Introduction to Politics - Differences between Strong, Weak, and Democratic States - Term Paper Example

Introduction to Politics - Differences between Strong, Weak, and Democratic States Introduction It is true that long discussions on the rise of the European state and types of the modern state have been held by political scientists, with the components that make strong, weak and democratic states not escaping these discussions. In like manner, Robert Garner, Stephanie Lawson and Peter Ferdinand provide analysis on the same, in Introduction to Politics, which was published in 2012 by the Oxford University Press. These matters are sustained in the ensuing discussion. Differences between Strong, Weak and Democratic States, Based On an Institutional Analysis According to Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson (2009), strong democracies have full fledged institutions that function to dispense the will of the people, effectively. Normally, strong democracies do not only boast of institutions that are fully functioning, but also institutions that discharge the will of the masses. These institutions may include public, nongovernmental and even private institutions, albeit emphasis is placed on public institutions. For this cause, institutions that make up the judiciary, the legislature and the executive are highly considered if they meet the threshold or not. For instance, an event that clearly epitomizes the democratic nature of strong judicial and legislative institutions in the US is the North Carolina Marriage Amendment. Herein, although these institutions effectively and consistently discharge their duties as outlined in the US Constitutions, yet they did not arrogate themselves the authority to make marriage amendments without the involvement of the US citizens. Resultantly, to decide the fate of homosexual marriages in North Carolina, North Carolinians were extended the ultimate decision through voting, on May 8th, 2012. Thus, one can see that the strength of democratic institutions is not only hinged upon consistent and effective discharging of mandate, but also upon proximity of such initiatives to the will of the public. The will of the public is important herein since the legitimacy of these institutions and the government’s authority emanates from their closeness to public will. On the contrary, weak democracies may have these institutions, but the very institutions may be too unstable to discharge their duties. Mostly, this weakness emanates from the absence of checks and balance and separation of powers. This absence denudates the effectiveness of these institutions by breeding external interference. In most cases, it is the head of the executive who does the interference. In weak states, important institutions such as electoral commissions and courts of law are unable to operate with autonomy, leading to spates of post-election violence and acts akin to crimes against humanity. Again, these states may be weak enough to be infiltrated by sectarian interests, instead of serving the interests of the majority or the people (Rotberg, 2003). States in the International Community That May Be Considered Just Too Weak To Continue Demanding Recognition One of the countries that aptly fit the class of weak states is Somalia. The weakness of Somalia is evidenced by its inability to provide public or social goods such as security, despite the fact that it has all the instruments of coercion (the prison system, the police and the army). It is against this backdrop that large swathes of Somali land such as Jilib are still under the control of the Islamist organization, Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahedeen (commonly known as al-Shabaab). The ineffectiveness of the country is also underscored by the facts that: the presence and operation of al-Shabaab form a parallel government to that of Transitional Somali Government; and that foreign terrorist cells such as al- Qaeda are sponsoring al-Shabaab’s presence and operations in Somalia. The latter is the case since terrorists are bent on destabilizing Somalia as a strategic point to expand to Africa. The same also exposes the vulnerability of the Somali government since it has not only failed to conclusively arrest terrorism, but also because it has foreign enemies which are well funded and organized. However, according to Rotberg (2003), even in the face of this weakness, it is improper to surmise that a state is too weak to demand recognition. This is because; international recognition significantly depends on internal sovereignty. The sovereignty of a state in turn is derived from the people themselves. Cases whereby the international community decides the fate of a state as was seen in the case of the Ottoman Empire (which was so weak that it earned the title, the sick man of Europe) have become anachronistic. After World War I, states became relatively cooperative, since some of the proposals in Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points had been adopted in international systems. Observations on the Possibility of the State Entering a Period of Decline It is less likely that Somalia is entering a period of decline. This is because, since 2010, Africa has been carrying out military expeditions against the al-Shabaab, through a unitary body, African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). This effort has been being carried out to emancipate Somalia from al Qaeda, stabilize the horn of Africa from the threat of terror and (to) rid the whole of Africa from terrorism. It is against this backdrop that al-Shabaab has forfeited strongholds such as Ras Kamboni, Beles Kokani and Kismayo. Secondly, Somalia has developed from the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) which was formed in 2004, and is consistently following through the roadmap political process. Fort instance, while under the tutelage of TFG, through the help of Ethiopia, Somalia was able to capture southern conflict zones from the Islamic Courts Union and to have its own military in 2006. Following the elections which were held in August 2012, Somalia has been having a new provisional constitution and a new government, the Federal Government of Somalia being led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon. The Concept of the State and Its Major Features A state is an organized political unit which is under a government and has its landmass, population and airspace. As such, the major features of a state include a population that makes up the citizenry, landmass, airspace, a government and a constitution. Existence of the State Concept Based On Major Ideologies of the 19th And 20th Century The concept of the state has somewhat changed over time. In the 19th and 20th century, the concept of state was more emphatic on the state being an organized unit having its own government, landmass, airspace and a nation. The nation in this case refers to a people with a common history, language or cultural heritage. Nevertheless, with the rise of multiculturalism, the state has come to generalize the population. For instance, no longer is America made up of the Caucasian, African American and the Native American, but the same has become a cultural melting pot which is represented by the world’s races and ethnicities. The Main Types of State Structure and the Best Possible One, on Personal Opinion The main types of state structures are parliamentary (also known as the Westminster model of democracy) and presidential systems. In the parliamentary system, the leader of the party with majority votes becomes the Prime Minister and the leader of the government. The Prime Minister may appoint the ministers and other state functionaries. The head of the state may be the president. In the presidential system, the head of the state is the president. The president is elected into office and may appoint his ministers and state functionaries. Both structures run well, provided the constitution has been adhered to. For instance, one cannot say that the parliamentary is tougher on the excesses of the head of the executive than the presidential system since even in the presidential system, the roles and powers of the president are checked by the Senate and the Congress. References Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. & Lawson, S. (2009). Introduction to Politics. Oxford/New York: OUP. Rotberg, I. R. (2003). Failed States, Collapsed States and Weak States: Causes and Indicators. State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror, 1 (2), 2-3. Read More