Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
European unification
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: European unification
Generally speaking, Germans’ federalism suffers several logic flaws. Firstly, they view the cooperation between the countries too simply and strongly influenced by the "economic determinism". The achievements mainly in the field of economic and monetary integration so far cannot be equal to the future success of the integration in the political arena. Secondly, German vision is overly idealistic and thinks that as long as to establish a United States of Europe can get rid of the all the complex problems in Europe and less decision-making efficiency. Realistic and logical conclusion should be: although European integration to some extent will has in-depth development, but this development ultimately has its limitations, which can only reach
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
“The Weimar constitution was not democratic, nor did it provide the basis for stable government.” Assess the validity of this view.
The United States of America had a weak central government after it gained its independence, and was on the verge of a depression. Debts which it had incurred from the American Revolutionary War sought to bring down the Union they fought so hard to establish. The Articles of Confederation had kept the federal government from enforcing policies and laws which could bring them out of this debt crisis. The weakness of the central government had prompted the Federalists to write what are known as ‘The Federalist Papers’, which detailed how the constitution must be reformed in order to save the Union. These papers eventually formed the basis of the new constitution, but they could not account for the various compromises and the rapidly changing
A German confederation ‘Deutscher Bund’ was agreed to by the states of Germany in the ‘Bundesakte’ of 1815. This was because the leaders of the new territories did not want to give up their power over their land they had recently reclaimed, to another source of power, i.e. Austria or Prussia the two dominant German states. The ‘Deutscher Bund’ was an alliance between the 39 states of Germany and had no head of state or cen...
The Flaws of the Weimar Constitution The majority of people believe that it was the Weimar constitution which was fundamentally flawed and that this damaged the long term prospects of the Weimar republic, although strong points can be identified in the constitution which support the argument that the constitution wasn't to blame for the republics downfall. From this some historians have determined that the role of the constitution in the downfall of the republic is exaggerated. There were a wide variety of things that played a part in the collapse of the republic; one of these was the problems linked with proportional representation. There were two main problems with proportional representation the first is that in this kind of electoral system its much easier for extremist groups to gain seats in the Reichstag. In the first past the post system a certain number of votes does not guarantee a party representation in the Reichstag.
Why should we question our government? Why should we doubt the decision that was taken for the better of the people years ago? Before federalism was even considered did we not have an anti federalist government? Did we not try to make it work? If anti-federalism is for the better of the people why did we feel the need to question it? Why did we feel the need to change it? The answer to all of these questions is simple. Anti-federalism is not and will never be for the better of the states, but most importantly it’s not for the better of the people as a whole.
The Key Features of the Weimar Constitution The Weimar constitution worked better than the second Reich, which reformed in 1918. The constitution was present for a number of years in Germany, which reflected the effectiveness of the system. It was under a far more democratic regime due to the change in the political structure hence involving more elections due to the voting system that was in power. Firstly, the main key feature of the Weimar Republic was its new electoral system. Part of the system is the introduction of proportional representation that meant parties in the Riechtag would gain seats depending upon the number of votes they got in the most recent election.
Federalism was majorly influenced by Alexander Hamilton, who was the dominant author of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton did not want to repeat the mistake that Great Britain made and believed that spreading the power to multiple sources of government, along with checks and balances would abolish tyranny. Furthermore, it would aid the people to be heard and their concerns to be resolved faster and with attention from their government. Federalism is when a nation has two sources of government instead of one, the two levels are national and state/local. Similar to many American qualities, having a federal government has its advantages and disadvantages. Three positive factors of federalism are that there is a more orderly system to dispute and
The Main Features of the Weimar Constitution The newly formed Weimar constitution had many distinguishing features, one of which was that they were a democratic government as before the war Germany had not been really democratic, this was because the Kaiser was a dictator which meant everything he said would happen. They believed that people had the right to chose and change their government. Another feature of the Weimar government was that they believed in proportional representation, they believed that seats in parliament should be won according to the percentage of votes won.
The Failure of Democracy in Germany in the Period 1928 to 1934 Those in power in Weimar Germany so consistently mishandled the political and economic situation leading up to the period 1928-1934, that a well-structured challenge from the Nazi Party brought about the fall of democracy. This Nazi Party was stronger ideologically, structurally within the party and politically, with Hitler as Fuhrer a major factor himself. In addition, factions within Germany for whom a right-wing political system was more beneficial, such as the army and big business, aided the eventual change in governance. Thus a series of events occurred which can be summarised by these three main factors: failure of the Weimar Government, strength of the Nazi Party and finally the political finesse of Hitler himself in the total abolition of democracy in Germany in 1934. The Weimar democracy was weak in three key areas, which led to the failure of this democracy.
The Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 created the so-called German Confederation under Austrian and Prussian hegemony, but this unit disappointed the dreams of nationalists. The rivalry of Austria and Prussia paralyzed it in a way comparable to the effects of Soviet-American dualism on the United Nations during the Cold War. Almost everywhere, the old rulers repressed the nationalist movement after 1815. The German princes realized that nationalism required ...
The Advantages of Federalism Federalism was selected as the most appealing system of government in 1787, primarily because of lack of feasible alternatives. Confederacy had been tried by the 13 states under the Articles of Confederation, and found to be lacking, in that it did not provide adequate cohesiveness between the individual nation-states. However, widespread loyalty to state government and identity prevented the adoption of a fully unitary system. Instead, founders chose federalism as a moderate option which could best meet the needs of a people desiring national unity, but demanding local representation and authority as well. Further consideration revealed the multiple benefits of a federal system.
After WWII, many politically influential people saw a need to create some form of interdependence between the nation states of Europe as a means to preventing further war (Watts, 2008: p6). In 1951 Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all signed the Treaty of Paris creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); the beginnings of an integrated Europe which has seen many changes since its creation (Thody, 1997: p1). Today it has become the highly integrated European Union with 28 member states, 18 of which share a single currency (Archick, 2014: p1). The process of EU integration is a complex one, as can be seen in its history and will surely be seen in its future. There is no simple explanation that can successfully explain the growth of the EU from a economic community of six nation states to the political and economic union it has become today. However there are two competing theories for explaining EU integration that give opposing views on the matter, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism. In this essay I will examine both theories and attempt to reach a conclusion if either successfully explains EU integration.
Prior to unification in 1871 the territory that would become Germany was comprised of thirty-nine independent states and city states joined together in a loose German Confederation. The most powerful among these states was Prussia, both geographically the largest state and that with the largest population. The influential politicians and policies that came out of Prussia were instrumental in the gradual formation of a united Germany. Beginning with the rise of Napoleon, the nineteenth century was a time of incredible change which dramatically altered the political balance of Europe. In order to understand the factors that culminated in official German unification on January 18 1871, it is necessary to examine the preceding decades. No single factor can be credited for the unification of the German states. Rather, the combined forces of social change, economic strength within a unified customs union, the moral justifications provided by nationalism, Bismarck’s careful manipulation of internal politics and the advantages gained through military action resulted in the unification of Germany.
Decentralization is the process done by not just the government but other organizations, institutions, companies and many more. Decentralization takes place when a central body wants to distribute power to different sectors. These different sectors are expected to shoulder the responsibility that was passed to them. There are different types of decentralization, these are Political Decentralization, Administrative Decentralization, Fiscal Decentralization and Economic or Market Decentralization but in this paper I am going to focus on the Political Decentralization that is taking place in the Federal government of Germany.