Dude-k land is a country facing not only economic concerns but as well a repressive dictatorship. In designing a new political system, a constitution is composed in order to invoke a democratic regime. A democratic regime entails regular constitutional opportunities for serene competition for political power. Under this new democratic regime, there will be free, open and true competitive elections with participation. The government will be held accountable and responsive for its actions. In order to construct a constitution an assembly will be formed including representatives that will come together and create a written document. This constitution will list out the entitlements and obligations of the Dudekian citizens as well as make an institutional …show more content…
As a political party is voted into power, the citizens will vote for a specific President to govern the whole country. The President will then assign the head of states for each regional division. The intentions for this presidential system is to create a slower legislative process, giving the party in power more time to debate proposed policies. This president as well as his/her party will be in term for 18-month cycles, or until the public decide to hold an election to replace the party in power. A certain party can be repeatedly elected into office, with no restriction in the number of terms the president will …show more content…
Dude-k land will strictly follow the model of Neoliberalism. There will be an increase in privatization, de-regulation while creating a clear set of rules of the market. Reducing the government’s role is in order to prevent is from diminishing any profits. Privatizations to the domestic owners will benefit the owners directly from their exports and productions of Dude-k land’s oil holdings and agricultural products. There is an increase in securing the property rights and stable revenue. This will create a motivation for the state to bargain over and eventually form a proper set of procedures in oil trade and exportation. Private domestic ownership will construct a strong and definable structure for the state elites and domestic owners to obey. Domestic owners hold the entitlements to revenue of the oil and agriculture, making them a fundamental foundation of tax revenue for the state. There is no need for exploitation to transpire, because bureaucrats and state elites will not have an intention to create weak establishments to exploit the revenues for themselves. Ultimately there will be a substantial surge in conversions and examining the costs, by making it challenging for states elites to obtain the tax revenues for themselves as well as for private owners from hiding their actual incomes.
The Executive Branch refers to the Presidential seat in both governments. The Presidency is a paramount institution, not only of the Mexican Government but of the US Government as well. The Countries entire political system is positioned around the presidency. In the United States the President also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the Federal Government. The Executive Branch is checked by Congress which would be the Legislative Branch. In order for someone to become President, he or she must be a natural -born citizen of the United States. He or she must be at least 35 years of age and must have resided in the US for at least fourteen years. Once elected, the President must serve a term of four years, and may be re-elected only once. Now, the Executive Branch of the Mexican government is very similar to that of its neighbors, but there are some pivotal differences in the institution. Presidents are elected by a majority of registered voters in the thirty-one states and the Federal District. The President holds the formal titles of chief of state, head of government, and commander in chief of armed forces. The candidates must also be at least thirty-five years of age by election day.
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.
“Incumbency is the time during which a person holds a particular office or position.” (Incumbency) An incumbent candidate is a candidate who is returning to a position or office. The president can serve only two four year terms. Senators and legislators can serve an unlimited amount of six year terms. Since George Washington was president, presidents usually served two terms. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms. This resulted in the 22nd amendment limiting the amount of terms to two. The 22nd amendment was passed by congress on March, 21st 1947 and ratified by the states in February 27th, 1951.
The candidate who crosses the threshold of 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. In almost every state, a candidate who wins 50.1 percent of the popular vote is awarded 100 percent of its electoral votes. (Only Maine and Nebraska don’t follow the winner-take-all rule;” for each state has a certain number of votes in the electoral college,depinding on the size and population,witch ever person running for president reaches the amount of 270 electoral votes will win the presidency.also each person who reaches 50.1 percent of popular votes is awarded 100 percent of its votes .maine and Nebraska do not follow the winner-take-all rule. also “Every four years, Americans select a president on a Tuesday in November. The two candidates representing the Republican and Democratic parties on Election Day will have survived a long series of state-level contests. Each state holds either a primary (votes by ballot) or a caucus (votes by a show of hands or by clustering all the candidate’s supporters in one place in the room). These initial elections are held from February through June.;”every four years, Americans select a president on a specific Tuesday in November.also there are a Republican and a democratic parties on election day that will overcome a series of state-level contests.each state holds a primary or a caucus votes or ballots with
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
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.
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
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
Senate. Each U.S. Senator serves a 6 year term, with no term limits. One third of senators are up for re-election at a time. With only two senators per state, it is extremely important that those two senators be an accurate representation of it's constituents. In order for the representatives to fully represent the people of their state, one would think you would have elections more often, rather than every six years.
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
Firstly there is the presidential system. There are many characteristics to a presidential system. The first main part of a presidential system is how the executive is elected. The executive is a president who is elected to a fixed term. Also a president is not only head of state, but is head of government. The president is the sole executive of the government. Even though there is a cabinet in a presidential system it does not have the power it does in a parliamentary system. The cabinet is chosen by the president instead of chosen by the parliament. A president has to follow a constitution rather than following history. The president actually has a large part in the government’s decisions. A big advantage to political scientists of the presidential system is that there is a separation of powers. The legislative branch being separate from the executive branch lets one another keep checks and balances on each other. This assures that no one branch will take over or attempt to take over the government. Another advantage of a presidential system is that the population elects the chief executive and the legislative branch. By winning a popular vote shows that most of a country is backing the executive which does not seem to cause revolution. The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system. Also in a presidential system there is the judicial branch, which is the court system. The judicial branch is important because it helps uphold the constitution. One of the last advantages of a presidential system is that there is more stability because a president is elected to a fixed term, where as in a parliamentary system a prime minister can be ousted at any time. A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points.
The articles point out the adaptability between the two systems and how they differ from each other. The presidential system is a fixed term in office that does not allow for some political adjustments to require some events. In this system, there is no democratic principle existing to solve dispute between executive-legislative branches. There is also less inclined to consensus building because compromises look negative to others. In parliamentary system, the adaptability for the system is that the cabinet crises are easily solved.
This fusion of power allows the people’s representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates discussion in issues that will bring positive development in the state. This is not possible in the presidential system since the legislative and the executives arms are constitutionally separated and thereby restricted to engage the legislature in a discussion in which reasons are advanced against some proposition or proposal. The outcome is that party leaders in parliamentary system are more reliable than those in presidential systems. Presidential systems have turned the aim of electoral campaign into personalities rather than platform and programs because the focus is on the candidate and not on the party in general. But parliamentary systems on the other hand focus much more relating structured they do not do anything outside the scope of the party. We can compare the quality of leadership or administration in British, Canadian prime minister to the United State president. In all the country presidential system of government are chosen because people think been a good leader is by popularity and the ability to win election not minding if the candidate is fit for the task of presidency. But in parliamentary system, the person that has high quality of leadership competent enough and trustworthy is
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.