emocratic politics struggles to balance individual and collective interest because of the collective action problem. The collective action problem is where each individual has private incentives and they may not want to participate in an action that benefits all members of the group (Samuels, p.29). What this means is that individuals rights are granted and guaranteed by the government therefore, it’s not mandatory in a democratic society for a person to vote per say because the government does not have the power to influence that person. The person who votes may benefit the collective interest of the population but when they don’t vote it could be for their personal reasons and that them not voting is beneficial for the common good. This then ties into Thomas Hobbes’ creation of the Leviathan theory.
Thomas Hobbes’ stated that the Leviathan also known as the sea monster is the representation of the State. Why he made this connection is that the Leviathan (sea monster) has the power over others and so does the state. Instead of individuals doing as they please the state is there to allow some freedom but also to give them law and order. Individuals are willing to limit some of their personal freedoms in order for their well-beings and for a sense of security and protection that the state would give them. The reason for them willingly giving up some of their freedoms is because of fear. He believes that self-interested individuals would consent to a social contract which is a political agreement that everyone agrees to limit their ability to do as they want in order to achieve some collective benefit (Samuels, p.32). What this means that the only way to limit this political struggle is that everyone in society agrees to collective needs. They as individuals must think of those around them in order to live safely and not in fear of consequences and chaos. This would limit their personal freedoms but give them a motive to live their life fear free.
With the Leviathan comes Prisoner’s Dilemma. What this dilemma is, there were two prisoners and they were both given motives. These motifs where that if they were to both confess they would get a lesser sentence for the crime that they committed. If they did not confess, then they would get the whole sentence but if one was to confess and the other didn’t then they would get no years and the other would get the full sentence (Samuels, p.29). This dilemma brings in the individual and collective interest because both criminals don’t have access to each other and they cannot work collectively in order to benefit each other. This works more on an individual level where they must do what is better for them and not the other. This is where the struggle between individual and collective interest in democratic politics comes in. People may decide just to ‘free ride’ of others because they don’t feel they need to do it. An example would be taxes, legally you have to pay taxes even when you don’t want to, but taxes pay for things that people use on a daily basis like health care and roads therefore they think, well I’ll make others pay for it so that I don’t have to waste my money. This is free riding depending on other people to benefit at a personal level instead of the common good. If it was the common good, then everyone would willing’s pay taxes and there would not be the need to put consequences of not paying them. This collective action problem would make choices interdependent because like stated above with the voting, the person who confesses may benefit for the collective beneift of the both prisoners but when they don’t confess it could be for their personal reasons or that them not confessing will be for the collective good. Same with the taxes it only benefits them and not society.
In the end democratic politics struggle to balance individual and collective interests because of personal freedom and the collection action problem. This is the case in Somalia. The state failed and without the state you cannot have a balance of individual and collective interest. Everything turns to chaos and people just think of themselves and not the common good and the higher people in Somalia are free-riding off those who have less power.
Bibliography :
Samuels,David J. Comparative Politics, Pearson, 2018
Balancing representation and the need for governability
James Madison and the Madison’s dilemma had a strong focus of the check and balance system. This system would not allow for one group to dominate over the other and this would not allow for over representativeness by a group. In the other way the less representativeness would not be beneficial to the population because they would not make decisions for the common good and they would be rushed. How this tension is addressed in modern day democratic regimes is by constitutional roles by the concentrate or disperse of political power by 1. Unitarism versus Federalism 2. Presidentialism vs parliamentary 3. Judicial review versus parliamentary supremacy and 4 majoritarian vs proportional (Samuels, p.81).
Firstly, unitarism this political system allows the central government to have total control over the policies that affect everyone. This political system concentrates the power at a national level, so they give one party who is in charge total control. Federalism is that more than two governments political authority over the same individuals in that country. This system tends to disperse the power instead of concentrating the power like unitarism. Federalism can focus more on the people while unitarism is giving control to one person or group of individuals.
Presidentialism is that both the executive and the legislative parts of the government have a separation of survival and origins. What this means is that these members of the government will sit for a fixed term and they are directly voted by the citizens of the country (Samuels, p.68). In a Parliamentary system there is the parliament and then they appointment the prime minister who then appointees a cabinet. They do not sit fixed terms like the presidential system and they can be relieved of their duties at any time. The presidential system tends to disperse the power, and this is where there is an over representativeness because the presidential system has a senate and a cabinet and is mostly composed of two parties that can vote either way they do not have to vote with their party so there aren’t many bills that pass because they can’t agree on it. Whereas in a parliamentary system there is a tendency to concentrate the power. This concentration of power is usually given to the party that has the majority government and they must vote with their party.
Judicial review is the notion that when a law or bill passes from the government the high courts of that country can stop that bill from actually passing (Samuels, p.73). In judicial review there is a dispersion of power this is good because James Madison and the Madison dilemma did not want all the authority to go to one party and that they would pass the laws that they want and not think about those around them and the population. This is a fair system that even though they pass the bill there is still the need for the high courts to go over them and if they see that they’re un-constitutional, or they’re not for the greater good they will not pass the bill which gives the protection to individuals. Parliamentary supremacy is that they will just agree with the bill and/or law and just pass it according to the majority in the parliament. This is concentration of power. This is what Madison feared because this is giving one power to a party that holds a majority government that would make all of the decisions for a party and move fast, and they would under represent the citizens and the citizen’s needs.
Plurality refers to when the candidate in an election gets the most votes in the riding or the election even if they won’t get a majority they still will have the most votes. Majority rule is when the candidate or the party gets more than 51of the votes and they must have that 51 in order to be a majority anything under is a minority. This has the tendency to concentrate power. Whereas proportional representation is when a party gets elected they get the number of seats proportional to the votes that they got. This has the tendency to disperse power along with mixed electoral rule which can combine plurality with proportional or majority and proportional.
In the end there are many ways in modern democratic regimes that this tension is addressed. Either with the concentration of power or the dispersion of power this tension can be seen.
Bibliography :
Samuels,David J. Comparative Politics, Pearson, 2018