Question 1
Comparative politics is a science that seeks to analyze or measure the level goodness, or otherwise, of a government regime. It systematically analyzes the nature of these governing authorities through comparison with other regimes that exist in the world. This means that the science seeks to highlight the patterns, similarities and differences among various regimes. However, this field of study is not purely a science; or rather, it is difficult to classify it as science due to several reasons. First, a science requires the carrying out of experimental research to determine the authenticity of preset hypotheses. Comparative politics involves parameters that are difficult to measure. This is because politics is a very subjective area of study.
Science requires the variation of independent variables to determine their effect on certain factors. For politics, the variables that determine the outcome cannot be manipulated. This is especially so because one cannot determine the policies and manner of governance that a certain regime will implement. The unpredictable nature of the outcome of various modes of governance limits the study of comparative politics as a science. This means that researchers cannot come up with principles or laws that can be applied to a nation that opts to use a certain mode of governance. Research shows that this unpredictable nature is closely related to the subjectivity of this field. Furthermore, experiments concerned with politics cannot be modeled in a laboratory. This is a crucial area of people’s lives and subjecting the operation of certain regime to manipulation may turn out to be catastrophic. The effects are irreversible and hence researchers are forced to work with historical data on past regimes. They use such data to draw pattern and possible conclusions.
Question 2
States exist to enable the devolution of funds and development to all areas of the country. The idea came to solve the problem that arose with the existence of a central system of government. Only certain areas of the country benefited from development ventures. Remote and rural areas never received any fruit of economic development. People from such areas felt isolated and neglected by the government. The country’s GDP belonged to a few elite individuals and meant little to most of the normal people struggling to make ends meet. Therefore, to increase equity in the country and to ensure optimum redistribution of wealth, the state system was set up. This involved the establishment of smaller governments that catered for the needs of the people in a state. This encourages the locals to work harder in their day-to-day businesses as the government ensured adequate provision of infrastructure and social amenities.
However, much as the country has become accustomed to the use of states in governance, it is possible for people to do without them. This is especially so if the reigning regime has sufficient controls on the disbursement of funds to all areas of the country. However, in the absence of such controls the state system is the best option of governance, especially in large countries. The states allow for easy governance. However, they are disadvantageous when it comes to the freedom to have different rules and constitutions. This results in an element of disunity. If this system were to disappear, it would probably be replaced by a system that distinguishes the states as independent countries comprising a larger political unit. Such a political unit would have no trade barriers, free movement of citizens but different rules and governments.
Question 3
Authoritarian rule is the dictating of governance by a small minority or even a single person. It is best manifested in dictatorship and in some monarchies. This kind of rule may be slightly beneficial if the leader is a good economist. This may result in economic growth of the country. However, this form of leadership should never be legitimate. This is because of the massive infringement of people’s rights that occur due to lack of a democracy. Furthermore, there are no checks for errors, poor decision-making and misappropriation of public funds. This means that the efficiency of most public bodies would be poor and wastage would be at an all-time high. Legitimizing such a kind of governance would discourage any form of innovation and kill the growth that spurs from competition.
All people should live under a democracy. This is because system represents the interests of the majority. The rights of citizens are most pronounced under this form of governance. Democracies encourage the challenging of decisions made by the ruling government. This ensures that the views of the citizens are represented and misappropriation of funds is kept minimal or avoided completely. Various benefits accrue from having most countries as democracies. Business partnerships and trade agreements can be forged among such democracies. This promotes national development and raises the standards of living. However, in some instances democracies may result in some form of mob rule. This is especially so when formation of certain cartels limits the equal representation of people’s opinions (the minority) and preferences. Furthermore, democracies may allow neglect of the subject matter of a point of discussion due to emphasis on the strength of numbers. People may support views that they do not fathom.
Question 4
One of the main reasons why communism failed is because it was impossible for one to own private property. This move was supposed to encourage equality and discourage embezzlement of public funds for private use. However, this ignored the fact that ownership of private property encourages people to work harder. Citizens were to work on land, rear animals and grow crops that belonged to the state. This was very demotivating especially since it was impossible for one to reap the fruit of one’s labor. Furthermore, there were very many limitations on freedom of worship. This limited people’s freedom of religion and expression. Although the system provided free social amenities and food, the standard of living was very low. Life without freedom is not as enjoyable as one with freedom, even with the availability of basic needs.
Communism sucked ambition out of people’s lives. It was compulsory to work and impossible to enjoy even the smallest of luxuries. This was demotivating and frustrating. This made many people feel imprisoned and trapped in a vicious and lifeless cycle. Corruption was synonymous to communism due to the lack of capitalistic competition. The economy and education system become crippled by corruption and performance no longer become a determinant of being successful. These were some of the flaws in the principles of communism. Its high level of strictness resulted in wastages and corruption. The onus of the failure of this system does not rest squarely on the shoulders of those in power. Employees at each level became corrupt since this as the only way to become rich and make something for oneself. In view of all these flaws, communism could not deliver on its theoretical aspects because it ignored the role of freedom and ambition in personal and state development.
