Government as to numbers of rulers;
In classical Greece, Aristotle laid the foundations of understanding Political Science, specifically its rudimentary nature. He believes that government can be classified into three categories, these are: Government of one; Government of few and; Government of many.
A government ruled by one entity is called Monarchy, a government ruled by the few was named after Aristotle, Aristocracy while the state headed by many is recognized as Democracy.
Aristotle argued that when a monarch started to rule for self interest and disregard the felicity of the people, it’s government would be classified as tyrannical. Many government in ancient times became tyranny, like in Kings of Europe and Emperors of Asia.
The government of the few was a bit different from monarchy, Aristotle described it as the government of the best. The leadership is based on physical, intellectual and moral standing of a person, basically a concept of credentials in our times.
But he also understand that if aristocracy deviates, then it will turn into oligarchy, which the leadership is exclusive to a particular group of people in the society, mostly the upper class. The possibility of oligarchy, is the birth of Polity known today as democracy. It is safe to say, that it is most patronize form of government around the world today, yet for Aristotle, the context of democracy is a deviancy to Polity government.
In a sense, Aristotle seek for an organized government of many, that is why he called it Polity. But In contrary, most of democratic counties today is successful not only to represent the people but also to obliterate unorganized and chaotic realm of society. The triumph of democracy is not possible without the mixture of republicanism, in which an election is being conducted to create a representative government.
As to numbers of rulers, I firmly believe that the sovereignty should always reside to the people. The government exist because of the inhabitants, without them governance is no meaning. But the victory of democracy depends on the quality of the people, I therefore conclude; that democracy must be combined with aristocracy; where all government officials must be regulated by intellectual and administrative qualifications. I can see that a democratic society headed by aristocrats will be a precursor to utopian like society.
As to Relationship of Executive and legislative branches;
The Presidential system has an enterprise of separation of powers, whereas the head of the executive department is separately elected from legislative. In theory it is sound, but in application it may cause pandemonium and stagnation.
Also the fixed term of a president can be used as shield to sway public opinion and enrich himself in the office.
Nevertheless, a Parliamentary system is much better for it recognize the opposition in the government. And can create faster polices because of fusion of powers.
The parliament will elect a Prime Minster that will lead the government, while the elected prime minster will nominate a cabinet members from the parliament, in that way a unity among government officials will be observed.
Another good outcome of a parliamentary government is lawmakers would understand the process, practicability and result of their enacted policy, it is because of their exposure to executive branch.
The political parties in parliamentary system are calibrated with the political spectrum of the society, so it would ease the political tensions and rebellion in government.
Constituents will elect their representative to the parliament in local level rather than focusing on electing a president which they don’t know in locality. Hence, all the qualities of parliamentary system is effective in making a concrete and well represented government, so it’s likely to be the best government as to relationship of executive and legislative.
As to Degree of Control of the National Government over local affairs;
A federal from of government decentralizes power to its states.
While a Unitary government holds its local regions into one national government.
In deciding which of them are better, a geopolitical conditions of a country must be considered. Most of small countries preferred a unitary government for practicability and cooperation among populace.
Those enriched countries with greater landmass divide their locality into small states; these states has their own constitution and sovereignty to its constituents.
The system is often called two governments. It must be noted, however; that all states under a federal government is not powerful than central government. One thing which is problematic about a federal system is the possibility of boosting the local political dynasties in a country. And in times of crisis there might be a confusion as to which is responsible between the two government.
Moreover, a Unitary government, promotes unity and national identity. The err on unitary system has its own solutions. Solidarity, cooperation and, nationalism are the elements necessary to resist outside threats against a country. It is much easier to interfere a divided country and destroy it from within.
Further, as to degree of control of national government over local affairs, upon considering the geopolitical conditions, local dynasties and, wealth distribution; I strongly affirm that Unitary government is much stable and reliable, most especially in times of catastrophes.
Comments
Post a Comment