

Conservative Saudi Arabia, bureaucratic Soviet Union, Zaire personal dictatorship, and Pakistan's alternating government between autocracy and democracy are all rough representations of autocracies. They're quite varied politically. Ultimately, they are not fully autocratic. Most parts of the Soviet Union are moving toward democracy, the dictator of Zaire did not ultimately retain power, Pakistan continually alternates between forms of government, finally Saudi Arabia does appear to have a rather stable system. The royal family in power has been in control for several years now.

The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government. They vary greatly in their political role. In Paraguay the regime was repressive and implemented torture. In Greece the government took harsh repressive measures as well. In Nigeria, on the other hand, there was considerable civilian support for the government. People tend to believe that military coups are of the right. However military coups can be of either the right or left, or neither one, it all depends on the officials leading the coup. Their inclination dictates whether the coup is of either, or neither side. Another erroneous belief is that military governments are bad at guiding economies. Studies have shown that military governments are neither good nor bad at guiding economies.

There is a surprisingly small amount of military governments in the world. Less than 1/10 of the world's states are military governments. Why aren't there more military governments? Partly, it is because states devote time and effort to keep military officers from politically intervening. Once the military takes power they face problems with legitimacy. There is no process of selection legitimizing the military government. They are therefore always concerned with justifying their existence. As a result they add civilians to government, set future date for return of democracy, or they rally people through wars and appeals to nationalism. Another problem is that it is unlikely that the military government leaders are skilled politically. Military governments, in addition, are shaky alliances, united primarily by their opposition to the regime. They are therefore likely to fall apart when new issues emerge.

Most autocracies are not straight military governments, but one party states. In one party states the government is based on a political party that is the only one allowed in the states. Compared with military rule the one party state offers a more stable, and responsive form of government. One party states, in addition, provide links between the government and the population, as well as they provide an arena in which varied political positions can develop into factions. Conflicts may develop within the system rather than forming outside and representing a threat. Finally, one party states provide a set of arrangements by which a transitions of leadership can be accomplished.

A characteristic of many autocracies, both military governments and one party states, are court politics. In autocracies the trend tends to be that a single person may hold almost all power in the system and politics revolve around that single person. This is called court politics after the royal courts of the great European monarchs. This is a quite common characteristic but it is not true of all autocracies, it is quite frequent though. Court politics is usually marked by less emphasis on the rule of the law and more on the arbitrary whim of the ruler. Heavy competition by other figure for access to the leader, unusual importance of nonpolitical figures that have access to the leader, flattery and attempts to shield the leader from unpleasant reality.

Autocratic systems are quite diverse and uncommonly stable. Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Zaire, and Pakistan are epitomes of this statement. Several autocratic states have set up institutions of politics, especially through single parties, that allow for politics to be conducted over the long haul, straight military governments, however, have not. One party states are an alternative to military government that provide many things that military governments lack. Military governments face problems with legitimacy, their leaders are unlikely skilled politically, and their very nature makes them likely to fall apart. One party states, on the other hand, offer an overall more stable and responsive form of government. Military governments, and one party states are similar in that there frequently is a single person holding nearly all the power, and politics revolves around that person. This is not true of all autocracies, however it is quite frequent that that is indeed the case.


Hitler: Military Government

Authority and Legitimacy: the State and the Citizen

Authority is power based on a general agreement that a person or group have a right to issue certain types of commands and that those commands should be obeyed. A government is unique in society in that all of its power involves authority and at least potentially there is no limit to the range of activities over which it may exercise authority. Authority is a type of power, but a uniquely efficient one. Ultimately it may be backed up by the use of either coercion or persuasion. The feeling of large numbers of people that the government has the authority, and should have the authority, is called legitimacy of the government. Legitimacy is crucial, and it may be achieved in four ways. One important aspect of democracy is the relationship between the citizen and the state. A democratic citizen should possess the following characteristics: tolerance, active participation, high level of interest and information, and support for the state. A key part in making people function well in a democracy is social capital. The basis for the political behavior of the people is conformed by the political culture of a society. Political culture consists of all attitudes and believes held communally by a people. The values and assumptions people hold about politics are acquired in a process called political socialization.

Four sources of legitimacy exist. Legitimacy by results is the first one. A government may gain and retain legitimacy from its people by providing for them the things they most want: security against physical assault, security of their country's borders against invasion, pride in their nation, and economic security. Another way a government can acquire legitimacy is by habit. Once a government has been around for a while people get accustomed to obeying its laws. There is also legitimacy by historical, religious or ethnic identity. Many governments enhance their legitimacy by the ties that exist between themselves and the people because of the governments' leaders past accomplishments or because of the religious and or ethnic similarity between the government leaders and the people. Finally a state my strengthen the legitimacy of its government by following certain procedures in setting itself up.

A democracy requires citizens that will do more than obey and follow the government. It requires citizens that will have tolerance for diversity. Citizens that will vote in elections, and maintain frequent contact with the government. Citizens that will not only stay active, but also keep themselves informed. Finally a democracy requires its citizens to support the state.

According to Robert Putnam, the necessary ingredient for making democratic governments effective is social capital. Social capital are intricate webs of voluntary involvement in organizations that bind people together and give them the political resources and mutual trust that are needed to make any form of cooperative government work. It is a pattern of community interactions that produces desirable attitudes of efficacy and trust, and that gives people practical experience in persuasion and collective action.

Political culture, or the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people, is responsible for major differences on how politics is conducted. Political culture is important, but it is hard to evaluate it. It easily falls into stereotyping and generalization. However political culture is too important to ignore. One striking characteristic of political cultures is that they usually change slowly. State and society may change greatly, but the underlying culture stays recognizably the same.

The learning of political values and factual assumptions about politics is called political socialization. The importance of political socialization is that without it political culture would disappear after one generation. The sources by which knowledge on political culture is acquired are called agents of socialization. We learn about politics from many different agents but a few particular important ones are our families, schools, and peer groups.

Authority and legitimacy are two crucial characteristics that a government must possess in order to exist. It is not enough for a government to hold power, its people have to believe that that power pertains to them and that it is legitimate. Authority exists because people believe it exists, and legitimacy exists because it has have been acquired through either results, habit, historical, religious or ethnic identity, or procedures. Aside from obeying and following the government, the citizens of a democracy have to be tolerant, simultaneously informed and active participators, and supportive of the state. The government requires an amalgam of factors to function in order for it to work efficiently, however according to Robert Putnam the necessary ingredient is social capital. All the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people conform the political culture of a society. In order for the political culture of a society to subsist, political socialization has to take place. New generations must learn the political attitudes and beliefs held by their society, if their political culture is to remain existent.

Chapter 6: Political Choices: The Problems of Justice and Efficiency

What is justice? It is really hard to determine what is just due to its subjectivity. An ongoing debate orbits around whether should justice be based on weight of contributions or on need. Should rewards and benefits be granted to the most productive or to the ones that need it the most? Another important aspect of justice are the procedures through which decisions are reached about people. This is called procedural justice and it involves 3 important issues; arbitrariness, the violation of special basic rights, and whether special overriding social needs are present. Another significant aspect to take into consideration regarding policies is their efficiency. An efficient policy grants the greatest benefit to the people and the state at the lowest cost. A government is in charge of deciding the policies of the state and must take into account the factors of justice and efficiency. There are 4 different modes through which a government reaches a decision; incremental, radical, authority, and market.

When determining what is just and what is not, a number of factors come into play. However they can be narrowed down to two main opposing ones; should justice be based on need, or should it be based on the weight of contributions. The problem with relying on weight of contributions in order to dictate how to distribute rewards is that quite often luck is more participative than virtue. Since contribution involves this element of luck it makes it uncertain how much should be rewarded, as well as it ignores the questions of need. As a consequence, justice cannot be based solely on a single one of these factors, because they are mutually exclusive.

Just like there are issues when determining what exactly is just, there are issues with the procedures of justice through which decisions are reached about people. Three issues that are often linked with procedural justice are: whether governmental action is arbitrary, whether special basic rights are violated, and whether special overriding needs are present. Government action is arbitrary if the people do not know what to expect before the decision is made and on what grounds it was made. Decisions that single out particular individuals for punishment or reward are arbitrary. The second issue that arises when looking at procedural justice is the violation of certain rights that are considered absolute. These include rights such as the right to survive, the right of free speech and the right to privacy. Most people agree that these rights are not indeed absolute. Regulations and exceptions, exist, and sometimes ought to exist. However those rights are categorized by society as being of top priority, so that it would take something unusual for them to be compromised. Finally there is the idea that in order for justice to prevail over most of the people, the state has to be less just to some people. That is, there may be overriding social needs that enter into considerations of justice.

A factor that is equally as important as justice when determining a policy, is efficiency. An efficient policy brings the greatest benefit at the least cost. The problem is that usually neither the benefits nor the costs of a policy are easy to calculate. The effects of a policy are difficult to measure and compare. The costs and benefits of a policy are not always clear, a variety of effects exist called unanticipated consequences. Any judgement of the efficiency of a policy must take into account all its costs and benefits, not just the intended costs and benefits. Many of the consequences of a policy are difficult to foresee. As a result, it is equally as complicated to determine the efficiency of a policy as it is to determine how just the policy is.

Once the state is ready to implement a policy it can do so in one of four ways. The decision making mode is incremental when changes in policy are exerted little by little. A small change in policy is carried out at one time, the state waits to observe the results. Subsequently another small change is made. There is caution in the face of uncertainty and complexity. A radical mode of decision making is implemented when there is more concern on losing an opportunity than on costly errors. When the mode of decision making is governmental authority the policy is made by the government telling people what they may or may not do. There are two main problems with authority based policy. It does not get things to the people that will value them the most, and there is a lack of incentives to encourage the optimum usage of resources. When the market mechanism carries out the policy, the government leaves choice up to the people. It largely relies on supply and demand. The problems with market based policy is that wealth and income are distributed unequally, it is not very effective in producing collective goods, and it does not take into account externalities of individual transactions.

Justice is a complex issue. It involves a number of factors that are often in conflict and need to be balanced. The government reaches decisions about people through processes, but these processes are often coined as arbitrary or raise the question about the violation of special basic rights, and the presence of overriding social needs. Regarding a policy, the role that justice plays is crucial, as well as the role that efficiency plays. The essence and the purpose of a policy is directly linked to both justice and efficiency. When concocting a policy governments have to take both of these factors into account, and once they have reached a decision and enforce it, they may do so in one of four modes; incremental, radical, authority, or market.

Policies of the State

The government is in charge of controlling a number of policies. Defense, education, research and development, and health and social welfare, are all factors that lie under the government's control and most of the time indicate whether a country is an MDC, a more developed country, or an LDC a less developed country. Subcategories of each of these policies serve as indicators of a country's level of development. The percent of population in active military and percent of GDP spent on defense, for example, demonstrate how a government handles defense preparations. The educational effort for a country is represented through the GDP spent on education, among other factors. Factors such as the percent of manufactured high technology exports indicate a states' involvement in research and development. Social welfare activity is shown by the percent of governmental expenditures devoted o social security and welfare. Lastly, health expenditures and outcomes for countries are reflected in factors such as spending on health care, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and per capita income.

More developed countries like Great Britain, United States, and Canada are democratic, they tend to have a voluntary military service and a relatively smaller percentage of the population participating in the military. The Canadian government spends 1.1% of its GDP on defense. In the United States 3% of their GDP is spent on defense, and 2.6% of Great Britain's GDP is spent on defense. North Korea, on the other hand, is a nondemocratic LDC, a less developed country, with an obligatory military service of 3-10 years, and an extremely high percentage of the population involved in the military, 5. North Koreas's government, in addition, spends14.3% of the country's GDP on defense.

There is not a clear pattern between which types of countries spend what on education. In most democratic countries the difference between the percent of eligible girls/boys enrolled in primary school, and high school, is much lower than in countries that are not democratic. In most democratic countries it varies by about one or two percent but in the countries that are not democratic its usually by more than 2.

The percent of manufactured high technology exports, the number of scientists and engineers per million population, and the government spending on research and development tend to be higher in MDCs. The net gain over expenditure in license fees fluctuates among different countries, there is not a clearly defined pattern.

Democratic MDCs' percent of governmental expenditures devoted to social security and welfare tends to be higher than LDCs', while percent of governmental expenditures devoted to housing and community amenities does not follow a definite pattern.

Government spending on health care as a percent of GDP is higher in MDCs than in LDCs. Private spending on health care does not follow a pattern. Like government spending on health care, total spending on health care tends to be higher in MDCs than in LDCs. Life expectancy is higher in MDCs. Infant mortality is higher in LDCs. MDCs are democratic and their per capita income is significantly higher than LDCs'.

Defense preparations, educational effort, involvement in research and development, social welfare activity, and health expenditures and outcomes are all factors that vary among different countries, but there tends to be a pattern for MDCs and LDCs. Its not visible in all cases, but it is definitely present in most. LDCs tend to spend more on defense than MDCs. The amount of eligible girls/boys enrolled in school is close to being equal in MDCs while in LDCs the difference reaches up to 10% in some countries. MDCs export a higher amount of manufactured high technology products, and they also tend to spend more in social security and welfare than LDCs. Per capita income, as well, is higher in MDCs, than in LDCs.



High technology product

The Modern State

The Modern State

           

            The state has come to play a central role in politics. Since its invention after the French Revolution, it has been evolving and becoming more clear and defined, its role has become crucial. A state is different from a nation. A state is a political unit with sovereignty while a nation is a cultural, and linguistic grouping of people who feel that they belong together. The government is a key part of the state. It is equivalent to the actions of the state. The state has been the dominant form of political organizations for the last centuries but during the last decades its power has been reduced.

             In around 1800-1815 Napoleon invented the Modern State. He united the passion of the French Revolution to a well managed and functioning bureaucracy and army. People now fought not only for their personal interests but for their nation, France. Nationalism or a passionate identification with the state increased later with imperial powers and colonies along with the World War.

            There is a difference between the terms state, nation, and the nation-state. A nation is a large group of people who are bound together, and recognize a similarity among themselves, because of a common culture; in particular, a common language. While a state is a political unit that has ultimate sovereignty, ultimate responsibility for managing their own affairs. The correspondence between nation and state varies around the world. There are places were the nation is within the state, but in continents like Africa and Asia nations take up several countries, they are not within the boundaries of a single state. Therefore conflicts arise. This problem came about because when colonialists decided how they would divide their territory they ignored the locations of the different existent tribes. Modern states have adapted the idea of "nation" so much, especially to adhere the emotion of nationalism that goes along with it, that today they are referred to simply as nation-states.

            The state can be thought of in two ways: as everyone living in a given territory or the governing apparatus that makes and enforces rules. The actions of a state refer to the government. The legal right to make and enforce rules is a main component of the definition of state. The government is by definition a key part of the state.  It is a group of people who have the ultimate authority to act on behalf of the state.

            The state has come to be the dominant form of political organization over the last centuries but today it faces challenges from above and below. Above the state world leaders are groping for structures that would replace many functions of states and operate over a wider geographic area range than the state. Organizations like the European Union, the free trade agreement, and the international monetary fund suppress the power of the state up to a certain level. The environment and religion are also factors that limit the states power in some way, this is due to cross-state bodies and religious political organizations. From below the state faces problems with the explosive growing of ethnic and regional separatist movements. The capacity of states to exercise control over things within their boundaries is always shifting, affected greatly by changes in technology. Regulating the economy is one of the most important functions of states, but with the development of a large and fluid world economy, the states role in controlling the operations of its economy is reducing. The world's investors and capital markets probably dictate the state's economic development so strongly that the state's involvement in decision making regarding economic  policy is minimal.

            Ever since its invention the state has been a powerful entity. It controls a variety of sectors such as the economy and the government. It is important to note that a nation is different from a state. A state is a political unit with sovereignty while a nation is a cultural, and linguistic grouping of people who feel that they belong together. Over the last decades states have been facing several challenges that have reduced their power,  this is mainly due to globalization.

 

European Union flag