Political science, RepublicanismIntroduction

Republicanism refers to the theory of the people who believe to be governing a republic. It is an ideology that believes that the head of state must be elected and cannot just be hereditary come what may despite this common ideology, there are two types of republicanism, which come forth due to some divided opinion on the on what should come first between the political participation of the people and the protection of the citizens objections and aims. These two types of republicanism are the protective republicanism which sometimes is also called the instrumental republicanism and the developmental republicanism. The instrumental republicanism is basically believe that in the importance of protecting the rights, and aims of the citizens at all expense while developmental republicanism on the other hand do believe that the intrinsic value lies with the political participation of the leader . Developmental republicanism tries to dwell so much on the classical republicanism and tries to build on its elements which included the democratic heritage and the exploration of the inherent value of republicanism of political participation and the polis as the major way to self-fulfillment. The protective republicanism do believe in the value of the civic virtue and the ills of corruption can be very difficult to uproot should politics lean on one side of the major groupings that people form. To the developmental republicans, the citizens of a country have the right to enjoy the equality from both the economic side and the political side. This, they say, will ensure that all citizens are equal and Protective republican republicans on the other hand do believe on the ruling nature of the civic involvement and the role of the citizens to participate in decision making process in totality. They believe that this can only be achieved if there is liberty at personal levels. It is this liberty that will enable the citizens to rule themselves.

These aspects of republicanism are both present in a contemporary liberal democratic state. Such states do have their base on the republican traditions and emphasize a lot on the modern day states. Generally, without the political participation, we may not have democratic states in existence but the differentiating factor between the liberal democratic state and the republican tradition is that the instrumental republicans exclude women from their politics unlike the democrats. On the other hand, Held does believe that a developmental republicanism refers to the republican system which criticizes the move of some classical republicans to ignore some of the central tenets of republicanism. Especially, this form of republicanism tries or rather neglects the importance of having the public service as well as the civic virtue in its traditions. This form of republicanism is kind of traitors who are trying to change the attitudes of the liberalists without success. (Held 113)

In a contemporary liberalist’s state, people are governed by the majority rule. Here, issues that may bring controversies are subjected to the public for decision making. However, there are some traditions that do play a very important role in such states. Republicans have some binding traditions that they believe are their cornerstones. These include; the head of state can not be hereditary and must be elected at all cost, the civic virtue and its importance, universal political participation and its benefits, dangers of corruption, powered separation and the rule of law.

Some of these traditions are very important even in the liberalists’ democratic state. For instance, the tradition of having the head of state that is elected simply allows the citizens of the state to practice their democratic right of choosing whom they want. By practicing this, it means that the people of will have to accept that there qualities in a certain leader who is better than theirs.

Also, the tradition of importance of the civic virtue has a lot even in the liberalists’ states. For instance, when one becomes a leader he is expected to take charge of the responsibilities that come with it. Just imagine a civic leader who is just technically in office, you can see or hear of him or her once in a while. So with this tradition, the liberalists democrats may decide to work against such leaders.

In addition to this, there is the tradition that is against corruption. This tradition is as well serving that same purpose in the liberalists’ side. The dangers of corruption are not limited to the republican states but it is a universal issue that should be addressed at all levels.

Finally, the rule of law is one of the basics for any country to exercise democracy. With the rule of law, it therefore means that people have to work and obey the laws of the land irrespective of their race, sex education, marital status and even social class. This brings the equality that is needed for a state to progress.

It is also very important to note that these traditions are very instrumental in good governance. Not at all times should a leader pose things to the public to decide. The leaders should have some authority to make some decisions on behalf of the citizens

Question two

For democratic systems to come forth there must be elements of freedom, equality and solidarity. These three elements act as the central tenets and as the force behind democracy. However, they are intertwined and may not be easy to understand when not keenly considered. Despite this complication, solidarity proves to be the force to reckon as far as understanding these terms is concerned. Freedom simply means the unregulated or being in a state where interference is absent. It is being in a position to live a life at his or her own terms. This is due to the fact the people’s views, values as well as believes is always different equality on the other side being in a position to access and benefit equally from the rule of law and the social entitlements of the state. There are basically determinants of equality in the society. These are determinants are the social values which are different depending on the different political societies. Solidarity can be defined as the being in membership within a political community as well as the feelings that one belongs and is associated with these groups. The pleasure that arises from the basic fellowship which brings together the common interests and responsibilities creates the confidence of being at the same level. (Held, 239)

Freedom can mean being in a position without exertions of power to be influenced to do or being in a position to do something. Equality on the other hand means that one is being at par with others, both internally and externally. With solidarity; there is the feeling of oneness, unity. With this feeling, people are deceived that they are together in all aspects of life. We tend to forget some of the basics that though we may be together in spirit, it is the same spirit that came up with the laws that govern us. These laws will not allow the solidarity to let us mess. Basically, this point tries to elaborate that solidarity is deceiving and when it is in excess, we are deceived to believe that we are free to do anything that we want. However, when the rule of law will be applied, it will capture everybody who was involved when the injustices, crimes and social ills are being done in a group. So it becomes s very complex to understand the limits separates solidarity from freedom.

Also, it proves to very complex for people differentiate the differences that come when we are together. When we are together we will not get to see what lies behind nor ahead of us. This means that solidarity has a tendency of creating in us a state of equality that may not be in existence in us. There are several things to consider when we are talking of equality: education, social stratification, backgrounds among others. In this line we should not be deceived that because we are fighting for a common goal we are equal. Though we can be equal before the rule of law, there are certain facts that we can not deny. The social class will automatically bring the difference in people of a group, the wealth and how close some people are to power. These facts sometimes, because people are in solidarity, fighting the common enemy, may be deceived that they are at par. It thus becomes very complex to understand equality from the solidarity point of view.

Despite these differences, freedom and equality can come together before the rule of law to make it a reality that we are powerful when we are against a common course. This now brings the aspect solidarity. When we are fighting together, we need to be solidly together, however, when we are facing charges, we should remember that we will be taken as individuals or as representatives. Still the same when there is excess freedom, we tend to misuse it and misbehave in the name of being together and equal.

Due to this complexity in these there terms, there are many rulers of many countries who have messed up and have regretted why they were to be deceived. A reasonable example is drawn from politics where an incumbent leader may decide to cling to power simply because he or she may have the freedom at home and enjoy the equal status like other heads of states, not knowing that when one is taken to the international criminal court, his status will not be taken there.

Finally, it is better to say that because of this intertwined confusion resulting from these there terms people need to understand their limits in freedom, in their equality and in their solidarity.

Question three

Basically, there are four main types of the electoral systems. These systems do vary from one to another, depending on major dimensions; this is inclusive of the magnitudes of the districts, the structures of the ballots, the sizes of the assemblies, the effective thresholds and the openness of the lists used. However, the major forms of variations come in due to the electoral formula. The electoral formula is the determining factor of how the votes are counted as per the seats that are available. The four types of the electoral formula which are also known as the electoral system include the majoritan formulas, the semi proportional systems, the proportional representations and the mixed systems. The majoritan formula includes the plural voting, the second and the alternative balloting systems. Semi proportional on the other hand includes single transferable, limited and the cumulative voting systems. Proportional representation is where there is use of the largest, open and closed party lists while the mixed systems has both the elements of the majoritan and the proportional systems. (Held, 183)

All these systems can be used in any state as long as the logistics will allow. In furthering the goals of a democratic state, I would prefer proportional representation elections system. This kind of system will come up with good number of representatives to work in the government. Coming up with a good number of people will basically depend on the party so it is that the party with the majority win will have to rule. This is good simply because, democratic governments would allow the people to choose for themselves whom they want to be their leaders. This means that if the majority rule applies then fairness will be administered.

With this kind of electoral system, the party that will be in power will, have to work extra hard to create its base deep rooted in the people. This means that there can be efficiency to the highest level possible due to the fact they will be looking for another term to rule the country ones more. So with the proportional voting system, the efficiency of the government is enhanced.

In addition to this the government will work without bias. This is from the fact the those in power will not have knowledge of who voted them in. during political campaigns it is not easy to identify with one party because the electorate are democratic enough will always attend to the rallies of the parties involved to get to know the manifestoes. Through this the leaders of certain parties will not know which who voted for them and who did not. Hence, this system enhances quality governance.

Another reason why I would prefer this system to any other system is that, there are no minimum thresholds that one needs to have. The person or the party with the majority people in it will form the government. This means that there are reduced expenses on re-runs, disputed elections from possible doctoring of results among other irregularities that may stunt election process.

Conclusion

The act of choosing an electoral system is very mechanical and it is always geared to achieve some objective. However, the functioning of the electoral system and the possible consequences of these systems will always play a role in the choice of the system that will see that democracy is furthered and fairness and transparency are maintained.

However, it is not possible to have a single electoral system that will have no fault. Only the best of all the alternatives that will be available should be taking to favor all the people thus their democratic right is protected.

Works cited:

Held, D. Models of Democracy (3rd ed). Stanford University Press , London,2006