Monday, August 28, 2017

Why Does the American Form of Government Work?

Why does the American form of government work?
“The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other” (Federalist 10).

Madison warns against the threat of majority faction, as it could threaten the rights of the minority. He claims that direct democracy is not the solution, as it is easily susceptible to a majority faction, and instead, he offers the solution of republican government. By “extending the sphere” to “take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” it is more difficult to subvert the minorities. Rather than having one single majority faction, he suggests a more economically and politically diverse republic, which will proliferate. With an influx of varied interests and concerns, no one group can tyrannize others. Under this new system of government, people are less likely to “have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” and “act in unison with each other.”

“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.”

Madison suggests the implementation of the theory of separation of powers in Federalist 51, as to contrive “a due foundation” for America’s government. He proposes a government comprised of three branches - executive, legislative, and judiciary. By partitioning power amongst various departments of the government, each are prevented from interfering in or encroaching on the affairs of the other. He emphasises the independence of each department, writing that these “channels” should have “no communication whatever with one another.”

2 comments:

  1. I appreciate both the summarization and analysis of the segments, and agree with your breakdown of the passage. You used keyword analysis to emphasize how the author stated what the American Government is to be like and what it requires to function. I agree that Madison believed in people coming together and uniting as a whole, he believed that was the only way society could work. However, he did not want people to unite under a uniform idea. He believed that the more ideas, the more intellectual discussion and argument the more the more developed and successful the government would be. More ideas mean more chances for success. That's why he also encouraged each branch of the government to remain its own and maintain their ideals and methods, still in check with the other powerful member of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your use of keyword analysis helps to strengthen your argument for both quotes. I agree with your analysis of Madison's motivation for the three separate branches of government and his preference for having a population with a diverse set of ideals. Finally, I like how clear your analysis is for both of the quotes and how that contributed to the strength of your argument.

    ReplyDelete