Short Answer Questions
1. Minority nationalism is a phenomenon that exists in minority communities within larger, more homogenous populations. For instance, in China, most of the population is Han Chinese, but the minority groups are very cloistered and self-contained. These types of groups can also be seen in the United States and Europe, within cities or countries that have relatively sequestered minority populations (Bale 2013).
In places where there is a large majority population and a number of smaller, less well-represented populations, minority nationalism is a form of self-defensive nationalism (Bale 2013). In countries where democratic parties are often split down ethnic or cultural lines, minority nationalism can help protect the minority groups against the potential oppression of the majority group or groups.
3. There are two main methods for group participation in politics: the unconventional methods and the conventional methods of participation. Unconventional methods of participation in politics is, as the name implies, unconventional; this type of participation often challenges long-held beliefs or norms regarding government and existing governmental structures (Siaroff 2003). On the other hand, conventional participation is the type of participation in government that is seen in one’s day-to-day life; things like voting, canvassing, and so on are types of conventional participation in politics.
4. Fragmentation is the term used when a group splinters apart; in political parlance, this may mean that the group has fractured entirely, or that part of the group has taken a different tack with an issue than the official party line of the group (Bale 2013). Polarization is what occurs when two groups become completely disengaged from each other, often taking completely different opinions on nearly all issues. Fragmentation within a party can easily cost a political party an election or a crucial vote on a particular issue; polarization can cause stagnation and stalemate in legislative government.
5. A minimal winning coalition is a group that a politician (or group of politicians with similar goals and ideas) forms to ensure a winning result in some kind of vote (Bale 2013). In short, the minimal winning coalition is formed to ensure that the politicians have the minimal number of votes or heads necessary to ensure a winning result for themselves or their particular issue; according to the theory of the minimal winning coalition, it is logical for the politician to develop a coalition that is large enough to win, but no larger than those needed to win (Bale 2013).
In Europe, the governments are often made up of a number of different political groups with different agendas. Often, these agendas are at odds with each other; to serve their purposes, politicians must form coalitions to reach their goals (Bale 2013, Döring 1995). Many states are not minimal winning coalitions because there are too many parties; Döring notes, for instance, that the number of parties necessary to form a winning coalition in the Flemish system has risen to four from two.
8. Judicial review is the power that the courts have to review the decisions of the executive and legislative branches of government. It is a way to protect the integrity of the political process, and ensure that there is minimal corruption and poor decision-making being done in the government. In Europe, judicial review sometimes becomes secondary to popular democracy: in many cases in a number of different European nations, the people can vote on different referendums and check the power of the government, rather than leaving it to the judicial branch to do so (Döring 1995). However, there are some nations in Europe that still utilize judicial review; it is just much less heavily utilized than in countries like the United States where popular referendums do not exist as a policy option for the people.
Long Answer Question
There are a few important factors to consider when developing an advanced Western state. The first thing to consider is the type of government that this state will use; a type of democracy is ideal, but deciding upon what type of democracy to use is the next step. Using a direct representative democracy like that of Switzerland seems to be the best option, as it gives the people much more input and say in their government than if the country utilizes a system like the electoral college in the United States.
In this hypothetical democracy, the executive-- a President rather than a Prime Minister-- will be elected by popular vote. There will be no official party system for the nation, but formation of parties is probably inherently unavoidable in any given political system; people have a tendency to seek out others with the same political viewpoints. The legislative branch will also be made of elected officials, with a two-house system that encourages checks and balances within the country and the legislature. The executive branch can check the power of the legislature with a veto power, but the people of the country also have the power to veto (or sign into law) legislation via the referendum system.
This referendum system allows the people to be heard more efficiently; although electing officials is the first step in a democratic nation, keeping those officials accountable to the feelings of the people can be difficult. By allowing the people of the country to introduce pieces of legislation into law by referendum-- the amount of people needed for a referendum must change based on the size of the country, of course-- this keeps elected officials much more engaged with their constituency, and avoids the need for extensive judicial review.
This would be the best combination of institutions for a hypothetical government because it addresses a number of issues that many governments have. First, by not encouraging a party system or writing a party system into the government, it encourages third, fourth, fifth, and so on party systems-- multiparty systems often necessitate cooperation and coordination in government (Döring 1995). Next, the lack of party means that the legislature and executive branch do not need to be at odds with each other if they are of different parties, since different parties will be the norm in this hypothetical nation.
Next, in eliminating the need for extensive judicial review-- not all judicial review, but extensive judicial review-- this hypothetical democracy reduces the issue of leaving large moral and ethical questions to a single individual or a group of individuals, thus better protecting the rights and interests of the people in the country. Protecting the rights and the interests of the citizenry should be the goal of a democracy or a democratic republic, and these institutions and features most accurately reflect that worthy goal. Disallowing corruption and encouraging political engagement of the citizenry would make this hypothetical democracy an excellent choice for a nation.
Works cited
Bale, Tim. European politics. Basingstoke [etc.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Online.
Bomberg, Elizabeth E, John Peterson and Richard Corbett. The European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Online.
Döring, Herbert. Parliaments and majority rule in western Europe. Frankfurt: Campus, 1995. Online.
Gunther, Gerald. "The Subtle Vices of the" Passive Virtues"--A Comment on Principle and Expediency in Judicial Review." Columbia Law Review, (1964): 1--25. Online.
Siaroff, Alan. "Varieties of parliamentarianism in the advanced industrial democracies." International Political Science Review, 24. 4 (2003): 445--464. Online.
