Sources of Government Power in a Nation - Essay Example

Sources of Government Power in a Nation Government is the method or form of ruling exercised in a given nation or community. A nation is a group of people with a common government or culture. Government and nation have very close relationship because; a government is exercised in a nation. There are various forms of government, to mention only but two, democratic and monarchical government. A democratic government is a system of government whereby the citizens of the country have all the power to choose their leaders in the country. This form of government occurs in many countries across the globe. Illustrations are the US and most of the African countries. Democratic government in many countries, though, does not portray the real democracy expected by the citizens in their countries due to various reasons among them corruption, scramble for power and political instability in the country. On the other hand, monarchical government is a form of government where leadership in the country is hereditary. This means that government leaders take over leadership from the parents and hand over the same to their children. An example of monarchical government is the English government, where Prince Charles inherited the kingship, and now the newborn William is expected to be the next king of Great Britain. This research paper explores the forms of ruling and the criticism that confronts them. In the introductory paragraph, the paper mentions two major forms of governments. These forms are the major sources of government power. Monarchical government is a form of government that is disliked by many nations due to its nature that one becomes the leader of a nation whether the nationals like it or not. Citizens will always want to hear an individual’s ideological ability. Various nations have their cultural and political beliefs and would expect to have them maintained. With hereditary monarchy, nationals are not able to evaluate and choose their leaders. An example is the Great Britain where the newborn King William has to become the next king. The king may not bother to maintain the doctrines of the nation because of the guarantee of leadership assured. Besides, change is as good as rest and the only phenomena that will remain constant. Family leadership is a duplication of the same leadership since it comes from the same people. This means that the prince will emulate father’s governance, limiting the chances of change in the country. According to; “Globalizing democracy” by Fierlbeck K., a potential leader proves to nationals of fulfilling the promises made to citizens, unlike hereditary monarchy. The promises one makes should be factual and ones that cope with the doctrines of the country. Once somebody has gotten into power, he/she gets strength to either fulfill the promises made to nationals or not. This is because of the superiority one gets, overlooking the voters who took him/her into the same power. This now creates domination (Fierlbeck 22). In a democratic government, the power of leadership vests in the people of the nation. This is to say that citizens decide the leader. This depends on the ideological class of the politician. The promises one make should be convincing enough for the voter to find sense in casting a vote against the politician’s name. According to Milton Friedman, however, the democratic government is facing criticism in some areas for failing to be democratic indeed, as expected by citizens of the country. This means that the democratic government cannot be justified. In the first instance, the voters are ignorant of their rights. They then cast their votes on a wrong politician who take advantage of voters’ ignorance to their political and economic rights and exploit them. Voters then vote on grounds of the very little knowledge they have about their rights. However, Bryan Caplan argues that, it is the misinterpretation of the existing information, but not learning. He says that it is expensive to get details about the available information. According to him, there are only a few decision makers in the society who influence voting decisions of the rest, who vote haphazardly. Besides, even if they knew this, they would still decide to cast their votes because of the financial bribes extended to them due to poverty prevailing amongst them. Some would still base on one’s social class and vote from that perspective. This means that democracy has not been justified. The voters should be educated if they have to vote wisely (Fierbeck 30). Fierbeck, in his article, suggests that wealth disparity plays part in discriminative democracy, where the rich decide and the few marginalized have no say in voting. This means that the votes of the members of the middle class outweigh the few marginalized, suppressing them. The decision of the majority does not represent the desires of the rest, and for sure, democratic government as a source of power is not justified. He also adds that the rich class among the voting community predominate the communications media, ensuring that they are the only ones who reach the voters through media. Voters then vote basing on the information that reached them. This means that, even if there is a better competitor who is not rich as such, there will be no government power to that contestant even if he or she deserves. There is no just in this democratic world. Political instability in the country affects the democratic source of power of government. It causes immigrations and disrupted businesses across the borders, eventually; citizens give priority to business, peace and other economic developments overlooking politics. Therefore, it is argued that developing countries give priority to economic issues than political matters of the government (Fierbeck 33). In conclusion, all sources of government power are appropriate, but the democratic one is better. Many contestants are able to lay down the ideologies for evaluation by voters. However, this is holding all other factors constant. Sources of government power are associated with issues like moral decay. The campaign mood incorporates abuse of other contestants; some engage in evil malpractices and others even dare witchcraft in order to gunner votes. Once some leaders get into power they start exercising dominance claiming that they have wasted their resources, and so they have to rule their way. Some of the leaders fail to fulfill the promises made to citizens during campaign periods. This is domination of the highest order. It is fair that all leaders in power consider their ideological doctrine and fulfill the promises they make to their nationals. Works Cited Fierlbeck, K. Globalizing Democracy: Power, Legitimacy and the Interpretation of democratic ideas. New York: Manchester University Press, 1998. Print. Read More