What Is Hudson's Argument Against The Separation Of Power

993 Words 4 Pages
Separation of powers refers to the idea to guard against tyranny and preserve liberty and justice. Separation of powers was held that major institution should be divided and dependent upon each other so that one power would not exceed that of the other two branches. Today, Separation of powers is known as the checks and balances necessary for the government while others seems to think that the separation of powers is a destruction to our American government. In the book "American Democracy in Peril" by William E. Hudson, the author makes a significant argument regarding chapter 1 separation of powers, he states that our American government is officially inefficient, unresponsive, unaccountable, indecisive, and hypocritical. He views the need for separation of powers as inadequate, not democratic, and chaotic. Hudson suggests that the American people need to switch the democratic system into a parliamentary system in order to solve the problem like a government and get with the new program, so the majority can get their necessity met.

For Hudson's argument against the separation of powers he first look at partisanship in the system. He states that voters are increasingly electing a divided government and political parties. Divided
…show more content…
The author discuss on our American government is very hypocritical and indecisive. The issue whether or not our American government is a democracy or partisanship is an issue that has been present throughout history. When the first U.S. settlers came to America, they came because they were mistreated by their British parliamentary and had no representation in the British parliament. And they want a place where they are not oppressed and wanted a place where they could truly become a part of their government. In the end they end up oppressing other people like their British parliament and more corrupt with their

Related Documents