Political Science
Political Science
What is the difference between a state and a nation and explain why they may not match
A state acts as an independent sovereign government that exercises control in a certain bounded area, and whose boundaries are clearly stated and defined and recognized internationally by other states (Barker p.442 2017). A nation is comprised of groups of people sharing the same culture, but they do not have sovereignty. Consequently, both a nation and a state exist in a mutually dependent relationship where the nation provides identity and reason for the existence of states, and the states provide institutions to govern the interests of a nation. One of the differences is that states and nation have different elements. A state is characterized by elements such as people’s population, the territory of the state, government and the sovereignty, while in the nation is comprised of a group of people who believe in unity and conscious (Barker p.445 2017). Through territory, race, religion, language, and history determine the elements of formation of a nation. Elements in a nation may, however, be subject to change.
Another difference is that a state is concerned with the fulfilment of welfare and security of its people and external human actions. A nation is, on the other hand, united with a population of spirituality, emotional and psychological bonds; however, a nation deals with less on the physical needs of the people (Barker p.447 2017). The other difference is that it is essential in possessing a fixed territory by the state, which is the physical element in the state. But in a nation, the territory is not an essential element and requirement. A nation exists and survives without a fixed territory. The love for their land brings unity among the people of a nation. Additionally, a state ensures sovereignty as an essential element because it ensures that states are different from other associations. It is, however, not a necessity in a nation because the basic element is the emotional unity of the nation of its people which is developed from common social, cultural elements.
Notably, the other difference is that states are limited due to a fixed territory, which may increase or decrease. However, a nation is not limited to one territory because it is a community based on a common culture, history, traditions and aspirations (Barker p.445 2017). Another difference is that two or more nations can exist in a single state. Such example is whereby Austria and Hungary were one state but different nations before the First World War. Another difference is that nation is more stable than a state. A state would end if sovereignty ends, but a nation can survive without sovereignty (Barker p.449 2017). After the world war, Japan continued to live as a nation when it lost its sovereignty. The other difference is that a state can be created from the consciousness of people, where physical elements play a significant role in the formation of a state. This is unlike in a nation where it is based on the unity of the people, and no extra efforts are required in the making of a nation (Barker p.446 2017). Lastly, the other difference that a state has police power uses the police force in the preservation of integrity. However, a nation does not have police force or coercive power as it highly depends on the unity and sense of the people.
Compare and contrast a country that has become democratic in the last forty years with one that has become more authoritarian and suggest the reasons why.
Many countries in today’s world are considered to be democratic in nature; some of the countries are more democratic than others. Democratic countries offer freedom of speech and religion. These countries that practice democracy respect basic individual liberties of the people. In these democratic countries, the ruling is made by the majority rule with minority rights, and there is acceptance by the people on the decisions made by the majority of the voters in a free and fair election. However, they try the elimination of majority tranny by providing opportunities to the minorities so that their voice can be heard too. These countries political leaders have different personal backgrounds, which ensure that the different types of citizens can vie for leadership positions. Another aspect in these democratic countries is that there are free, competitive and fair elections, and the government or political leaders are not obliged in controlling the results. Additionally, these countries have continued to rule by law and not controlled by the leaders. These democratic countries are governed by laws that apply to both the leaders and the citizens in treating them equally. These democratic countries have shown that the governments respond to the citizen’s demands by ensuring that the elected leaders take the rightful leadership positions.
Notably, in regimes of authoritative power, only one leader or a group of leaders have the real power in all the political administrations. In authoritarian governments, the citizen’s voices are not heard in regards to the elections held (Kavanagh p.135 2020). Citizens are subjected in obeying the government decisions from the leaders who can be kings, leaders from the military, emperors or dictators. The titles of these leaders do not indicate the type of government to have in place because they assume all the real power in the government. Freedom of speech and religion is not allowed in the authoritarian governments, and the majority rule is not followed, nor is the minority voices heard. In both democratic and the authoritarian government, there can be change over time, which in turn renders it to be complex and uncertain.
Explain how communists, anarchists, and pluralists view the role of the state and its future?
Communist ideologies view tries to establish a communist society which is structured on the ideas of ownership that is common by putting in absence social classes and money. Communism considers the integration of Marxism, anarchy-communism and political ideologies by establishing social ownership. Anarchists view the state as undesirable and unnecessary that in the end, a result may be harmful. Anarchists oppose hierarchical organizations and use revolutionary and evolutionary means in achieving their objectives (Turcato p.238 2019). The revolutionary tactics are aimed at bringing down the authority and state government and would result in violence. The evolutionary tactics are tasked in the explanation of how an anarchist society would turn out to be through criticism and praxis. Additionally, Pluralist’s view states and governments as a democratic political system that involves more than one source of power. Modern governments have employed the view of Pluralist as they allow the freedom of association. Pluralists believe that resources are available to everyone in society and that the potential power may exceed the amount of actual power.
Compare and contrast any TWO of the following according to who has power, how empowered: Democracy, Oligarchy, Authoritarian systems, and constitutional monarchies.
Democratic power is either held by an individual in whom the people have the authority to choose who is to govern them. An oligarchy is a form of a power structure where a small number of people controls power. These people may be distinguished by their wealth, education, religion or their political class. Authoritarian regime form in government uses a strong central power that limits political freedoms. It uses political parties and mass organizations in mobilizing the people in the achievement of an authoritarian form of government (Kavanagh p.136 2020). Authoritarian power constraints the legislature and political parties in the enactment and formation of this regime. Also, an authoritarian government does not support free and fair elections in order to allow its citizens to choose the type of leaders they may want. Authoritarian power also prohibits the freedom of religion and lacks civil liberties.
Notably, Constitutional form of power tasks the president power in commanding the armed forces, and the formation of a cabinet. The constitution limits the government from expanding its own power by having in place different systems and organizations that create balances and separation of power in the government. The constitution allows for the division of power across several bodies of the government. A monarchy form of power is one that is governed by the king or queen who assumes the Head of state. Example in Britain, Monarchy power is based on the sovereignty of a single ruler, who can either be the king or queen. Through divine power and absolutism gives a king or a total queen power to rule and run the government. Monarchy power allows the granting of privileges from the king or queen. Divine right to rule in monarchies asserts that authority comes from God, and so, therefore, they cannot be held accountable in their action by human beings. However, a constitutional monarchy may exist where power is shared constitutionally within the government.
Compare and contrast the single-member district system with the proportional representation for their relative advantages and disadvantages as electoral systems.
A single-member district constitutes of an electoral district which returns one officeholder to the legislature, where a single winner takes it all. Proportional representation is an electoral system whereby political parties gain seats in accordance with the proportion of the casted votes for them (Christensen & Gabrielle p.249 2016). The single-member district system ensures that there is a strong voice in the ideology of the majority within a single district and emphasizes a greater cohesion. Also, the single-member district encourages greater party independence to the politicians. Another advantage of the single-member district is that voters are provided with a strong representation in the constituency; also, it maximizes on accountability and geographical representation (Christensen & Gabrielle p.257 2016). A disadvantage of the single-member district is that it cannot provide proportional representation for political parties.
In contrast, proportional representation targets their messages by the candidates, and appeals for the ideologies of the minority. Proportional representation offers a significant percentage of the electorate and encourages party hierarchies. Significant and effective governance can be achieved in proportional representation through party hierarchies on which candidates are dependent during their nomination (Christensen & Gabrielle p.257 2016). Another advantage of proportional representation is that there is fair treatment of the minority parties and candidates who are independent. In conclusion, proportional representation offers a wide and significant representation of the voter’s choices.
References
Barker, Vanessa. “Penal power at the border: Realigning state and nation.” Theoretical Criminology 21, no. 4 (2017): 441-457.
Kavanagh, Matthew M. “Authoritarianism, outbreaks, and information politics.” The Lancet Public Health 5, no. 3 (2020): e135-e136.
Turcato, Davide. “Anarchist Communism.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, pp. 237-247. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
Christensen, Skye, and Gabrielle Beardall. “Gender quotas in single-member district electoral systems.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4, no. 2 (2016): 246-267.
Lefkofridi, Zoe, and Nathalie Giger. “Democracy or Oligarchy? Unequal Representation of Income Groups in European Institutions.” Politics and Governance 8, no. 1 (2020): 19-27.