A Message to the Elected Officials
According to USC Section 7206, “Making false statements on a tax return is a felony risking fines and imprisonment for up to 3 years.” This statement, along with Press Secretary Gibbs’ own words, “I think they both (Kellifer and Daschle) recognize that you can’t set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard on who serves,” indicate a presence acknowledged across America: that a social contract exists between the governed and their government and it is being abrogated in favor of the personal interests of our top elected and appointed officials and their respective political parties.
This contract is simple: People from the general population are elected to form our representative democracy and run our country. Ergo, the government exists to be run by the people and for the people. The spirit of which is that we can apply self governance without a monarchy or oligarchy and that we will do what’s right for each other, since we each enjoy common standing. Such a government will not suffer dual standards and a hierarchy betwe...
Both supporters and opponents of the plan are concerned with the political instability produced by rival factions. The state governments have not succeeded in solving this problem; in fact the situation is so problematic that people are disillusioned with all politicians and blame government for their problems. Consequently, a form of popular government that can deal successfully with this problem has a great deal to recommend it.
Throughout history there have been significant debates, theories and agendas set forward as to what the best form of government is. Many of those individuals and groups who have written on the topic have their critics because they offer points that are highly controversial in theory and problematic when put into practice. John Locke and Publius, which is the collective name for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, both published essays with regards to the nature of government and largely championed the notion of democracy. With Locke writing on constitutional government in England and Publius writing on and essentially establishing governmental mechanisms in the United States, both parties inspired the rise of liberalism and democratic government in the modern world (Tinder, 67). However, there are questions to be asked of them and indeed comparisons to be made. This essay will examine the arguments set forth by Publius and Locke with a view to proving that they do indeed champion strong government and arguably exclude arbitrary governmental traits that may constrain attempts to do what is best for the individual rather than the people as a whole. In effect, the constraints they put in place in their texts established a balance of power that had its limits and weaknesses but ultimately appeared to be fair.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
“The government operates through competing interest groups rather than public opinion. The competing interest groups represent the people’s interest to government decision makers. Democracy exists when many (plural) organizations operate separately from the government, press their interests on the government, and even challenge the government.” The public is best served if the government structure provides access for different groups to press their claims in competition with one another. A pluralistic model of democracy allows minority interests to organize and press their claims on government freely also.
The idea of a government representative of the people is rooted in the Athenian democracy dating back to the fifth century BC. Thomas Jefferson states in the Declaration of Independence, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence reflects the importance of the public intervention, showing that the actions of the government deeply affect the lives of the people, and therefore they should have a say in government. This concept is very similar to the ideology of Cleisthenes, an Athenian statesman and reformer who was an aristocrat exiled from Athens under tyrant rule.
The founding principles of democracy are the will of the people and the rule of law. The former meaning that the citizens' beliefs, desires, etc. are translated into the government. The latter meaning that all individuals have equality under the law and that each individual has equal influence; this is frequently interpreted into the idea of one person, one vote (Garner, 2009). A third principle may be added to first two meta-principles as an offshoot, that the government must be transparent in its functions to achieve true democrac...
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
government’s ability to hold true to its true purpose, which is to establish a government
A commonly accepted criticism of the social contract approach to justifying political authority targets the idea of hypothetical consent. Since only actual agreements are binding, the argument goes, citizens are not bound to obey their governments on the ground that, under circumstances different from the ones in which they now find themselves, they would have agreed to submit to its authority. (1) The purpose of this paper is to rescue hypothetical consent from this objection. I begin by distinguishing political legitimacy from political obligation. (2) I argue that while hypothetical consent may not serve as an adequate ground for political obligation, it is capable of grounding political legitimacy.
More than two-hundred years ago, thirteen young nations defeated a tyrant thousands of miles away. The prize for such a victory was self-government. For the first time in human history, a nation had handed over supreme executive power to the masses. Exercising this power has become a hallmark of being an American. Even today it is thought of as one of the most patriotic acts one can undertake. The thought of a nation run by popular vote is a comfortable enough idea, but in the case of the United States, a self-governed population threatens to destroy itself and possibly the world through wasteful spending, unregulated pursuit of profits, and a blotted military budget.
Did you know we have the right to alter or abolish government and establish a new government? The right to alter or abolish government is when you can change government or choose to break away from the government. The Social Contract states that if the government is not doing a good job you have the right to alter or abolish that government.The right to alter or abolish government is the most important ideal in the Declaration of Independence because it can create equality, the social contract , and the Declaration of Independence
During the age of Pericles, the ideal form of government was believed to be a government formed by all of the citizens regardless of wealth or social standing. This was known as democracy, literally meaning “ government of the people” [Document 3.] This government favored the many instead of the few. Athens was a direct democracy, meaning every citizen participated in debates. Western civilization used this philosophy of government by many, and created an indirect democracy where citizens elect officials to make and enforce laws.
In a constitutional monarchy, a directly or indirectly-elected prime minister will serve as the head of government and will exercise poli...
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.