Mid-Term Examination: Part One

 

Name of Student:

 

Name of TA:

 

Date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 In what ways does the American federal system differ from unitary systems of government?

            In a federal government system, the distribution of power starts from the top where the national government relegates power to local governments. This is aimed at enabling them to also adopt their individual laws. The inclination by multinational states towards a federal system of government is with a view to avoiding political instability in addition to empowering different nationalities (Welch et al., 2011).  There are several multiple hierarchy levels in a federal system of government, and both the states and central authority hold sovereignty. However, state rules are superseded by national (central) rules. Nonetheless, a balance of power remains between them both. The constitution functions as the overriding law of the land and it serves the purpose of allocating rights, privileges and duties to both the central and state governments. The constitution clearly defines how the local, state, and national governments share power.

            An example of a country with a strong federal system in place is the United States. In the United States, the national government does not hold all the governing powers but only certain powers have been delegated to it. The states or the people have privilege over all other powers. This division of power between state and national government has been heralded for its key role in curtailing the growth of tyranny. 

            On the other hand, a unitary government is one in which the central authority holds the power, unlike in a federal government where power is shared between the state and national governments.  While the preference for federal government seems to be gaining popularity,  in contrast, a number of countries have either completely scrapped unitary systems of government, while others have sharply curtailed it (Bianco & Canon, 2013). A good example of a country with a strong unitary government is Great Britain. Here, power is decentralized in practice, and not in constitutional principle. The level of autonomy in unitary government differ significantly in other countries. For example, in France, another example of a country that practices the unitary system of government, the central government appoints certain members of local governments, and others are elected.    

How has the balance of power between state and federal governments evolved over time?

            For nearly 200 years, the balance of power between state and federal government appeared to have tilted towards national supremacy although a number of observers maintain that over the past two decades, state governments appear to have gained more power over the federal government (Feeley & Rubin, 2011).  Prior to the Great Depression and New Deal , there was a common tendency by experts to equate federalism to a layer cake. Then, the local, state, and national governments had separate and distinct responsibilities, akin to the “icing” on a cake. Each of the three levels of government reigned supreme over its own sphere. When a dispute arose between states and the national government, the Supreme Court stepped in to try and solve this dispute.

            However, this soon changed when Franklin Roosevelt became president. He ushered in the federal New Deal whereby the federal government appeared to gain dominance while state governments played the supportive role. It is only after President Richard Nixon came into power that there was an attempt to curtail the increased dominance of the federal government over state governments, in what was popularly known as “New Federalism”.

             In the 1960s, Congress would appropriate large number of grants to states and at the same time, impose specific conditions to states, such as being asked to make contributions that matches the federal funds (Bianco & Canon, 2013). When he assumed power, President Nixon supported a revenue sharing plan aimed at  returning federal money to states. Richard Nixon openly declared his willingness to empower states, while Ronald Reagan accused the federal government of eroding individual rights and freedoms.

            Ronald Reagan and George Bush also tried to contain this growth during their respective tenures in office.  President Reagan came up with the “New Federalism” movement aimed at empowering states.  The Reagan administration's budget and policies radically altered the relationship between the federal government and the states. Significant changes happened in 1994, after the Republicans has seized control of the two houses of Congress. In what was known as “devolution revolution”, the Republicans tried to return most roles to states ( Feeley & Rubin, 2011).

            More than 200 years later, the idea of proper balance of power between state and national governments remains viable.  It appears as thought the issue of states' rights is as controversial as ever, with some Americans divided about the laws that should be reserved for the federal government and which ones to relegate to the state government.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of states having a strong role in the American political system?

            There are several advantages of states having a strong role in the American political system. First, the fact that power remains at local levels means that states can also remain vocal politically at the national level (Bianco & Canon 2013). Secondly member states can easily corporate when dealing with issues of common concern even as they endeavor to uphold their individual and separate identities. On the other hand, when states have a strong role in the American political system, this could come with a few disadvantages.  First, gaining power by the states means that the central government becomes weaker, meaning that it can no longer effectively collect taxes or enforce laws.

 

 

 

Reference List

Bianco, W.T., & Canon, D.T. (2013). American Politics Today (Third Essentials Edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Feeley, M., & Rubin, E. (2011). Federalism: Political Identity and Tragic Compromise. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Welch, S., Gruhl, J., Rigdon, S., & Thomas, S. (2011). Understanding American Government. (13th Edition). Stamford, Mass.: Cengage Learning.