Explain Why The United States Should Reform Its Governing Institutional Structures
Sarah Ashkanani
Political Science 101
Section 4, TA Mayra Gonzalez
March 1, 2011
Essay 1
I believe the United States should reform its governing institutional structures because democracy does not take a great part of it as much as it implies. Through my understanding of the regulation of life in the United States, I have come to realize that it is more of a republican than it is a democratic structure. James Madison, known as “the father of the constitution”, designed the institutional structure to be separated within a form of distribution of powers. Even though Madison’s whole idea of disallowing tyranny through this system is understandable, it has created a major dilemma. This allocation of power has caused a slow and time-consuming flow in the process of taking action. The fear of tyranny has caused …show more content…
detachment between the President and the people, and also limiting the President’s ability to take control by giving him vague power.
Alongside of these issues, there are few aspects in the structure of the US government in which makes progression at its best a far away target. There are several means in which we can reform these features in order to have a fully efficient governing mechanism in which this country deserves.
The United States, in its policies, indicates that it is a democracy. In my comprehension of the whole structure, I perceive that it is a republic in which the people choose representatives who decide on their own on policies and furthermore. I believe that the people of the United States would prefer and benefit more from a democratic system. A democratic system would still mean having representatives but they would be “from the people to the people”. They would be fully representing the people by having meetings and gatherings with them to know what they need, want, and to be informed with their input on current issues, because after all it is they who the representatives are representing. These groups would of course be
divided into governorates and even smaller categories according to each city and their communities. James Madison and some other founders argued in the federalist papers on the way the government should be constructed in which it was called ‘separated institutions sharing powers’, and the whole idea of it was in the consider of having a stronger government to avoid tyranny in which a single ruler will be in control of an absolute power in a government. As mentioned, this structure has slowed down the improvement and quick evolvement of the country. The fear of tyranny has created invisible guidelines in the Presidents performance, all in all causing disengagement between him and the people. In the papers of federalists, Madison tries to awaken the interaction of the community by establishing a large one that follows a complex government that its powers are hard to break and tyrannize, but if the majority is strong enough to stop tyranny, how can it be strong enough to stop minority. Also, if the principle of having separated institutions with sharing powers is to provide division to ensure that ambition checks ambition then how can it have enough powers to promote commerce and unify the nation and therefore stop other powers to produce tyranny.
When talking about tyranny, we of course mean the fear of the President becoming a tyrant. Therefore, the powers giving to the President are vague. This is shown in his limited control over making treaties, appointing ambassadors, ministers, judges, and so on so forth. In order for these decisions to pass there has to be a 2/3 consent vote from the Senate; giving the President only 1/3 of the power in these situations. Even in other situations, no matter what decision he will always have the obstacle of limitation of complex government institutions with checks and balances. This system of checks and balances has on many occasions caused quarrels between the branches of government. All this limitation of powers is in great contradictory with the extreme expectations due to him having few formal powers and a lot of informal powers. His time frame of presidency is immensely constructed in regards to his role as ruler. Also, mentioning the time frame, I believe that the period in which the president has to perform is extremely short. In these four years there is not enough time for him to get accommodated not only to his position but also with his constantly changing government, where at one point he would be leading a complete government of strangers. The powers of the government institutions are considered weak because they are based on the principle of them sharing a whole power and being divided on each other. The operations of the institutions are not considered efficient or effective, and one of the major problems revolve around making certain bills laws to follow and obey; it has to start with the House of Representatives and then pass by the House and the Senate to be finally signed by the president, and this design was intentional by the founders of the constitution and it defines the term of complexity. Furthermore, the inefficiency of having appointed judges that might have opposing views to the contemporary society in which they will fail to fulfill the needs of that society. The Unites States government institutions are considered inefficient, ineffective and irresponsible.
The consideration to substitute the constitution with a differing system is not the best solution to overcome systematic problems. To articulate, the presidential system is addressed as a differing system that is based on institutional arrangement by having the chief of executives and legislature both have fixed terms of office and neither can act without the other or shorten the terms of the other. In the presidential system, the head of state and the head of government are unified. The problem remains with the slow arrangements that will be done by the presidential system and a hint of tendency toward stalemate and inconsistent of work. This system is a supported of the Madisonian system that will eventually invite complexity into constitution and government and attain a laid-back society.
In order to invite back democracy into the United States’ institutional system, the government should be reformed. One of the ways to overcome that problem is to consider the majoritarian reforms in which it makes the government react and respond to the popular will. This reformation does not neglect the principle of having separated institutions controlled by sharing powers, furthermore, it agrees with Levinson in making each institution democratic and powerful. It is a way to unite the powers together by reducing the power of the senate and reducing the life terms of justices. Tyrannized president will never be an option in the majoritarian reforms because the community will be able to elect the president carefully, which means they will determine whether they are threatened by tyranny or comforted with the right decision. Too much democracy might be dangerous if only chosen to be dangerous. After all, it is only a choice that democracy offers and brilliant brains either support or neglect it.
Work Cited
King, R. & Sullivan, J. (2005). American Politics in Global Perspective. The United States of America: Pearson Custom Publisher.
Political Science 101
Section 4, TA Mayra Gonzalez
March 1, 2011
Essay 1
I believe the United States should reform its governing institutional structures because democracy does not take a great part of it as much as it implies. Through my understanding of the regulation of life in the United States, I have come to realize that it is more of a republican than it is a democratic structure. James Madison, known as “the father of the constitution”, designed the institutional structure to be separated within a form of distribution of powers. Even though Madison’s whole idea of disallowing tyranny through this system is understandable, it has created a major dilemma. This allocation of power has caused a slow and time-consuming flow in the process of taking action. The fear of tyranny has caused …show more content…
detachment between the President and the people, and also limiting the President’s ability to take control by giving him vague power.
Alongside of these issues, there are few aspects in the structure of the US government in which makes progression at its best a far away target. There are several means in which we can reform these features in order to have a fully efficient governing mechanism in which this country deserves.
The United States, in its policies, indicates that it is a democracy. In my comprehension of the whole structure, I perceive that it is a republic in which the people choose representatives who decide on their own on policies and furthermore. I believe that the people of the United States would prefer and benefit more from a democratic system. A democratic system would still mean having representatives but they would be “from the people to the people”. They would be fully representing the people by having meetings and gatherings with them to know what they need, want, and to be informed with their input on current issues, because after all it is they who the representatives are representing. These groups would of course be
divided into governorates and even smaller categories according to each city and their communities. James Madison and some other founders argued in the federalist papers on the way the government should be constructed in which it was called ‘separated institutions sharing powers’, and the whole idea of it was in the consider of having a stronger government to avoid tyranny in which a single ruler will be in control of an absolute power in a government. As mentioned, this structure has slowed down the improvement and quick evolvement of the country. The fear of tyranny has created invisible guidelines in the Presidents performance, all in all causing disengagement between him and the people. In the papers of federalists, Madison tries to awaken the interaction of the community by establishing a large one that follows a complex government that its powers are hard to break and tyrannize, but if the majority is strong enough to stop tyranny, how can it be strong enough to stop minority. Also, if the principle of having separated institutions with sharing powers is to provide division to ensure that ambition checks ambition then how can it have enough powers to promote commerce and unify the nation and therefore stop other powers to produce tyranny.
When talking about tyranny, we of course mean the fear of the President becoming a tyrant. Therefore, the powers giving to the President are vague. This is shown in his limited control over making treaties, appointing ambassadors, ministers, judges, and so on so forth. In order for these decisions to pass there has to be a 2/3 consent vote from the Senate; giving the President only 1/3 of the power in these situations. Even in other situations, no matter what decision he will always have the obstacle of limitation of complex government institutions with checks and balances. This system of checks and balances has on many occasions caused quarrels between the branches of government. All this limitation of powers is in great contradictory with the extreme expectations due to him having few formal powers and a lot of informal powers. His time frame of presidency is immensely constructed in regards to his role as ruler. Also, mentioning the time frame, I believe that the period in which the president has to perform is extremely short. In these four years there is not enough time for him to get accommodated not only to his position but also with his constantly changing government, where at one point he would be leading a complete government of strangers. The powers of the government institutions are considered weak because they are based on the principle of them sharing a whole power and being divided on each other. The operations of the institutions are not considered efficient or effective, and one of the major problems revolve around making certain bills laws to follow and obey; it has to start with the House of Representatives and then pass by the House and the Senate to be finally signed by the president, and this design was intentional by the founders of the constitution and it defines the term of complexity. Furthermore, the inefficiency of having appointed judges that might have opposing views to the contemporary society in which they will fail to fulfill the needs of that society. The Unites States government institutions are considered inefficient, ineffective and irresponsible.
The consideration to substitute the constitution with a differing system is not the best solution to overcome systematic problems. To articulate, the presidential system is addressed as a differing system that is based on institutional arrangement by having the chief of executives and legislature both have fixed terms of office and neither can act without the other or shorten the terms of the other. In the presidential system, the head of state and the head of government are unified. The problem remains with the slow arrangements that will be done by the presidential system and a hint of tendency toward stalemate and inconsistent of work. This system is a supported of the Madisonian system that will eventually invite complexity into constitution and government and attain a laid-back society.
In order to invite back democracy into the United States’ institutional system, the government should be reformed. One of the ways to overcome that problem is to consider the majoritarian reforms in which it makes the government react and respond to the popular will. This reformation does not neglect the principle of having separated institutions controlled by sharing powers, furthermore, it agrees with Levinson in making each institution democratic and powerful. It is a way to unite the powers together by reducing the power of the senate and reducing the life terms of justices. Tyrannized president will never be an option in the majoritarian reforms because the community will be able to elect the president carefully, which means they will determine whether they are threatened by tyranny or comforted with the right decision. Too much democracy might be dangerous if only chosen to be dangerous. After all, it is only a choice that democracy offers and brilliant brains either support or neglect it.
Work Cited
King, R. & Sullivan, J. (2005). American Politics in Global Perspective. The United States of America: Pearson Custom Publisher.