Analysis of the Forms of Government - Coursework Example

s The mode of territorial governance has gone through immense transformation over the years. The nation systemis the most modern form of political organization which implies that these sovereign states will have to pick a model of governance to best suit their state. In this context, two forms of governance can be compared and contrasted to make generalization regarding which system may better suit a certain kind of nation-state. One of these forms of government is the federal system and the other is the unitary form of government. The federal form of government was first experimented in US after the American Revolution which followed the confederate form of government (Loughlin 182). However, after the French Revolution, unitary form of government was introduced. Both forms of government have their own pros and cons, though the political scenario and other attributes of a state also contribute in determining which form of government best suits the nation-state. The modern state system which came into being after the treaty of Westphalia 1648, the modern state system came into being; however, the modern system wasn’t without complexities (Loughlin 182). Thus, it is crucial to understand, compare and contrast the unitary as well as federal government to see how the complexities of modern states require certain systematic changes in the political setup. The paper will aim at analyzing these forms of government in depth. In order to assess the systems, it is first critical to explain the concepts underlying these systems. France incorporated the unitary form of government after the French revolution which was also followed by Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The underlying theory behind this unitary form of government was the factor of nationalization which implied that the citizens of the nations were to be kept unified under one flag and one political government. Therefore, a strong centralized government was lobbied for, to ensure that there isn`t any wave of factionalism in these states. Later, Albania and Turkey also followed the unitary model of governance, given their urge to unite the varied and diverse factions under one umbrella (Loughlin 182). However, other states where there was diversity, another form of government was incorporated in contrast to the unitary form of government. USA and Switzerland are two countries which experimented with federal form of government (Loughlin 183). After the Second World War, Austria and Germany also resorted to federal form of government. This system of governance implies that the nationalism is retained in the form of a federal government which represents unity amongst all factions of the state, while each province or territorial government has its own separate form of government and the subjects to be decided by the central government and the representative governments are decided by virtue of the constitution. In this context, a federal state may be defined as one which has been formed by association of various states which have been formed for a common purpose, while the member states maintain a large measure of autonomy and independence. Therefore, both systems differ on the basis of autonomy where provincial subjects don`t have much autonomy in unitary form of governance while in the federal form of governance, there is considerable level of autonomy. However, unitary and federal form of governments don`t exist in one rigid form. Instead, both exist in varying forms, since political entities can`t be subject to static rules. The basic debate regarding federal or unitary forms of governments revolves around form of territorial organization i.e. the extent of central regulation of affairs. In the unitary form of government, though the sub-national governments may exists but the functions of welfare governance are strictly regulated by the center. This was the order of business even in a few federal states as well, however, after the neo-liberal shift took place in the world order, situation began to change. With economic as well as social change, the constraints otherwise imposed on the center were liberated and therefore, responsibilities and consequently autonomy was shifted towards the sub-national government. Following the trend, states like US and Switzerland began favoring higher asymmetrical models, encouraging and accepting diversity, allowing local autonomy to a large extent, and decrease in hierarchy amongst the center and the sub-national governments. Therefore, the evolution patterns indicates that both the forms of governance imply a continuum over which both forms of government take shifts and since both aren’t completely detached, a few states may even be regarded as being mid-way between complete federalism and complete unitary form of governance. (Loughlin 184) Furthermore, it won`t be an overstatement to argue that the difference between the federal and the unitary form of government lies in the constitutional divisions which further drive a wedge between the national labor and the sub-national labor on the basis of the level of governance. Also, as mentioned above as well both forms of government would further be disaggregated into various other sub-forms of levels of governance. Therefore various typologies may be understood and analyzed. For instance, strong unions are the ones where polities are compounded in such a way that general governance functions are performed by common organs of government and dual systems are completely absent. New Zealand, Lebanon and Belgium have been able to sustain this typology on the basis of minimum ethnic factionalism and considerable uniformity in culture and societal values. Along the continuum, federations are compound polities, where a strong constituent unit is accompanied by the strong central government. The power is delegated to these units by virtue of constitution and each unit exercises democratic function after being directly elected by the people of the constituency. Many states with a large territory and a diverse cultural setup i.e. Argentina, Austria, Belgium, USA, Canada and Germany are following this model quite successfully. This system has managed to minimize complexities in nation state system by allowing considerable amount of autonomy to the sub-national subjects which in turn ensures that their cultural identity shall be reserved via principle of self governance (Loughlin 190). However, confederation is yet another form of government where pre-existing polities associate themselves with each other where common government only takes care of limited functions while constituent governments are free to legislate amongst themselves, for instance European Union may be considered to be a confederacy since it possesses the features (Loughlin 191). Therefore, various forms of governance models can be planted across the continuum, a few may be incorporated into the state solely for political objectives, while the reality is that the socio-economic construct of the society dictates constitutional divisions and legitimized them. Another aspect which differentiates the two is the degree of regionalization and also the degree of decentralization. Regionalization implies the top-bottom approach of governance and hierarchy with respect to regions and central states, while decentralization maybe the autonomy of sub-national states in managing fiscal, administrative and political affairs of the state. Therefore, when the decision making powers which also includes the power to legislate is transferred from center to the regional or sub-national government, federal system is being encouraged. A state may also work in a manner where the central designs policies and administrative procedures for the sub-national administrative units or governments, therefore establishment of regional administrative units become a necessity in order to implement these procedures. This model was implemented in France in the post 1970`s period when the need was felt to empower the representatives of the constituencies. Also, since the states now tend to empower their diversified factions and not necessarily control them, rather empower them and hand over the administrative responsibilities to them. This model is also being penetrated into regional organizations as well, as observed in the European Union, which implies that large scale administrative responsibilities must be delegated, which is the new trend of the era. (Loughlin 191) Therefore conclusively, federal and unitary forms of government are two distinct models of governance and state administration which came into being in the after math of the rise of nation state systems. Since nation state systems differ from those which had existed before them and thus, these states underwent experimentation over the years to see which form of governance suits the nation states well. Though there has always been rigorous debate over the issue, i.e. the debate of unitary V federal government, however, turns out that both forms aren’t as distinct and strikingly contrasting from each other. In fact, a continuum may be planted to demonstrate how states follow models which may not be completely federal and may also not be completely unitary in nature. Also, the structure of governance alone doesn’t reflect the form on government; rather functionalities like the degree of autonomy to sub-national states, regionalism and state constitution dictate the technicalities. It has also been concluded that those state with a large territorial boundary and diversity in terms of societal values, culture and ethnicity tend to empower these constituencies since the trend has evolved with time and many states don`t consider federation a threat to nationalism anymore. Therefore, the nature of state, its functional derivatives and various other values determine which system best suits the polity. Since the process is still in the phase of experimentation, predictions may not be concluded; however, trends may be analyzed which seem to be going in favor of federal form of government. Read More