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