Blog Discussion Group One
log Discussion Group One
Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on January 23 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on January 26.
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?
There are a multitude of multination states throughout the world. A multination state is defined as a single state or government that contains a range of national identities. One example of this is Britain. It has long been divided between English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish nationals. Another example of a multination state is the United States of America. The top ten nationalities in the US are German, African American, English, Irish, Mexican, American, Italian, Polish, French, and Native American respectively. Although this may seem like a lot of variation within the state, these ten nationalities make up only 86.9% of the total population in the US (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-ethnic-groups-and-nationalities-in-the-united-states.html). So, there is even more diversity among nationality.
ReplyDeleteConsidering whether or not these states should break up into separate states based on nationality is not for the best of the people, in my opinion. Hague and Harrop state that “more than one nation is fundamental to a country’s politics and assimilation to a dominant nationality is unrealistic” in Political Science: A Comparative Introduction. In other words, a state needs a multitude of backgrounds, opinions, and ways of life to function. These things help a state get perspectives from all angles and make decisions with these different perspectives about what is best for the state as a whole.
I agree with you about keeping states together and not breaking them up into separate states. It keeps a diverse nation and brings the people together. Some people want to break up the states in order to have their own "state" or "people" but if they did that then there would be no diversity and diversity is what keeps this nation together. We interact everyday with other cultures and people and it brings us together and makes us stronger as a nation. You used some great quotes in your blog that were very interesting. Britain is a great example for the question you answered also because they have such a diverse nation with many different states of people.
DeleteWhen comparing parliamentarism and presidentialism to see which is more democratic we have to look at the two countries that represent these systems the best, the U.S. and the U.K. Both governments are divided into three branches. The president represents the Executive branch for the U.S. and the prime minister for represents for the U.K. Both are elected by the people of their country, the difference being that time of the elections vary. Elections in the U.S. are set to be every four years, elections in the U.K. are set by the prime minister. In other words the prime minister can determine when the next election is as long it is within five years of the previous election. This allows the prime minister to wait until they and their party experience some good publicity and then use that as a springboard into an election while the public is on their side. Another difference in these two systems is that the legislative branch of the U.K. (Parliament) seems to hold the most power among the branches. When parliament does not support the prime minister they can remove them at any time by taking a vote of no confidence. In order for the president to be removed he must undergo impeachment trials when they have committed a criminal or misdemeanor act. This is also an example of how one branch of the British government has power over another. The branches of the U.S. government has no such advantage as each are set up in a system of checks and balances. The final point to be made is that there are more elected positions in the U.S. than in the U.K. The U.S. allows for more positions such as governors, mayors, sheriffs etc. to be elected whereas similar positions in the U.K. are appointed. For these reasons I believe that presidentalism is more democratic
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the points that you have made. Both systems are democratic and both systems have different branches of government. Through our readings and class time, we have learned a lot about the differences between the two. The differences you noted are very important in comparing the two governments. However, I think that another good point to make is that all parties in a parliamentary democracy have a seat in Parliament and their representation is based upon their percentage in the population. Whereas, in a presidential democracy, there are really only two parties in the legislative branch. I believe that this is an important characteristic to note about the two. This difference allows there to be more differing perspectives in Parliament decision making compared to the perspectives in legislative decision making. The minor differences in the "legislative" branch of the two governments could change outcomes of decisions drastically because of the kind of representation that each is comprised of.
DeleteWhen defining parliamentarism it is the government that is voted by the people of the country just as it is with presidentialism. The difference between the two are one votes for the cabinets which is parliamentarism, while with presidentialism the people vote for the president. The United Kingdom deals with parliamentarism, which the people vote for the cabinets that are usually with the prime minister. The United States are an example of a presidentialism which the people elect the government every four years.
ReplyDeleteEven though the prime minister in the parliamentarism can determine when the next election will be within the five years after being elected. just like the prime minister being able to get more "popular" with the people, the president of the United States could do the same in between terms. Therefore I believe that presidentialism is more democratic then parliamentarism.
"A multinational state combines a range of national identities under a single government." (Political Science: A Comparative Introduction) There are several multinational states throughout the world in this day and age. The most apparent would be the United States. The U.S. is broken up into several different nationalities; some of which include German, Irish, Mexican, Native American, Italian, African American, and English nationalities. Several locations around the world, like the U.S., are divided by several different nationalities operating under one government together. Some multinational states are only broken up by a few different nationalities, such as Canada being divided between English and French or Belgium being divided between Dutch and French (Political Science: A Comparative Introduction). I believe that it is important to keep this concept of a multinational state because it allows government input from several different nationalities and backgrounds, which makes it more realistic and unbiased. However, along with this, I do believe that their should be a sort of "checks and balances" system per nationality in each state so that the government input and beliefs of each group of people are tracked so that one group does not gain sole power.
ReplyDelete2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteYes, some countries are more nationalistic then others, according to an article on Business Inquirer, United States is the most patriotic country and 41% of its popularity believe they are the best country in the world. Many other countries who made the list also believe they are the greatest or better than most, this nationalism is show specially by countries who gained independence and are very proud of it. Some examples are Australia, India and Malaysia. Some country such as the Philippines have used strong patriotism to select their leader. I dont believe man countries push it over the top, and the belief of its population is a very positive thing, as it shows support for the economy.
I agree with the points that you made. I believe that nationalism can have its pros and cons, however, it all depends on how it is used. If nationalism is being used to a country's advantage then it can really empower a nation and lead to success, which I believe is more commonly seen in today's world (Lombardo 2018). On the opposite end, sometimes nationalism can lead to cliques, separation, and sometimes even war (Lombardo 2018). There are definitely some countries that are more nationalistic than others and the United States, like you said, is a perfect example of this and definitely uses it as an advantage. Overall, it truly comes down to how nationalism is used and shown for a country to determine if it is a good or bad thing and from there one can determine how to handle it.
DeleteThe United States is a great example of a state with many nations. In this country, we have the nation of Islam being its own nation in the state of the U.S. Just like the Native Americans being all over the U.S. but believing they are of their own rules, laws, and values. These such states should not break into separate states because diversity is a huge deal in the state of the United States. I believe that a diverse culture in the U.S. is what makes this nation come together. Being around all of these different cultures, people, beliefs, religions, and ideas is what brings Americans together. Diversity is what people need so they are around many different beliefs and ideas so that everyone is not thinking of the same thing. If these states separated into different states it would totally ruin the idea of a diverse culture. We would not be as open to different aspects from other people and would not understand different beliefs. If we did not have the nation of Native Americans , we would be oblivious to the land before Englishman came over here in 1492. Also, if we separated the Islamic nation we would not be open to different cultures and the way people live.
ReplyDelete