1. Imagine you are a political scientist from India, the U.K., Germany, or Brazil (choose one). You are asked to help the newly democratic country of “Bostonistan” design a new constitution. Bostonistan has a history of conflict among religious groups, which are dispersed throughout the country—not every religious group lives in its own region.
Many years ago, Bostonistan was a democracy, but it suffered a coup after military leaders got fed up with legislative gridlock that had paralyzed the political system.
Do you think your own country’s system of government (presidential, parliamentary, or semi-presidential), electoral system (single member districts, proportional representation, or mixed), and federal versus unitary status would work …show more content…
A stable democracy typically is better off financially, less likely to go to war and better positioned to fight corruption. This is why states across the globe stride toward a democracy and depending on circumstances fail. For example, Bostonistan and Germany, established democracy, but due to divided parties and gridlock this form of government was no longer acceptable. There is no variation of democracy that ensures success, however it will triumph when the right systems align with the citizens ' values and states history. From there the Government’s commitment to root out corruption, abandon failed old practices, and take account public interest will lead to a steady successful state. Bostonistan’s past democratic endeavor and subsequent military coup as a result of gridlock outline a fundamental issue in addressing its citizens. The key for Bostonistan and any country on the path towards developing a working democracy is to incorporate rather than circumvent the fundamental issues of race, religion, and ideology within the state incorporate them to develop a democracy and constitution that …show more content…
Since these members of state cabinets can be removed at any time, they are able to check the power of the state without concern of re-election. While, Bostonistan’s may be skeptical of a body of government only indirectly elected by the people its role of revisiting and slowing down the legislative processes emphasizes accountability and putting high value on counteracting the temptation of majoritarianism which diminishes and potentially destroys democracy. To illustrate its effectiveness, over the last half century Germany has not encountered a manufactured
Many years ago, Bostonistan was a democracy, but it suffered a coup after military leaders got fed up with legislative gridlock that had paralyzed the political system.
Do you think your own country’s system of government (presidential, parliamentary, or semi-presidential), electoral system (single member districts, proportional representation, or mixed), and federal versus unitary status would work …show more content…
A stable democracy typically is better off financially, less likely to go to war and better positioned to fight corruption. This is why states across the globe stride toward a democracy and depending on circumstances fail. For example, Bostonistan and Germany, established democracy, but due to divided parties and gridlock this form of government was no longer acceptable. There is no variation of democracy that ensures success, however it will triumph when the right systems align with the citizens ' values and states history. From there the Government’s commitment to root out corruption, abandon failed old practices, and take account public interest will lead to a steady successful state. Bostonistan’s past democratic endeavor and subsequent military coup as a result of gridlock outline a fundamental issue in addressing its citizens. The key for Bostonistan and any country on the path towards developing a working democracy is to incorporate rather than circumvent the fundamental issues of race, religion, and ideology within the state incorporate them to develop a democracy and constitution that …show more content…
Since these members of state cabinets can be removed at any time, they are able to check the power of the state without concern of re-election. While, Bostonistan’s may be skeptical of a body of government only indirectly elected by the people its role of revisiting and slowing down the legislative processes emphasizes accountability and putting high value on counteracting the temptation of majoritarianism which diminishes and potentially destroys democracy. To illustrate its effectiveness, over the last half century Germany has not encountered a manufactured