A system is not static; it is always in the process of evolution. The best of the constitutions are amended from time to time, depending on the demands of the situations, social and economic developments in a…
Download file to see previous pages...
The answer to this question is simple and straightforward. This is the most popular pattern of democracy, practical from the functional point of view of the government in power. In a democracy, the political party that wins the election, turns to be the powerful chair and the party/parties those are defeated turn to be chair-less powers! Elucidating this issue further Arend Lijphart writes, “The majoritarianism-consensus contrast arises from the most basic and literal definition of democracy-government by the people or, in representative democracy, government by the representative of the people—and President Abraham Lincolns famous further stipulation that democracy means government not only by but also for the people—that is government in accordance with the peoples preferences.”(1) From the technical point of view, and going the by the rule book of democracy, the issue is clear. The party in majority, rules the country and its decisions are final and legally binding on the people.
The Consensus Model is to accommodate for the viewpoints of the other party /parties, even though they have lost the election are obliged to sit in the opposition benches. In this model, there is always room for the others. They believe, two heads are better than one. Lijphart throws more light of the functioning of such democracies and he comments, “The alternative answer to the dilemma is: as many as possible. This is the crux of the consensus model. It does not differ from the majoritartian model on accepting that majority rule is better than minority rule, but it accepts majority only as a minimum requirement: instead of being satisfied with narrow decision-making majorities, it seeks to maximize the size of these majorities.”(2) Working as per the guidelines of this model, the majority party does not believe that whatever it decides is correct; rather it is willing to believe and implement, whatever correct is there, belongs to all.
The French system of
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Political participation usually describes the level of social involvement of citizens in a political life of their country. This concept doesn’t only refer to participation in voting or having membership of a certain political party. It should be considered in a broader context.
But the way that these two governments go about is completely different. Although both countries follow a pattern of democracy but both patterns are majorly unrelated and in few respects opposite from each other. Whatever one may say about the imperfections in the democratic systems of these nations but people from both nations have their own wishes, inclinations and interest which dictates their style of government; a fact that one cannot change.
The cabinet ministers are designated by the presinedt and parliament, but the supreme leader has de facto control over these appointments. Presidential candidates are scrutinized by the Council of Guardians, who also have the power to throw out legislation that was approved by parliament.
Political scientists consider it as the domination of few people on the economic resources of the country. This situation is workable in those countries where majority do not have an interest to participate in the democratic process of the country. There are many examples of elitist theory which can be discussed.
IS THE MIDDLE EAST AN EXCEPTION AMONG DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHY WHY NOT PROVIDE AND ASSESS THE COMPETING VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT, THEN MAKE AN ARGUMENT OF YOUR OWN; IN SO DOING, DRAW ON THE EMPIRICAL CASES COVERED IN LECTURES AND THE READINGS, PLACING THE EMPHASIS ON EGYPT.
Comparative politics is the way of comparing various forms of governments, administrations, states and ideologies that support them. There are several approaches that are useful in Comparative Politics and the major ones amongst them are the Normative Approach and the Empirical Approach.
The aim of this study is to create various hypotheses explaining the political systems to determine why some countries are poor than others, why the richer countries tend to be more democratic than the poor ones and why some countries are more developed among other facts (Almond et al.1-38).
eople are used because they are the perfect candidates for a political position, someone who just accepts information and suggestions without questioning it. This indicates that the government can not really be believable and credible since it is like walking on water, something