History and Political Science Identification - Essay Example

Supervisor: History and Political Science identification Die Welle According to Weber, the real politics is far much different from what is taught in the lecture room. In classroom, there is no one present to oppose the imprints of a teacher on the student like the case is in a political arena. In the political world, one does not hide his or her standpoint like it happens in lecture rooms. It is therefore inappropriate to state that democracy is absolutely perfect. As matter of fact, it has been argued that democracy can also be a bad form of government (Ingram 2). This has been reinforced by the fact that some nations that are non-democratic have managed to achieve impressive economic production. Fascism has been successful in a number of countries including Germany as well as Italy and Japan. It is even believed that what is needed to fix the problems facing the world today is; the availability of more information and the systematical analysis of that information. It is even argued that a dictator would help solve the various problems facing the world today by simply applying analysis. This would however require that democratic interferences and tradeoffs not to be applied (Ingram 3). Those who champion such arguments have gone to ask why smart people with the freedom to do what is right under democratic governments have not been able to solve the problems facing us. According to them, what is needed more are resources to do policy analysis. This stand is definitely miss -placed if not totally misguided as the people fronting it because there are so many policy analyses that have been done and are available by both governments and international agencies that are responsible for various sectors. The issue is not little information or lack of policy analysis as thought or fronted in Die Welle, but the problem is the opposite; there is too much information that it is overwhelming to make a policy choice unilaterally. With no clear and universally accepted criterion in place to make those whose interests are not catered for to accept policy that has been made by analysis, it is hard to implement these policies and solve the problems. If this is the problem that dictatorship is supposed to solve then Die Welle is a big joke. Have they considered the civil unrest, the violent opposition and confrontations? Also, no government has the resources to allot to extensive policy analysis (Ingram 8). And, if even if a dictator does this, he or she would in turn affect other operations of government there by creating a whole new problem while trying to solve one. Furthermore, there has never been a single definition of all problems so that a policy analysis can handle all of them. In addition, there are limitations when it comes to policy making in an analytical manner because it is always fallible, costly, lacking the ability to conclusively resolve conflicts in terms of value and interests. It is therefore impossible to substitute politics with analysis as depicted in Die welle. It is however possible to improve policy making by increasing information and analysis but politics cannot be removed (Ingram 32). This authoritarian myth of Die welle is a misguided one that should not be supported because even states that are not democratic still rely on consent from members of their societies to a certain level. Even if it through coercion as in the case of Hitler in Germany. Federal Systems Federalism is a departure if not a rejection of majoritarian democracy as defined by its principal features or as depicted in the Westminster democracy model (Lijpart 3). Non-mojoritarian democracy is also referred to consensus democracy and can be further divided into federalism and consociationalism. While the two forms of non-majoritatrian democracy do not coincide, they always overlap to an extent that is significant. Also, it is important to note that they cover such areas such as balance when it comes to legislative relations, sharing of executive power, representation that is proportional, decentralization in terms of federalism, and a written constitution that enables minority veto. Federalism as a form of non-majoritarian democracy advocates for decision-making process that allows the use of majorities that are qualified thus creating minority veto power which prevents regular majorities. A study analysis of the dimensions between majoritarian democracy on one hand and the consensus democracy on the other hand, has produced two dimensions that are uncorrelated in nature across the twenty-two regimes that were analyzed and said to be democratic. The dimensions have attributes that have clustered together, and are associated with consociationalism on one hand and federalism on the other hand. The attributes closely associated with federalism include a constitution that is rigid, and bicameralism (Lijpart 7). Federalism is basically defined in regard to two principles that are classified either as primary or secondary, with the primary principal being power division when it comes to central and regional governments. The secondary principles include additional five attributes that deal with areas such as a guarantee of powers that both central and regional governments specifically have and cannot be removed from them because they are written in the constitution (Lijpart 9). In addition, the secondary principals stipulate the need of a bicameral system of representation that represents both the people as whole according to their regions. The third principle of federalism ensures that all the component units are always involved in the constitution amending process of the federal government as well as their own constitution in a unilateral manner (Lijpart 10). The final principal is meant to be about decentralized governments and how regional governments share power in federational set up. Another aspect that is important to note is that federalism should not be taken to mean democracy, as there are many regimes that are federal in set up but are not democratic examples being the Soviet Union among others. However, this analysis has been restricted to federalism as it relates to democratic regimes and democracy, dealing with it as a non-majoritarian democracy (Lijpart 14]). This means that for a decision to be endorsed in this kind of system, a majority that is qualified as in 50 percent plus one must endorse it and can be veto by a minority of one voter or less than 50 percent. Federalism as a form of non-majoritarian democracy rejects some tenets that are essentially found in majoritarianism and at times have implied if not explicitly stated to be incompatible with democracy. But a careful examination of federalism will show that just like majoritarian, federalism is also a form of democratic representation that is exclusive in nature and therefore the extremist majoritarian should not view federalism as not compatible with democracy when in essence it is a form of democracy. The only difference is that federalism seeks to ensure that too much power is not concentrated at one particular institution. German Nationalism In German, Bundestag is one of the most powerful bodies when it comes to legislation. Even though it has the powers to impeach the chancellor, it can only do so by replacing him or her with another chancellor who has to be endorsed by the president. On the other hand, the chancellor can ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag if it lacks faith in him or her (Ingram 34). However, all this motions must wait for 48 hours before they can be acted upon. The German model is an example of a parliamentary system that has a weak president heading it. This was so designed to ensure stability and that there is no a situation like that of Weimar Republic, which degenerated and become a third Reich. In addition, there are other safeguards in place meant to ensure there is no abuse of power. The Bundestag has suspensive veto powers that allow it to override Bundesrat objections to laws (Ingram 47). It has a majority method to select the president by the federal convention, overlapping terms between bundestag members and the president, and federalism to ensure central authority is weakened. German has bicameral style of representation with its Bundesrat representing units that are sub-national like the Senate does in the United States. In regards to constitutional review, Germany has federal constitutional court that handles constitutional issues. Also, Germany has a law that was passed in 1949 outlaw aggression that is intended to disturb peaceful relation in regards to other countries thereby preventing a possible recurrence of the horrors of Nazi. According to Third Reich’s Vocabulary, John of Salisbury describes German body politic as; the foreign policy including the superiority theory which is equated to Aryan racism, Irredentism; that is, annexation and finally conquest (Ingram 46). In terms of domestic policies, it advocates for authoritarianism in terms of leadership, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism. However, it is important to note that there is another aspect of nationalism that has been portrayed in Germany after the post occupation experience. These have been captured in the economic market that is social, corporatism that is democratic, codetermination, and state assistance among others. Even the U. S occupation and the soviet device of dividing them have not ended the German nationalism. It is not over as this is evidently seen in the effort to reunify despite the high cost that come with it. Having stated this, it is also important to note that the Germany nationalism had a dark side that portrayed the Jews as the enemy within and created a political identity that labeled them as “pests and Parasites” that needed to be destroyed quickly (Ingram 46). Nationalism can also be explained in view of different concepts such the structural theory; which tends to explain the vulnerability in terms of lack of natural boundaries, and the cultural theory; that seeks to explain the infatuation as it regards the nation state. The Nazi phenomenon can also be explained through an alternative theory that seeks to highlight economy, sociological, and military aspects of the theory. And finally, there is the choice theory that states that the Nazis explored the rules of Weimar Republic and subverted democracy. Polyarchy A political system that is open to participation and opposition is very vital in aspect when it comes to democratization. In democracy the preferences of citizens by the government as political equals is regarded as a key characteristic (Dahl 2). But for this to happen, a regime must allow those who do not agree with it to organize themselves in order to challenge it as political parties in elections that are free and fair. In order for a government to be fully considered responsive, it must offer the following unimpaired opportunities to its citizens: the opportunity to fully formulate what they prefer, the opportunity to individual or collectively signify what they prefer to the other citizens and the government as well. And finally, the government must weigh the preferences of its citizens in regards to its conduct without discrimination because of what is contained in the preferences (Dahl 4). Furthermore, these fundamental opportunities must be applied in a manner that implements the eight guarantees of policies made. They should be based on vote and the citizens preferences, the guarantee to elections that are free and fair, right to vote, freedom to air one’s views, freedom to join organizations or form them, the right to a public office, and also the right to get information from other source that they encompass. Democratization can be said to have two dimensions: the first dimension deals with the extent to which regimes allow political competition; the extent to which the public is allowed to contest and oppose the government, and the second dimension deals with the extent of inclusion (Dahl 6). It is important to note that these two dimensions vary independently in that a regime might allow public contestation but to only a small fraction of the population, thereby, negating both the principle of contestation and inclusiveness while claiming to implement them. On the other hand, a repressive government does not provide any opportunities to the opposition. From this view, Polyarchy can be said to be a regime that is open in terms of public contestation in a manner that is highly inclusive and at the same time extensive. A polyarchy regime is a democratized one that allows inclusiveness and liberalization. It is also important to understand that there are regimes that near-polyarchy in that while they may allow inclusiveness, they also have restrictions that are severe compared to a fully polyarchy one, or while they may provide room for great contestation, they may on the other hand reduce the level of inclusion (Dahl 8). Having said this, the question that comes to mind then is; what are the conditions that promote the development and the existence of public contestation. As mentioned earlier, public contestation can be viewed as a form of democratization even though democratization consists of many aspects that have not been analyzed here. Public contestation as a form of democratization deals with the historical transformation with the aim of transforming hegemonies and oligarchies competitive regimes to near-polyarchies regimes (Dahl 10). It is said that by 1969, there existed 140 independent countries, out of these number, two dozens are reported to have been fully polyarchy which were fully inclusive. This in return triggered a third wave of in the near –polyarchies with the aim of achieving a full inclusion. However, according to the incumbents that are already in government, such transformations they say come with conflict or possibilities of conflict as they fear that the newly included will come with a position that is likely to displace them. While this concern may hold some truth in, it is not relative and should not be fronted as a basis of rejecting polyarchy as the government must take into consideration how cost involved in suppressing the opposition in comparison to their inclusion and participation. Why no Socialism in the U.S Unlike most major world democracies, the United States has never had socialism despite the fact that it is in the U.S where labor unions were born (Ingram 2). Further in the U.S, there is no repression that is politically instigated that can repress the citizens thereby preventing the formation of a labor party. Also, an attempt to form this kind of party has not been successful as shown by the number of voters they receive in the elections as has been witnessed in the previous elections in comparison to other nations. According to Frederick Jackson, instead of people overcrowding in one area and revolting in to improve their social welfare through socialism, they simply moved on to new frontiers (Ingram 12). This in turn prevented overcrowding in terms of economy and geography hence there is no class identification or classification that results in socialism. Another reason that can be fronted for lack of socialism in American is the fact that here the people have values that envision their kids having succeeding where they failed. This eliminates the belief that they have to fight for socialism in order to improve their welfare so that their children can have a better life. This is for the reason that the U.S is called “the land of opportunity’’ where anyone has the opportunity to be successful. This has been further reinforced by the perception that even poor Americans live a comfortable life because they have television sets, cars and they are fat. In America, the workers were given a right to vote by the government earlier before their counterparts in countries that have socialism. This in turn prevented the workers from forming labor parties so as to champion for their rights eliminating the rise of socialism. The term socialism has been defined to mean the ownership of major assets in a country by the government. In the U.S, this definition brings major concerns because most assets that are under the control of the government include publicly owned land as well other assets like ships warship and missiles which can never be allowed to be in the hands of private owners. However, a different definition would have to determine whether or not such important assets can be privately owned in a country. In many countries, the act of public assistance exists in various forms including but not limited to medical care and welfare payments. Nonetheless, these are not thought to be forms of socialism by many states when in fact they are forms of socialism (Ingram 15). In a bid to ensure that socialism is stemmed in America, the government implemented various reforms that ensured important items were managed in a better way by the market itself rather than the state. The state also ensured that the right structures and infrastructures that would guarantee that labor was free and it could advance. Therefore, this made it possible for all Americans to progress (Ingram 34). Finally, the various regimes have worked towards ensuring a positive state that is all inclusive and caters for everyone. This eliminates the class identification by making sure that the people are a part of the government and the processes there in and they do not need socialists to liberate them. Read More