Richard
In chapter 9 Shively focuses on the design of
government and the creation of a constitution. In this paper I will analyze Shively’s
two case studies; the “Constitutional Government in Great Britain,” and the
“Constitution-Writing in South Africa.” I will use Shively’s key concepts as
the basis for my paper; including Constitutional Design, Concentration of
Power, Guarantee of Rights, and Relation between Federal and Unitary States.
To
understand this chapter one must first define a constitution. According to
Google Dictionary, a constitution is defined as;
“…a
set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization
is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute,
what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single
document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down
in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.”
Simply put, a
constitution is a set of rules one uses to govern a group. This applies for
small organizations like a club or large organizations like a governing state
body. According to Shively the design of a constitution should have the
following; Long-Standing Tradition, Amenability, Incentive Compatibility, and
Resistance to Change. Shively believes that armed with these main concepts a
constitution can be designed to be both long lasting and near all encompassing.
Looking at the first case study
onthe British government I found it quite strange. There is no written
constitution of Britain, instead the British Government evolved from a
monarchy. In the early 12th century King John was seen as a poor
ruler. His unpopularity eventually gave way to a rebellion by several barons.
They forced him to sign the “Magna Carta,” which would become the basis of the
British constitution. Eventually the British monarchy lost most of not all
power leading instead to parliaments rise. The way the constitution works in Britain
is very unique. Rather than write down their governing laws they instead exist
through practice. The simple fact is that Parliament and the Prime Minister
hold the power over what is and is not State policy. Anything not ruled by them
is set in place by the precedence of the courts. The strangest thing about the
British Governing system is their checks and balances. The current British
Monarch is the only one capable of signing a bill into law, yet they have no
power to create the law, only the power to veto those laws brought up by
parliament that they see as not in the interest of the people. This along with
the unwritten laws that seem to govern the British through tradition and
experience make Britain utterly unique in its constitutional ideals and
practice.
The second case study looking at the
South African constitution is every bit as unique as the British one. In the
mid to late 1900’s the South African Government was under the control of the
10% white minority democracy. Blacks were not given citizenship and a general
segregation of race was rampant throughout the nation. The African National
Congress or ANC led by Nelson Mandela fought for equality through strikes,
boycotts, and bombings. Eventually Mandela was imprisoned and the activist action
met with excess violence similar to our own civil rights acts in the 60’s. In
the end the ruling whites realized that inner turmoil and outside international
pressure would destroy them and agreed to negotiation with Mandela for a full,
non-segregated democracy. The ANC, National Party, Inkatha Freedom Party, and
Freedom Alliance came together in 1990 to negotiate a constitution and the
method in which South Africa would transition to a full democracy. After three
years of disputes and even violence they came to a final agreement in 1993. The
South African government and the situations of racial segregation were the
result of generations of cultural divides as well as early slave trade. Today
the state policy of South Africa is one of the most all-encompassing in terms
of individual freedoms even going so far as to have outside agencies dedicated
to ensuring those freedoms and preventing any slip toward the segregations of
old.
In the end both case studies are
fine examples of Shively’s concepts. In terms of Britain; its unique unwritten
constitutional design, concentration of power in parliament, placement of a
monarch as a form of checks and balance on parliament, and Guarantee of Rights
through generations of trial and error. What makes this governing system even
more intense is its being formed through practice and transition from a
monarchy. As for the South Africa system; resistance to constitutional change
by multi-party system, extreme attention to individual rights even going as far
as outside agency watch dogs, and break up of centralized power into a
non-segregated democratic assembly. Not to mention that not twenty years before
they were a white minority controlled nation with extreme racial segregation
and major white supremacy. They fact that two extremely unique governing bodies
have achieved a successful and stable democracy is miraculous, and in my
opinion a hope for the betterment of mankind.
Works
Cited
"Google." Google.N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb.
2014.
Click Here To Get More on This Topic......
No comments:
Post a Comment