Intro to Types of Governments
What do the words "crisis" and "commonplace" mean?
There was a crisis at McCarran airport in Las Vegas yesterday.
What is the difference at Grant between our commonplace and our crises?
This chart will be used as a graphic organizer that will help you write our first paper.
Athenian Democracy / “True Democracy” (modified from Wikipedia)
Athens a city-state including an area around the city called Attica in the area now called Greece, developed its democracy around the sixth century BC. Athens is one of the first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, most following the Athenian model, but none are as well-documented as Athens.
It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000."[1] At times, the opinion of voters could be strongly influenced by the political satire of the comic poets at the theatres.[2]
People often refer to the United States as a democracy, however it should be clear that it is not a “true democracy.” In fact no country currently runs itself in this way.
What are some benefits of a “true democracy”?
What are some drawbacks of a “true democracy”?
Under what circumstances might it be best to attempt to have a society based on truly democratic principles?
Types
of Government
Aristotle,
a Greek political philosopher of the 4th century B.C., distinguished three
principal kinds of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a
kind of enlightened democracy). The differences among them chiefly
concerned whether power were held by one, by a few, or by many.
Aristotle thought that the selfish abuse of power caused each type to
become perverted, respectively, into tyranny, oligarchy, and a lower form
of democracy characterized by mob rule. Monarchy tended to become tyrannical
because it vested authority in a single ruler. Aristocracy,
a government based on birth and privilege, in which the rulers
governed for the good of the whole society, tended to become oligarchy as a
consequence of restricting political power to a special social and
economic class; only a few members of the class would have enough drive and
ability to acquire the power to govern. The polity, likewise, would
deteriorate into ochlocracy, or mob rule, if the citizens pursued only their
selfish interests.
Aristotle's
classifications suited the societies of ancient times, but they do not
correspond to the power structure of later societies. Modern writers
have developed a variety of schemes for classifying governments, based on the
nature of the ruling class, the economic system, the government's political
institutions, the principles of authority, the acquisition and exercise
of power, and other factors. Some influential writers
on government include Thomas Hobbes, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean
Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Gaetano Mosca,
Vilfredo Pareto, and the sociologist Max Weber.
Today it
is common place to talk about “Democracies” though there are widely differing
ways that people transfer their franchise to a leader or group of leaders
today. Two common and general ways of being democratic in the modern world are
Presidential Democracy and Parliamentary Democracy which are forms of Republic;
the original democracy was Athenian Democracy; today there are Dictatorships; and there are also Monarchies.
Some Utopian theorists argue in favor on Consensus governing.
Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy)
The most common form of government from ancient
times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a
hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying
according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage
was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the
Middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized
his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the
church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings
proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming
this divine right they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns
and limit the pope's power. (See church and state; investiture
controversy.)
Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the
support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones.
In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed
limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England,
for example, through the Magna Carta. Threatened with the loss of
political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to
accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful
social and economic classes.
The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the
constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather
than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa
and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and
Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national
parliaments.
Republic Presidential System
A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the
people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law
(from Latin: res
publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In
modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a
government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use
the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient
republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome
between it having kings, and emperors. Republics were not equated with
classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect. In modern
republics the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu
included both democracies, where
all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where
only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[3]
Most often a republic is
a sovereign state, but
there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics,
or which have governments that are described as 'republican' in nature. For
instance, Article IV of the
United States Constitution
"guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of
Government".[4] Similarly, the Soviet Union was constitutionally
described as a "unitary, federal multinational state", composed of 15
republics, two
of which – Ukraine and Belarus – had their own seats at the
United Nations.
A presidential
system is a system of government where
a head of government is
also head of state and
leads an executive branch that
is separate from the legislative branch. The
United States, for instance, has a presidential system. The executive is
elected and often titled "president" and is not responsible to
the legislature and cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.
The legislature may have the right, in extreme cases, to dismiss the executive,
often through impeachment.
However, such dismissals are seen as so rare as not to contradict a central
tenet of presidentialism, that in normal circumstances using normal
means the legislature cannot
dismiss the executive.
The
title president has persisted from a time when such person
personally presided over the government body, as with the US President of the Continental Congress,
before the executive function was split into a separate branch of government
and could no longer preside over the legislative body.
Presidential
systems are numerous and diverse, but the following are generally true:
·
The executive can veto legislative acts and, in turn,
a super majorityof lawmakers may override the veto. The veto is generally
derived from the British tradition of royal
assent in which an
act of parliament can only be enacted with the assent of the monarch.
·
The president has a
fixed term of office. Elections are held at regular times and cannot be
triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures. Although in some
countries there is an exception, which provides for the removal of a president
who is found to have broken a law.
·
The executive
branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry
out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Cabinet ministers
or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature. However,
presidential systems often need legislative approval of executive nominations
to the cabinet, judiciary, and various lower governmental posts. A
president generally can direct members of the cabinet, military, or any officer
or employee of the executive branch, but cannot direct or dismiss judges.
Countries
that feature a presidential system of government are not the exclusive users of
the title of President. For example, a dictator, who
may or may not have been popularly or legitimately elected may be and often is
called a president. Likewise, leaders of one-party states are
often called presidents. Most parliamentary
republics have presidents, but this position is largely
ceremonial; notable examples include Germany, India, Ireland, Israel and
Italy. The
title is also used in parliamentary republics with an executive presidency, and
also in semi-presidential
systems.
Republic Parliamentary System
A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the
people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law
(from Latin: res
publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In
modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a
government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use
the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient
republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome
between it having kings, and emperors. Republics were not equated with
classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.
Republics became more
common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually
displacing absolute monarchy as the
most common form of government. In modern republics the executive is
legitimized both by a constitution and by
popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where
only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[3]
Most often a republic is
a sovereign state, but
there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics,
or which have governments that are described as 'republican' in nature. For
instance, Article IV of the
United States Constitution
"guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of
Government".[4] Similarly, the Soviet Union was constitutionally
described as a "unitary, federal multinational state", composed of 15
republics, two
of which – Ukraine and Belarus – had their own seats at the
United Nations.
A parliamentary
system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which
the executive branch derives
its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the
executive and legislative branches are
thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is
normally a different person from the head of government. This
is in contrast to a presidential system in
a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and
most importantly, the executive branch does not derive its democratic
legitimacy from the legislature.
Countries
with parliamentary systems may be constitutional
monarchies, where a monarch is
the ceremonial head of state while the head of government is almost always a
member of the legislature (such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan), or parliamentary
republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state
while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such asIreland, Germany, Pakistan, India and Italy). In a few parliamentary republics, such
as Botswana, South Africa and Suriname, as
well asGerman states, the
head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable
to the legislature.
A parliamentary system
may be a bicameral system with two chambers
of parliament (or houses): an elected
lower house, and an upper house or Senate which may be appointed or elected by
a different mechanism from the lower house. Another possibility is a unicameral system with just one
parliamentary chamber.
·
The Westminster system is usually found in the Commonwealth of
Nations.[2] These parliaments tend to have a more
adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of parliament is more important than
committees. Some parliaments in this model are elected using a plurality voting
system (first
past the post), such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and India,
while others use proportional
representation, such as Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using instant-runoff
voting, while the Senate is elected using proportional
representation through single
transferable vote. Regardless of
which system is used, the voting systems tend to allow the voter to vote for a
named candidate rather than a closed list.
·
The Western
European parliamentary model (e.g. Spain, Germany) tends to have a more consensual debating system, and
usually has semi-circular debating chambers. Consensus systems have more of a
tendency to use proportional
representation with open party lists than the Westminster Model legislatures.
The committees of these Parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary
chamber. Some West European countries' parliaments (e.g. in the Netherlands and Sweden) implement the principle of dualism as a form of separation of powers. In
countries using this system, Members of Parliament have to resign their place
in Parliament upon being appointed (or elected) minister. Ministers in those
countries usually actively participate in parliamentary debates, but are not
entitled to vote.
Dictatorship
As a form
of government, dictatorship is principally a 20th-century
phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates
political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule
of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive
political ideology and may or may not allow token opposition. The
main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental
operations. There have been some cases—Indira Gandhi in India and
several military dictatorships in Latin America—in which authoritarian rulers
have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. In certain
Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe dictators were forced
from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their
authority to popularly elected officials as Soviet power declined.
The
totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former
USSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national
life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas
that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary Marxism or
counterrevolutionary fascism. At its most extreme, as during the
leadership of Joseph Stalin in the USSR, the power of the
dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny.
Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the
development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is
credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be
wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries
the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group
of party leaders—a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of
managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an
individual leader such as Stalin or Mao Zedong(Mao Tse-tung). The
successor regime in China, for example, continues to claim infallibility for
its policies and doctrines but not for the leaders. Examples of 20th-century
dictators in addition to those already mentioned include Idi Amin
Dada(Uganda), Kemal Atatürk (Turkey), Fulgencio Batista and
Fidel Castro (Cuba), Francisco Franco (Spain),
Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines),
Benito Mussolini (Italy), Juan Peron (Argentina), and
António Salazar (Portugal).
Consensus
Consensus
Decision Making from ACT UP’s Civil
Disobedience Training
What
is consensus?
Consensus is a process for group decision-making. It
is a method by which an entire group of people can come to an agreement. The
input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a
final decision acceptable to all. Through consensus, we are not only working to
achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and
trust.
Consensus vs. voting
Consensus vs. voting
Voting is a means by which we choose one alternative
from several. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of synthesizing many
diverse elements together.
Voting is a win or lose model, in which people are more often concerned with the numbers it takes to "win" than with the issue itself. Voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs. In essence, it is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, method of decision-making.
With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the solution.
A group committed to consensus may utilize other forms of decision making (individual, compromise, majority rules) when appropriate; however, a group that has adopted a consensus model will use that process for any item that brings up a lot of emotions, is something that concerns people's ethics, politics, morals or other areas where there is much investment.
What does consensus mean?
Voting is a win or lose model, in which people are more often concerned with the numbers it takes to "win" than with the issue itself. Voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs. In essence, it is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, method of decision-making.
With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the solution.
A group committed to consensus may utilize other forms of decision making (individual, compromise, majority rules) when appropriate; however, a group that has adopted a consensus model will use that process for any item that brings up a lot of emotions, is something that concerns people's ethics, politics, morals or other areas where there is much investment.
What does consensus mean?
Consensus
does not mean that everyone thinks that the decision made is necessarily the
best one possible, or even that they are sure it will work. What it does mean
is that in coming to that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the
matter was misunderstood or that it wasn't given a proper hearing. Hopefully,
everyone will think it is the best decision; this often happens because, when
it works, collective intelligence does come up with better solutions than could
individuals.
Consensus takes more time and member skill, but uses lots of resources before a decision is made, creates commitment to the decision and often facilitates creative decision. It gives everyone some experience with new processes of interaction and conflict resolution, which is basic but important skill-building. For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has 1) common values, 2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, 3) commitment and responsibility to the group by its members and 4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process.
Forming the consensus proposals
Consensus takes more time and member skill, but uses lots of resources before a decision is made, creates commitment to the decision and often facilitates creative decision. It gives everyone some experience with new processes of interaction and conflict resolution, which is basic but important skill-building. For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has 1) common values, 2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, 3) commitment and responsibility to the group by its members and 4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process.
Forming the consensus proposals
During discussion a proposal for resolution
is put forward. It is amended and modified through more discussion, or
withdrawn if it seems to be a dead end. During this discussion period it is
important to articulate differences clearly. It is the responsibility of those
who are having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions.
The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard. Coercion and trade-offs are replaced with creative alternatives, and compromise with synthesis.
When a proposal seems to be well understood by everyone, and there are no new changes asked for, the facilitator(s) can ask if there are any objections or reservations to it. If there are no objections, there can be a call for consensus. If there are still no objections, then after a moment of silence you have your decision. Once consensus does appear to have been reached, it really helps to have someone repeat the decision to the group so everyone is clear on what has been decided.
Difficulties in reaching consensus
The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard. Coercion and trade-offs are replaced with creative alternatives, and compromise with synthesis.
When a proposal seems to be well understood by everyone, and there are no new changes asked for, the facilitator(s) can ask if there are any objections or reservations to it. If there are no objections, there can be a call for consensus. If there are still no objections, then after a moment of silence you have your decision. Once consensus does appear to have been reached, it really helps to have someone repeat the decision to the group so everyone is clear on what has been decided.
Difficulties in reaching consensus
If a decision has been reached, or is on the verge of
being reached that you cannot support, there are several ways to express your
objections:
Non-support ("I don't see the need for this, but I'll go
along.")
Reservations ('I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it.")
Standing aside ("I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it. ")
Blocking ("I cannot support this or allow the group to support this. It is immoral." If a final decision violates someone's fundamental moral values they are obligated to block consensus.)
Withdrawing from the group. Obviously, if many people express non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave the group, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directly blocks it.
Reservations ('I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it.")
Standing aside ("I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it. ")
Blocking ("I cannot support this or allow the group to support this. It is immoral." If a final decision violates someone's fundamental moral values they are obligated to block consensus.)
Withdrawing from the group. Obviously, if many people express non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave the group, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directly blocks it.
If consensus is blocked and no new consensus can be
reached, the group stays with whatever the previous decision was on the
subject, or does nothing if that is applicable. Major philosophical or moral questions
that will come up with each affinity group will have to be worked through
immediately.
No comments:
Post a Comment