More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of the parliamentary and presidential system of government
Comparison of the parliamentary and presidential system of government
Comparison of the parliamentary and presidential system of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The members of the ethnic group of the Algo looks forward to working with the representatives of the three other ethnic groups living on the territory of the Republic of Jarth, respectively: Randies, Takas and Dorfas, in order to create a new constitution for the renewed Democratic Republic of Jarth.
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....
... middle of paper ...
... I have already mentioned above, Algos comprise the least part of the population of the Republic of Jarth, so there is a great chance that even in the Parliament their quantity will be less represented in comparison with the other ethnic groups. We are also aware that the party in which the members of the Algo will most likely support will not be able to convince the rest to introduce the law in the form we desire for it to be. For that reason, it is why it will be better for Algos if the law could be reviewed by the judges (maybe even become a subject to change) and not be introduced without doubt, like it always happens under parliamentary sovereignty.
The Algo ethnic group hopes all the representatives of the Republic of Jarth will find a way to create a new constitution which will more or less be able to satisfy all the ethnic groups within our respected country.
Politically, creation of lies to cover up a harmful truth has been inevitable. The Gowrie conspiracy is merely one of many that brought forth the questions regarding the legitimacy of the government. The king’s unquestionable absolute power may have destroyed an innocent family. In order to keep a just government whose power that is derived from the people is legitimate, it is imperative to be transparent. Weak lies can never conceal the strong truth; it only brings chaos, confusion, and distrust. To take one more step closer to reach an ideal society, transparent democratic government is crucial.
...ent needs to make more of an effort for reparations. I is not possible to return ALL of their land but a concentrated effort to help raise the socio-economic level of this ethnic group and their communities could go a long way to continuing a long, historical culture.
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
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.
...hat sometimes some ethnic groups didn’t share the same ideas with other people and that lead to fights and violence with the purpose of become the leader.
Rivkin, David B., Jr., and Lee A. Casey. "The New Iraqi Constitution." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sept. 2005. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
...oice their concerns and complaints with their government in the form of a representative body.
Both supporters and opponents of the plan are concerned with political unreliability solid food by competitor sect. The state polity has not succeeded in solving this problem; in fact the condition is so baffling that live are enlightened with all the leader and blame system of rules for their head. Consequently, a form of pop government activity that can deal with success with this problem is very salutary. Given the nature of humanity, factions are inevitable. As long as fill retain different persuasion, have different power of wealthiness, and own different values of geographic region, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and piffling rational motive declare for the formation of the factions, but the most significant origin of these faction is the unlike distribution of concept. Personnel of greater ability...
...sored Talks on Reunification." UN News Service. UN News Centre, 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 19 May 2011. .
A possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the two-state solution. The two-state solution would become a peace agreement in which establishes a Palestinian state alongside the current state of Israel (Bourke). In the opinion of the Maghar Druze’s community, peace is the main objective in which the two-state solution could provide. As follows, most Israeli Druze’s would encourage the current peace talks in aim of a two-state agreement. Despite the fact that the two-state solution requires compromise in which it is believed the Palestinian are not able to accommodate. In particular, the Maghar Druze’s do not believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a two-state agreement because of the need for retaliation fo...
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Not to state the obvious, but there is a lot that goes into creating a government. The central focus of this paper are the differences and similarities between two very different nations’ constitutions: The United States of America and The Islamic Republic of Iran. A constitution is a document that entails the fundamental rules that govern a land and establish its structure, values, and limitations. On the surface, the American constitution (1787) and the Iranian constitution (1979) are similar in that they both ensure a president who is elected from majority rule, a legislature, and a powerful judiciary. However, there are far more differences in the organization of their governments than similarities, and this can be accredited to their different
In this essay I will be analyzing the role of diversity in democracy, I will start with direct and representative democracy’s, then continue onto the primary focus of this essay which will be the analysis of an essay by Joshua Cohen, I will conclude by raising some of my issues with deliberative democracy and the solutions required to allow the maximum amount of diversity.
“Are political Islam and democracy compatible?” This question has been troubling both Muslims and non-Muslims living in East and West for a long time now. Contemporary Islamic political thought has become deeply influenced by attempts at reconciling Islam and democracy. Muslim thinkers who deal with political debates cannot disregard the significance of the democratic system, as it is the prevailing theme of modern western political thought. Hence, it is necessary for any alternative political system, whether it is religious or secular, to explore its position with regards to democratic government. In fact, a large literature and media publications have developed over the last century on this heated discourse of democracy versus Islam. While many argue that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and democratic society, many other reject the phenomena “modernism” and “democracy” as a whole because of their “foreign nature”—alien to “Islamic values”. For Islamists and modernists, the motivation for such effort to either embrace or reject democracy often is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements and Islamic revivalism or resurgence. But before diving into this discourse, one needs to understand the definition and origins of “democracy.” Although purely a Western ideology in its origin, there is no consensus on the definition of “democracy” as a political system. The Oxford English Dictionary describes democracy as: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (“democracy, n.”). In my paper, I will examine whether or not democracy and Sunni political Islam are compatible through the eyes of three revolutionary Sun...