Blog Discussion Group One
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on September 24 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on September 27.
Politics, the State, and Nation.
1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
3. Some examples of states that have more than one nation are Afghanistan, Russia and Denmark, along with many others. I think that in some states it would be beneficial if the states broke up into separate states because in cases like Iraq and Turkey, the nations within the state have very different beliefs and values which can cause conflict in certain cases. However, there are also cases where states such as Denmark have little or no conflict between nations. I think that states that have multiple nations should be broken into separate states in some instances, but it varies from state to state and nation to nation.
ReplyDeleteMay need to sign in so your name will show up and the professor will be able to discern which post is attached to each person for grading purposes.
DeleteI was not signed in. Sarah Aukamp wrote this
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with the point where you talked about Iraq and Turkey having different beliefs and values that would bring conflict between the two nations.
Delete3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe United Kingdom, South Africa and India are examples of states with more than one nation. I believe that if the states broke up there wouldn't be much more conflict. In present day, Multinational states don"t share the same interests when it comes to religion, political views and materials. If the states broke into separate states they can have full control of their nation.
May need to sign in so your name will show up and the professor will be able to discern which post is attached to each person for grading purposes.
DeleteI was unknown. This is Tevin Usher post.
Delete1. Governments all over the world exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness, especially (at least according to Hague & Harrop) liberal democracies. A lot of these issues come from attempting to balance a plethora of concerns and interests. For example, The United States government is primarily made up of two competing parties. Within these two parties there are a wide-scope of different beliefs and ideologies. Every representative is influenced by a very diverse constituency. A constituency which is fairly unique to the rest of the entire country. They are also influenced by hundreds of powerful lobby groups, representing the interest of capital- a force almost always opposed to the interest of their constituents. Even when legislation is passed it still has to go through another chamber of Congress, and then to the President. During this process, amendments are tacked on which can change the nature of the bill entirely. If it is signed into law, then agencies have to figure out how to enforce it and begin the long work of restructuring bureaucracies, putting together paperwork, and working with states and individual governments. This cost tons of time and money. With all these concerns and laborious processes, it is no wonder that The United States’ liberal democracy, and those like it are very ineffective. In some senses this is woven into their design.
ReplyDeleteI believe these problems to be inherent to any large-scale government apparatus, but not to the act of governance in and of itself. The textbook asserts that government needs a sovereign state to be effective- but I highly disagree. There are areas of the world such as, Rojava, which have no state, but highly efficient government. Here, decisions are made through a mixture of direct democracy and a system called “Liquid Democracy,” which combines Representative and direct democracy. These systems function better because small groups meeting face-to-face can come to a consensus much easier than large bodies of representatives. From these small meetings, delegates can be selected to coordinate with surrounding communes, but they are instantly recallable and tied to their communities in a way that does not happen under liberal democracy. This proves that government can be effective, and that inefficient representative democracy is tied to centralized power structures more than democracy itself.
-Cade
I agree when there is a large body there tends to be too much "red tape' especially in Western Civilization on what can be said or discussed.
DeleteYou made a good point on "liquid democracy". Small group meeting are more efficient than larger ones appealing to listening to ideas.
Delete2. Every country in the world has nationalism, but some more than others. Nationalism comes in waves, and differs between leaders in the same country. At its base, Nationalism is purely political. National Identity means different things to different people so it’s hard to put a scale on exactly how nationalistic certain countries or people are. However, one way to understand National-ism is as a reaction to a perceived threat to a nation. More people bought American flags on 9/11 than any other day in American History, most Confederate statues were built many years after the Civil War in protest to civil rights movements, etc.
ReplyDeleteRecently, nationalism has been on the rise due to racism against immigrants. Displaced people moving into new areas are often seen as “threats” to a certain way of life, or culture. Thus, people react by defending what they perceive as their ‘nation’. This is certainly the case in the United States and much of Europe. When Donald Trump uses slogans like “Make America Great Again,” or “America First,” he is appealing to the perceived nation of White America. Even though this is never explicitly stated it is understood like a dog whistle amongst his supporters. They believe, either consciously or subconsciously that America is synonymous with whiteness and that immigrationis a fundamental threat. These people are actively more “nationalistic” than people who would not hold these views, and I believe it is fair to judge them as such.
However, I believe that nationalism is only harmful when used in this reactionary way or a way that reinforces that status quo of oppression. Movements such as Black Nationalism, represented by the Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, are fundamentally good movements since they are seeking the liberation of a marginalized groups. Black Nationalist do not view themselves as superior nor actively hurt other nations, but seeks to stop racism and oppression. This is why I believe national identity can be used for good but also in ways that can be destructive when used by people who only use it to hurt others.
I agree that every country has nationalism but as you said some use their nationalism for good and others for bad. White nationalism has been used to spread fear and hate among nonwhite communities. Other groups have used nationalism to uplift marginalized groups.
DeleteI agree with what you are saying that nationalism can be both positive and negative depending on how it is being used. I agree that when nationalism is used in the way you are describing Trump supporters that it can be dangerous because they see themselves as superior to those who are not as nationalistic. I also agree that there are some instances such as the ones you described, where nationalism can be a positive tool in organizing and seeking to stop oppression.
Delete3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
ReplyDeleteExamples of states with more than one nation is as followed:
1. North and South Korea would fall into this category. Even though that nation has people from the same ethnic group and share the same language the government differs.
2. Germany can be included as well. States of Germany include: Saxony, Brandenburg and Bavaria
3. Another example of a multistate Nation is the Kurds. The Kurdish nation can be found in: Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Armenia. According to ESSENTIALS OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS by Patrick H. O’Neil states that Syria and Iraq rank as #5 & #10 on the fragile state index of 2017. These areas are represented as having the worst conditions on a 10 point scale.
Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states?
One would need to consider if certain states are able to protect themselves without strong government protection or control. If these states were to separate and are considered to be fragile then it’s unlikely for those to govern & protect themselves independently.
ReplyDelete3. The United States is a great example of a state with more than one nation. The United States is made up of many ethic and national identities spread all throughout the country. Because the United States was founded by White settlers through massacre and violence, the “White” nation is often just seen as the default nation of the US, but within its borders the United States contains multitudes of other nations. Some of the largest of these include Indiginous, Black (New Afrikan), Mexicano, Puerto Rican, and many other marginalized nations and identities. These people are spread in diasporas all over the country as well as everywhere in between.
Many people who find national identity within these nations already have very developed social movements. One shining example of this would be the New Afrikan movement. This movement, made up of different Black Power organizations and thinkers believes that the Southern United States should be given to Black people as reparations for slavery. This country would be majority Black and called New Afrika.
While I believe this is a worthy goal, I am not sure of the practicality. The United States would not acquiesce to such a goal without widespread conflict. I am not sure how any secession movement would be able to challenge the largest military in the world without getting wiped out. In addition, it would be very complicated to stop counter-revolution from Southern whites who did not want to become part of New Afrika.
I think it is important and good for oppressed people to have more self-determination. I do not know if this is possible for these nations under a country that has built its legacy on violence and marginalization. I believe it would be good for the world for the United States to dissolve and be replaced by autonomous but interconnected regions, but I do not know exactly how this would take place, as there is no framework or large political will for it right now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesome countries in my opinion are much more nationalistic than others. A prime example of a country that is nationalistic is Russia. Putin forces many of the people of Russia to do things not traditional to many other countries, especially with athletes. It is going to be difficult for nationalism to be fixed or changed due to how relevant nationalism is in many countries.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I believe some countries and world leaders are more nationalistic than others. For example, in Russia you can see that Putin is very nationalistic. You can see in the academy award winning document, "Icarus" where you can see that Putin forced athletes to dope in order to make Russia appear superior. This is far different from the United States right now, where the country seems to be split because of the political issues, and this is causing people to be worried about the country's current state.
ReplyDelete2.
ReplyDeleteI believe that every nation that declares to be self-determined by governing itself would have slight elements of nationalism. While reading from Hague and Harrop, I learned that nationalism might not be altogether a bad thing. The book describes nationalism as merely a doctrine that nations have a right to determine their own destiny. Where we get in trouble with this type of thinking, however, is when it gets too concentrated.
The most significant example I can think of right now is the rise in White Nationalism over the past few years in America. The "America First" mentality is being convoluted as white-America first, which goes against the defining characteristic of America. I think this attitude stems from an irrational fear that the different or other is dangerous and will change everything for the worse.
What we can do about this problem, in my opinion, is to educate the people who have let their nationalistic ideologies go too far. If they know more about the people that are being villainized, I think they will find the humanity within them and include them in a broader nationalism.
I definitely agree that nationalism is not always a bad thing. I think that when it is used to feel superior or hurt other people, such as White Nationalism is when it is bad. I agree that more needs to be done to educate people and help them see diversity as important. I wonder if white supremacy/racism really goes against the defining characteristic of America as you say. I believe that we as Americans hold certain values up such as equality, but as a state have never really lived up to our ideals. After all, America was founded on the genocide of indigenous people and built to prosperity by slaves. I would be interested to know how you think America's past affects the nationalism that you mentioned.
DeleteA good example of states with more than one nation would be North Korea and South Korea and France and Germany. I would only say that they would need to break up if they are able to protect themselves from their enemies as well as having a strong government.
ReplyDeleteKeely
1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
ReplyDeleteConsensus is perhaps the biggest challenge in a democracy. When working to transcend faiths, ethnicity, cultures, and experiences in different regions, consensus is hard to achieve. Since our representatives in government are reflective of this diversity (supposedly), naturally the challenge is amplified when power and partisanship is introduced to these leaders. But the difficulty of consensus could also be lessened to a degree because there are fewer people making the decisions that affect all of us in an organization such as Congress. However, the issue of consensus becomes null and void when compared to a dictatorship. This style of government makes consensus easy since one "leader" makes decisions for everyone.
Another part of the problem of having efficiency can be seen in the sheer size of governments. It takes a lot of people to organize and fulfill the duties of the federal government in the United states, but elsewhere as well. In an example more specific to the United States, the Foundation for Economic Education reports that:
"At the present time, there is one government employee in domestic services for every 5.5 workers in private employment, with a ratio of 1:9.3 twenty years ago. More individuals were added to government service in these twenty years than in the preceding 163 years since the founding of the United States" (Brownfield 1977).
Now for a frame of reference this quote is over 40 years old, but this fact should indicate that many governments, including the US, have had problems of efficiency for a long time. People need representatives, and the more people there are, the more representatives are needed; then and now. The fact that governments are such large bodies of people should indicate the complexity of thought systems, beliefs and values that exist even within the organization of government as well. When one considers protocol, practices, paperwork and how it all falls under the responsibility of governments, it is no wonder governments struggle to remain up to date.
While I believe some of these problems are inherent to government, not all may be. I would like to think that through the kind of rigorous corporate research, team building, and steps the private sectors have taken in studying how organizations can be more efficient, governments may improve. As George said in class last week, if the inequalities of resources is solved for the most part in the world, then perhaps one day an international government can exist. It will then most certainly have to be efficient to represent all people in all places.
Source:
Allan Brownfield.1977."The Inherent Inefficiency of Government Bureaucracy." Foundation for Economic Education. Accessed September 23. https://fee.org/articles/the-inherent-inefficiency-of-government-bureaucracy/.
Ethan Wickliff wrote this^
DeleteThank you for your post, Ethan. I agree with you on the fact that government systems are complex due to the large number of people that live within the government with different belief or value systems. It makes it hard to come to a consensus quickly with the long process that comes with doing so, such as passing bills through the Congress to finally make it a law. There is a lot of thought and consideration that comes with it all.
DeleteBased on my reading and understanding of Essentials of Comparative Politics, a state’s capacity and autonomy helps in explaining their areas of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. A state’s capacity and autonomy can be measured through the specific issues in hand and cannot be assumed in just a broad/ overall context of the state; there is also a state’s legitimacy and centralization that describes their inefficiency in working the government. These concepts definitely connect with your point of the complexities of systems within a state. I also agree that with more rigorous research, some of the problems can be solved but once again, we are also dealing with a wide group of people with different beliefs and values so it won't be possible to avoid problems due to the complexities that come with it.
3) States like India and China have more than one nation. I would argue that states should be broken up into separate states based on the circumstances and situations for each country. In this case, it would be best for states to break up into separate one if the state does not respect- and does not plan on doing so either- the self-determination or the cultural lifestyle of the several nations that exists within that state.
ReplyDeleteIndia is a country that has more than one nation, such as the Kashmiris, the Gurkhas, the Nagas, the Sikhs, and the Mizos. These are nationalities within India that speak a different language and live a different culture that do not quite fit the “typical” Indian culture. In fact, they (mainly the northeast Indians and the Kashminirs) are not treated the same by the typical Indo-Aryan person. Different nationalities have their own demands and circumstances which makes it hard to come to one conclusion about whether it is best to become a separate state. India takes great pride in being a multinational country and with that image, I believe that it would be best for them to respect the rights and demands of the nations within. And although I believe there are more benefits towards staying as one state, for the nations and the Indian state, I would not argue against the creation of separate states if India does not choose to resolve the issues that led to the conflicts themselves.
Similarly, China is a country with more than one nation, with regions of Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and East Turkestan. As a Tibetan person myself, I can attest that there are several Tibetans-in-exile that call for a separate state but there are also some who believe that Tibet should not have to be a separate state, as long as the Chinese government does grants autonomy and basic human rights to the Tibetan people. The Tibetans already have their own government-in-exile, that definitely is not as strong as the Chinese government. If the Chinese Communist Party continues to violate the rights of the Tibetans, it would be beneficial for the Tibetans to just have their own separate state with most of the land that belongs to them (which most likely would not happen). A similar situation goes for the Uyghurs and the Inner Mongolians.
As idealistic as it may sound, it would be best for states to have a system that allows for the harmonious coexistence of the multiple nations within, without having to resort to creating a whole separate new state for the nations (although the nations may demand to secede regardless).
https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/problem-of-nationalities-in-india-dv-raos-views
"Some scholars have concluded that India has managed to created multiple and complementary identities that have strengthened, not weakened, democracy" (Essentials of Comparative Politics, 71).
DeleteI was not signed in, but this post was made by me.
DeleteI think that it's interesting to see multi-nation states tend to be very big countries. I have seen a couple people on this blog share their opinion that it might be better for them to split up, and I think that does make sense. With so much land and so many people, it could be easier to find leaders that are more representative of a smaller sect of people. Possibly broken up by different factors such as farming, economics, religion, etc.
Delete3.) One example of states having more than one nation would be Europe. In specific, Germany in the 1600's experienced a 30 years war revolving around religion. This conflict was between he Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire. At first, this war began as a simple conflict over religion; this war then expanded for numerous years debating which state should govern all of Europe. In my opinion, these two states should have stayed separated to keep each state's beliefs in one place instead of having to wage war on which religion will rule the whole country of Germany. The Treaty of Westphalia suggested that states were free to direct religion within their own territory(O'Neil, 44). In reality, if these two states were to leave one another alone the war would not have taken place; therefore, there would have been no motive to come to the conclusion that war will resolve this problem in order for people to be killed over what their beliefs are.
ReplyDeleteI was logged in but Ellis Stokes^
Delete