Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
Is Pluralism Faithful to the Idea of Democracy?
Is Pluralism Faithful to the Idea of Democracy? This broad question can be asked in a few different ways to help us decipher what its intention is, and also to provide a rough guide to the path to be taken to answer it. Can the existence of pluralism be said to also mean the existence of democracy? Is pluralism the closest we can get to democracy, for the type of societies we live in today (in the West)? Or, is pluralism a diluted form of democracy, in the classical sense, which does not meet the definition of 'rule by the people'? Without turning the investigation into a question of definitions it is necessary, before we embark, to briefly say a few words about the two key concepts in the question: pluralism and democracy. Since the inception of the term, Robert Dahl has been one of the most prominent pluralists. He, and his contemporaries, sought to theorise the 'actual' workings of democracy in a modern society. They documented objectively what is achievable in modern societies as opposed to theories of 'classic', or 'populist', democracy (Dahl, 1956, ch.2). For brevity's sake, we will use the broad definition given by Hague and Harrop: Literally 'rule by the many', pluralism refers to a political system in which numerous competing interest groups exert strong influence over a responsive government. However, each of these groups concentrates on its own area (for
Are pressure groups good for Democracy?
Are pressure groups good for Democracy? Whether or not pressure groups are good for democracy depends if their activity is looked at in negative or positive terms. Most recently pressure groups have been subject to a lot of criticism in recent years for reasons such as the "iron triangle" and having too much power. However others contest that pressure groups are indeed good for democracy and help the process because they provide congressmen with specialist knowledge and enhance political participation for the members of the public in and between elections. Pressure groups could be argued to be good for democracy as they provide legislators with specialist knowledge. Some may think this is not necessary as Congressmen have their own 'staffers', however the interest groups can offer detailed or technical knowledge that they would otherwise lack. This could be in the form of feedback about reaction in the country to government polices and proposals for legislation. There have, however, been suggestions that the increase of pressure groups within recent years has led to a decline in their usefulness as sources of information. It has been argued that Congressmen are increasingly uncertain about which group has credibility and deserves attention and in turn means that they do not want to be associated with them. This means that pressure groups are not necessarily good for
Evaluate the reasons for and against the use of primary elections in the selection of presidential candidates
Primaries essay Evaluate the reasons for and against the use of primary elections in the selection of presidential candidates Primary elections are elections held before the presidential election used to determine which candidates from each party would be competing in the presidential election. Primaries come in varying degrees of participation. There are closed primaries, which allow members affiliated to a party to participate. This gives more choice than the caucuses, which reserve this choice to party members only. There are also open primaries, which allow party members to vote either Republican or Democratic regardless of their party affiliation. The widest level of participation is the result of a blanket primary which allows all constituents to vote whether they are affiliated to a party or not. The alternative to using primary elections to elect presidential candidates is the caucus system whereby the vote for a candidate was reserved to party members only. Only some states still use this system such as Iowa and North Dakota. It could be said that the use of primary elections enhances the democratic process. Primaries have been known to encourage political involvement, voters feel that they can play an active role in the decision making process and as a result turnout at presidential elections have increased. This was seen in the state of Michigan from
Examine the extent to which Nietzsche’s ideas provide a coherent alternative to liberal democracy.
Examine the extent to which Nietzsche's ideas provide a coherent alternative to liberal democracy. The work of Friedrich Nietzsche offers a very different form political philosophy from those works that liberal democracies worldwide have built themselves around. It is perhaps this alternative view of the world that has lead to such a great interest in his works. A closer review of the practical nature of the ideas put forward however may suggest that the ideas may not be able to form a coherent alternative to liberal democracy. It can be argued that the main ideas on which liberal democracy are based are the notion of a social contract, a belief in progress, the faith placed in material wealth, human rights, equality and of course a belief in democracy (Owen 1995 p5). At some stage during his writings Nietzche attacked all of these aspects. Nietzsche sights that the whole political process is just a mask to cover the will of political leaders to gain power for themselves thus making Liberal Democracy a sham. The main focus of Nietzsche's political writing is on the idea that politics is simply a way for people to exercise power over others (Clark 2000 p139). For Nietzsche all human activity is used to provide people with the feeling of power, for example the gaining of knowledge is only done in order to feel that you have more knowledge than others thus you feel more
Supreme Court Power (right to privacy)
The Supreme Court is a peculiar organization in American politics. Our representative democratic government specifically reserves substantial authority for a judicial body that is not elected or subject to popular recall. The Supreme Court has substantial authority for a judicial body that is not elected or subject to popular recall and I believe that the Supreme Court has shown time and time again that it has the up-most intentions on using this authority wisely. "Above the west portico of the Supreme Court building are inscribed the words EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. At the opposite end of the building above the east portico, are the words JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY." (Janda, Berry, and Goldman, 2008: 433). The Supreme Court is faced every day with the incredible task of upholding the Constitution and making sure that both justice and freedom are the basis for every decision they make. On average, the Supreme Court only accepts between 110-130 cases a year, that's between 1-2% of all cases proposed to them. Of those 110-130 cases, nearly every one of them has gone through both State and Federal courts to reach the Supreme Court's docket. A case usually makes it to the Supreme Court level because it touches on issues that are not clearly defined in the Constitution and it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret that particular issue in a manner they see best fit
'Nehru is responsible both for the achievements of Indian democracy as well as its flaws.'
'Nehru is responsible both for the achievements of Indian democracy as well as its flaws.' Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of independent India. He was a man of vision and maybe an innovator in his handling of foreign policy. He wanted to give an international influence to India. He wanted his country to play an eminent role in the international sphere by being an important economic and political power, a global force. This idea globalisation seemed to be far fetched at the time of the Indian independence, but today this conception is well reflected in the growing between countries economies'. India has been known for a long time as the 'largest democracy of the world' with now nearly one billion of inhabitants. We will try to understand to what extent was Nehru responsible for the achievements of Indian democracy, and on the other hand we will try to appreciate how some of his policies failed to succeed. Even in a modern India where Information Technology and Nuclear Power possession can be compared to the first worlds' standards, India is a country where disparities and inequality are substantially visible. Nehru said : ' India's tryst with destiny had happen' to welcome the independence. His will was to eliminate poverty and illiteracy, to provide quality medical care and equal opportunities to all. In fifty years of independence, what has the Indian
Research Project - Efficiency of the parliament as a legislative branch in Russia.
Westminster International University in Tashkent Research Methods 2011 - 2012 To be completed by the student Student's ID number 00001403 Module name RM Module code UZB505 Tutor Jahongir Khaydarov Individual assignment V Group assignment ( Submission deadline 2.12.2011 For Academic Registrar use only Efficiency of the parliament as a legislative branch in Russia. Abstract: Since the fall of Soviet Union and until now Russian economic and political systems are changing. The old system was not effective enough to compete with modern world market. And whole population of ex Soviet Union wanted freedom and full protection of their rights. They wanted to have a right to choose political party, to play at least small influential role in political live of their homeland. And with the new government people finally witnessed these changes through Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993. Since that time Russia started a transition to new democratic system. This transition was going really hard, as everybody know, 1990s were a harsh times for all aspects of life, for politics, economics, social life. But after Boris Eltsin, the new president had come. And then, I could say that chaos stopped. Putin started to restore the order with Parliament. One of the most important parts of Constitution of the Russian Federation is chapter 5, which is about Federal
As Soon As Deng Xiaoping Gained Political Power of China In 1978, a Better and Brighter Future Was In Store For the Chinese People.
As soon as Deng Xiaoping gained political power of China in 1978, a better and brighter future was in store for the Chinese people. Deng promised the people a free land with a modern economic state in order to gain public support. During Deng's reign, a series of economic reforms were made. These reforms had major impacts on both Chinese economy and society. Although historians have argued that Deng was leading a totalitarian regime, they tend to overlook the idea that the Chinese have different ideologies and morals than people in the west. Chinese intellectuals who looked to the west as a model for democracy absorbed themselves into the western culture, and believed that everything that China stood for was 'backward.' This view of the Chinese society forced the people to hold resentments against Deng, which led to Democratic uprisings and movements. Deng wanted to create a better economy for the Chinese people to live in according to Chinese values, but society did not see it this way as an inflow of western attitudes and beliefs had been embedded into their minds. He knew that China's problems were coming from within the political system and so he attempted to solve them. However, Deng resorted to ruling an authoritarian regime rather than a democratic regime when he realized that these problems could not be solved. After 1978, China's society faced a whole new
Does the focus upon Biblical thought, Republicanism, and Liberalism present a convincing case for the concept of American Exceptionalism?
Does the focus upon Biblical thought, Republicanism, and Liberalism present a convincing case for the concept of American Exceptionalism? POLS 217 - The American Presidency Banner Code: 08 20902 Seminar Tutor: Dr Robert Watt Student ID: 1024193 The principle of Exceptionalism stems from the idea that America is 'unique', in so much that the feudal histories of Europe are not a factor in the workings of the USA; America's roots as a British colony that gained its independence through revolution (McKay, 2007: 41), only to become the global hegemony only emphasis how the state was "created differently, developed differently, and thus has to be understood differently" (Lipset, 1991: 1, Shafer, 1991: v). Biblical thought, Republicanism and Liberalism are all key concepts embraced throughout the history of the USA and the understanding of them is integral to the understanding of American culture and the growth of its political system. This essay is going to analyze the idea that the concept of American Exceptionalism, strictly in the form of being 'unique', is rooted in the three aforementioned elements of American thought and will attempt to conclude whether a convincing case for Exceptionalism can be formed from them. Overall, each of the three elements that are potentially the basis of Exceptionalism may have specific points that give a case for this concept of 'uniqueness'