Political institutions are the organizations in a government that create, enforce, and apply laws. They often mediate conflict, make (governmental) policy on the economy and social systems, and otherwise provide representation for the population. In general, democratic political regimes are divided into two types: presidential (headed by a president) and parliamentary (headed by a parliament). Legislatures built to support the regimes are unicameral (only one house) or bicameral (two houses—for example, a senate and a house of representatives or a house of commons and a house of lords). Party systems can be two-party or multiparty and the parties can be strong or weak depending on their level of internal cohesion. The political institutions are those bodies—parties, legislatures, and heads of state—that make up the whole mechanism of modern governments. In addition, political institutions include political party organizations, trade unions, and the (legal) courts. The term 'political Institutions' may also refer to the recognized structure of rules and principles within which the above organizations operate, including such concepts as the right to vote, a responsible government, and accountability. Political institutions and systems have a direct impact on the business environment and activities of a country. For example, a political system that is straightforward and evolving when it comes to the political participation of the people and laser-focused on the well-being of its citizens contributes to positive economic growth in its region. Every society must have a type of political system so that it may allocate resources and ongoing procedures appropriately. A political institution sets the rules in which an orderly society obeys and ultimately decides and administers the laws for those that do not obey. The political system consists of both politics and government and involves the law, economy, culture, and other social concepts. The most popular political systems that we know of around the world can be reduced to a few simple core concepts. Many additional types of political systems are similar in idea or root, but most tend to surround concepts of:
In 1960, Gabriel Abraham Almond and James Smoot Coleman gathered three core functions of a political system, which include:
In modern-day society in the United States, for example, the main function of the two core political parties is seen as a way to represent interest groups and constituents and to create policies while minimizing choices. Overall, the idea is to make legislative processes easier for people to understand and engage with. Every government seeks stability, and without institutions, a democratic political system simply cannot work. Systems need rules to be able to select political actors in the nomination process. The leaders must have fundamental skills about how the political institutions work and there must be rules about how authoritative decisions are to be made. The institutions constrain political actors by punishing deviations from institutionally-prescribed behaviors and rewarding appropriate behavior. Institutions can resolve collection action dilemmas—for example, all governments have a collective interest in reducing carbon emissions, but for individual actors, making a choice for the greater good makes no good sense from an economic standpoint. So, it must be up to the federal government to establish enforceable sanctions. But the main purpose of a political institution is to create and maintain stability. That purpose is made viable by what American political scientist George Tsebelis calls "veto players." Tsebelis argues that the number of veto players—people who must agree on a change before it can go forward—makes a significant difference in how easily changes are made. Significant departures from the status quo are impossible when there are too many veto players, with specific ideological distances among them. Agenda setters are those veto players who can say "take it or leave it," but they must make proposals to the other veto players that will be acceptable to them.
Donald Trump has made statements sceptical of military interventions in the Middle East. This is perhaps a rare piece of good news. Military intervention as a means of building democracy has once again become a hot topic. The Norwegian government has been criticized due to the consequences of the intervention in Libya. Hillary Clinton has been branded a hawk because she is seen as more willing to use military force than Obama. Some supporters of Bernie Sanders seemed to prefer Trump to Clinton, in the hope that Trump would be less interventionist.  Experiences from the interventions in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 have not been positive. What went wrong? Photo: US Marines – Iraq 2003 Democracies rarely if ever go to war with each otherThe logic behind democratic intervention is clear enough: democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Stable democracies also experience few civil wars. If a civil war occurs nonetheless in a stable democracy, as a general rule the conflict will be less bloody than in an authoritarian country. Genocide and politicide are also rare in democracies. An increase in the number of stable democracies, the argument runs, will contribute to lower levels of violence in both domestic and external conflicts. Democratic countries generally emerge victorious from wars. The losing party often experiences regime change, which is more often than not in a democratic direction. Accordingly it may be tempting to use military force to stimulate the growth of democracy in formerly authoritarian states. If one follows this line of thinking, war can lead to democracy – and thus to peace. World War II can be interpreted as a triumph for such a strategy. The Axis powers were defeated and democratic governments were established in Italy, Japan, and Germany. A more modest, but more recent, example was the Falklands War of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina’s conquest of the disputed group of islands, orchestrated by the country’s ruling military junta, was highly popular domestically. When the United Kingdom took the islands back by force, the Argentinians turned against their military rulers. The junta was forced to resign and democracy was eventually restored. Something similar happened in Cyprus in 1974. At the end of the Cold War, democracy appeared to be the only game in townAt the end of the Cold War, democracy appeared to be the only game in town, and thus it is not surprising that Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and others embraced the idea of a democratic peace. Nor is it surprising that Western politicians thought that the further spread of democracy could be assisted by military means, for example in the Balkans or in the Middle East. The increased emphasis on global human rights in international politics also made it easier for many sceptics to tolerate military intervention. But experiences from the interventions in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 have not been positive. What went wrong? Even though these interventions put these countries on a course towards democratic government, they did not create stable democracies. Instead, the result was unstable semi-democracies. Countries in a grey area between stable dictatorship and stable democracy experience more, not fewer, armed conflicts. At least three factors contributed to these failures. First, in general, the government apparatus of the previous regime was simply scrapped. Establishing new systems, however, was not as easily accomplished. Wealth in Iraq and Libya stemmed largely from oil revenues that were monopolized by the countries’ elites. When these elites disappeared, ethnic groups and warlords competed to secure as much as possible of this wealth for themselves. A national community that can build a strong state is not created in an instant. Second, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all entirely surrounded by authoritarian states. All other things being equal, war is more likely to break out between a democracy and an authoritarian state than between two authoritarian states. Accordingly, if one manages to establish a new democracy in a region of authoritarian states, the risk of war will generally not go down, but up. There is also a risk of contagion from unrest in neighbouring countries, for example if rebel groups establish safe zones on the other side of the border. A third factor in the failure of these interventions is that military interventions, especially interventions that are not sanctioned by the United Nations, undermine international law no matter how good the motives. They comprise an open invitation to authoritarian states to follow the same strategy. We see the result of Western countries having gone to such great lengths in Libya in Syria, where Russia has intervened to defend an old authoritarian ally under the banner of combating terrorism. Neither China nor Russia can be expected to be enthusiastic about democratization, but they share an interest in having stable regimes. Despite their authoritarian characteristics, neither of these countries has returned to its old Stalinist excesses. Cooperation between the superpowers is at the core of efforts to build states with stable forms of government, with a hope that they will gradually become more democratic over the course of time. Donald Trump has made statements sceptical of military interventions in the Middle East. Despite his inconsistencies and his unpredictability, perhaps we can see this as a rare piece of good news.
|
Two possible democratic interventions specifically designed for political and social institutions
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
