Since history, America’s national government has had an excellent and ingenious political structure. To relate with the dynamics of the US politics, it is important to understand the American government that is inclusive of federalism, the U.S Constitution, branches of government, and interest groups. All these concepts of the federal government present roles, structures, and processes that possess strengths and weaknesses or positive and negative implications in the field of democracy. Consequently, it presents a tall order for the evaluation of the nation’s government that enhances a review of the necessities of a functional entity.
The U.S Constitution
The U.S constitution protects all individual citizens and groups as outlined in its amendments. An instance of the constitution’s role in the protection of the mentioned subjects concerns the right to vote, particularly on the grounds of color, sex or race. The U.S constitution possesses a structure in place, which limits the authority exercised by any of the branches of the government through the separation of powers (Balkin, 2012). One major strength of the U.S. Constitution concerns its flexibility to the diversifying social and political views, necessities along with the nation’s demands. Balkin (2012) describes the American constitution as one of the greatest ever developed owing to the difference in ways that it can be understood its ability to change with present situations.
In contrast, a point of weakness presented by the U.S Constitution concerns the Congress lacking set terms. Throughout history, politicians have served multiple terms despite various individuals taking administrative roles. Such people make a living by failing to honor the nation’s duties, thus, negatively impacting society fully. In the maintenance of the Constitution’s strength, the government ought to adjust itself to serve the societal needs before planning. It should also keep in mind that social views are diverse and ever changing. One action that could be deployed in ensuring the correction of the stated weakness would be the institution of term limits for the Congress. Carey (2008) suggests that the shaping of political careers in a system consisting of term limits remains distinctive to one which follows various terms in the national assembly. Limitation of terms particularly in seats of power creates room for the inclusion of new members in the Congress who would serve in upholding democracy as well as the needs of the members of society.
Federalism
Federalism is a system employed by the government whereby overall power originates from the nation’s citizens. Nonetheless, both state and national governments possess equitable power and authority in ensuring maintenance of national sovereignty (Fine & Levin-Waldman, 2016). The statement in perspective indicates that the nation has federal laws and regulations while also accommodating specified state legislation and regulations. In addressing federal statutes, the U.S government institutes a supreme authority body or entity that is responsible for the administration of national policies. An advantage associated with a national policy that requires implementation by a particular agency regards focused accomplishment. The feat can be realized through the delegation of procedures and tasks to relevant bureaus since it contributes to the reduction of the overall work load while at the same moment, increasing compliance with the system. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) represents the highest level of authority that surpasses all bodies relevant to crime investigation. Due to its status, the body has attained continuous successful organization in unravelling complex cases (FBI, 2017). In spite of the involvement of other institutions in solving crimes through cross departmental relationships, little success and work are witnessed.
In contrast, one disadvantage regarding a single agency implementation concerns the loss of accountability in the relevant national framework. The isolation of bureaucracies presents a monopoly that results in the confusion of roles within the government. An excellent example can be witnessed in the history of the FBI during the reign of J Edgar Hoover. According to Foner and Garraty (1991), the absence of transparency and oversight resulted in the FBI going without screening which created an avenue for devising complex record procedures. Consequently, it precluded the unearthing of his unlawful techniques used during investigations and loading of critical personal information (Foner & Garraty, 1991). The developments were soon brought to light, causing the loss of trust in the organization
Therefore, it is prudent the advantage above is maintained to ensure credibility of the system. One way of preserving focused accomplishment is through Congressional Oversight review boards. The compelling of bureau chiefs to account for their respective agencies would facilitate the disclosure of budgetary, issues, policies, and practices that may be hidden from the public. An excellent example of the implementation of this oversights stems from the Congressional hearing of Janet Reno. The case regarded the activities of the FBI during her tenure in Wako, Texas in 1933. The case was as a result of the death of about 80 persons after a long standoff with the organization which prompted the questioning of their leader before the Congress (AP Archive, 2015).
On the other hand, one way of improving the loss of accountability by federal agencies involves the increment of non-punitive oversight review measures through the inception of transparency practices. Transparency concerns the act of revealing all the facts concerning a particular element whether right or wrong. In general, it is mainly associated with the honesty and openness of actions undertaken by an individual on specific grounds (Berg, 2011). The inception of transparency within national bureaus fosters honest dialogues which also promotes collective responsibility.
Branches of Government
The other primary feature present in America’s federal government concerns the three branches of government particularly the Judiciary. It comprises of three levels of federal courts with the Supreme Court established at the highest level as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution (Cornell Law Library, 2010). The primary strength of the U.S. judiciary concerns the judicial review that refers to the authority granted to the law court that determines whether a statute, administrative regulation or treaty conforms to or contradicts the constitutional provisions. According to the Bill of Rights Institute (2017), Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first ruling ever made by the Supreme Court: It was in conducted in the declaration of illegal actions of the Congress. Due to the Judiciary’s authority in declaring the activities or law of a particular state or Federal government as unenforceable in the case of violation, the body plays a critical role in ensuring the system of check and balances. Therefore, the judicial review enables the examination of other branches of the government.
In spite of the strength associated with the Judiciary, the branch which is responsible for executing federal and state policies remains hampered by a major weakness. Hamilton et al. (1996) argue that the Judiciary is the weakest branch of the U.S. government. The authors’ major claim regards the body’s lack of influence in enforcing its rulings. Furthermore, the Judiciary lacks enough authority in taking an active resolution and offering societal directions based on strength or wealth. Despite the judicial attempts of enforcing fair trials, the executive holds more superior authority once the former presents its ruling. The Executive forms a decision of choosing the enforcement of such judgment or opting to decline. Evidently, the efficiency of the judgements enforced by the Judiciary is rendered weak due to the reliance of the executive branch in executing the court’s verdict (Paulsen, 1994).
Fortification of the Judiciary’s strength, which based on the judicial review, necessitates precise definition and safeguarding the independent role of the Supreme Court. While using the judicial review as a basis for realizing the body’s strength, the judges ought to hold their offices for life in ensuring consistency of verdicts especially on the issues about the government’s actions or laws. Such actions not only ensure that legislation and policies are well-enforced, but also maintains the integrity of the Judiciary in the nation’s government (Rostow, 1952). The independence of the Supreme Court and its judges should form a reliable component that ensures the actions of the Federal government are monitored and criticized if found not to comply with the U.S. laws and regulations.
An alternative for the correction of the stated weakness pertaining the Judiciary’s influence in enforcing court rulings involves the limitation of some of the Executive’s control over the Judiciary. The Judiciary should be granted adequate powers to express its action instead of issuing judgments that are subject to enforcement based on the Executive’s decision. Such actions would reduce not only the reliance of the government’s executive branch for implementation but also ensure the independency of the body in enforcing state and federal laws.
Interest Groups
Interest groups and political parties are critical actors who provide different agenda based on their respective goals and objectives. Nonetheless, each faction has an altering effect on the processes, policies, and organization of the government. In particular, interest groups can be powerful thus having a potential adverse impact on the federal government. Such groups are considered as an organization or group of people who focus on particular topics or concern (Fine & Levin-Waldman, 2016). Concerning elections, interest groups play a critical role in promoting democracy (Kanol, 2016). In spite of domination by the majority, they provide the minority with a voice for tabling their grievances. In general, they ensure that political parties and national government uphold the principles of democracy.
Interest groups regularly serve a small section of the population which is the minority which is mainly attributed to conflict of interests. The weakness presented in such organizations fail evident as they fail to consider the interests of citizens on issues of diversity and the inadvertently prolonged pluralism (Binderkrantz, 2012). The consideration of the benefit of the minority while ignoring the majority may limit their level of support. Consequently, it may result in unrest in society for extreme cases. For instance, the decision by a particular interest group in supporting gun control law may encounter stiff opposition due to conflict of interests. Individuals against the policy may perceive the group as a threat to society.
One way of accentuating the promotion of democracy involves the increasing of awareness on both citizens and minority groups. The emancipation of the societal masses and change can only occur once people are aware of their rights. The participation and awareness of citizens ensure that people have adequate knowledge and are well-informed. Such a move would enable them to construct wise political decisions that contribute to a better society (Kanol, 2016). In limiting the prejudice against majority groups, interest groups should create multiple goals and tracks of thinking as means of broadening their support base. According to Dougan and Snyder (1996), such a feat can only be achieved through the reliance on the interests of their ultimate goals which concern the protection of constitutional rights. Therefore, personal interests along with those of the majority act as hindrances to their goals. The arguments and issues presented ought to primarily consider the views of the majority (Bruycker, 2017).
Conclusion
Indeed, after a critical analysis of the prominent features of the American government, it remains evident that the U.S Federal government has an enormous structure that ensures the proper governing of the nation. In spite of its structure that encompasses the Constitution, Federalism, branches of government, along with and interest groups, all these concepts are characterized by areas of weakness which need improvement. Through the examination of the advantages and disadvantage of each concept, recommendations have been developed to maintain the stated strengths and reduce the individual weaknesses.
References
Balkin, J. M. (2012). The Roots of the Living Constitution. BUL Rev., 92, 1129.
Bill of Rights Institute, (2017). Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Retrieved From: http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/marbury-v-madison-1803/
Binderkrantz, A. S. (2012). Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over time. European Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 117-139.
Bruycker, I. (2017). Framing and advocacy: A research agenda for interest group studies. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(5), 775-787.
Carey, J. M. (2008). Legislative voting and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Cornell Law Library, (2010). Supreme Court of the United States Citizens United, Appellant V. Federal Election Commission. Retrieved From https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Dougan, W. R., & Snyder, J. M. (1996). Interest-group politics under majority rule. Journal of Public Economics, 61(1), 49-71.
Foner, E. & Garraty, J. A. (1991). Reader’s companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/j-edgar-hoover
Federal Bureau of Investigation, (2017). About. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/
Fine, T. S., & Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2016). American government (2nd ed.) [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., Jay, J., & Emory University. (1996). The federalist. Atlanta, Ga.: Emory University School of Law.
Kanol, D. (2016). The impact of democracy on interest group system institutionalization. Journal
Paulsen, M. S. (1994). The most dangerous branch: the Executive power to say what the law is. Geo LJ, 83, 217.
Rostow, E. V. (1952). The democratic character of judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 66(2), 193-224.
AP Archive. “USA: Washington: Waco Hearing: Janet Reno Testimony.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 21 July 2015. Web. 2 May 2017.
of Public Affairs, 16(4): 341–349. doi: 10.1002/pa.1594
Berg, O. (2011, July 5). 3 reasons why organizations need to increase transparency. CMSWire Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-collaboration/3-reasons-why-organizations-need-to-increase-transparency-011886.php
European Journal of Political Research, 51(1): 117–139. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01997.x
