The prevailing federalism system of governance in the United States of America serves the nations interest sufficiently compared to the two other forms of government, that is the Unitary and Confederal systems. Notably, government is the backbone of a nation’s administration through which policies and affairs of the state are conducted. This paper seeks to analyze in depth the characteristics of the three major forms of governance, the nation states in which they are currently prevailing, and their advantages and disadvantages. This way, we will arrive at a conclusive statement why federalism suits the U.S. The ensuing paragraphs give detailed characteristics of each form of government.
Under a unitary system of government, the constitution of the land allocates abundant powers to the national government (Welch 68). Regional entities of governance such as counties and provinces run their affairs following guidelines issued by the national unitary government, which assigns powers held by local government entities. In addition, the unitary government can opt to delegate legislative responsibilities to the regional entities to govern themselves. However, it should be noted that in case of conflict between legislative requirements of the national and regional authorities, the former legislation is the one that prevails and should be regarded as the law. In a unitary form of governance, the nation’s leader has the powers to appoint the mayor of a town or a governor of a region. National governments in the world that are organized this way include France, Great Britain, Bolivia, and Cuba. For instance, in Great Britain, counties can be compared to states in the U.S. However, the two differ in that leaders of the Great Britain counties are supposed to report to the central government located in London. However, in the U.S. case, governors of the states do not report to the Federal government headquarters located in the Washington D.C. Under a unitary form of governance, the advantages include having uniform laws, policies, and administration throughout the whole nation (Welch 72). There exist fewer cases of conflict between the local and national government. The country is likely to experience stability and greater level of unity. Apparently, this form of governance has its own limitations. These include the fact that the unitary government is likely to be out of touch with the reality and concerns of the people at the grass root level. Therefore, formulation of relevant laws and policies that are designed to streamline administration at the grassroots takes ages to implement.
Next, we analyze the confederate system of government. Under this form of governance, power is concentrated majorly in the independent nations that unite to form this form of administration. These independent states are the ones that legitimize the existence of the national government by according it only adequate power needed to enforce security and run basic activities in the less developed states that are part of the confederation. Precisely, it should be noted that under a Confederal system, the states are the main power holders as opposed to a unitary system. A Confederal system is established when countries unite and agree unanimously that they are in a better position to solve problems facing their citizens if they work together (Jefferson 18). Signing of a constitution or a treaty is a common move by the nations in which agree to trade together freely without imposing restrictive tariffs. The nations may also agree to defend each other in case war erupts between a member nation of the confederation and a non-member state. In addition, the United Nations may also agree to use a common currency. Notably, the members join the confederation voluntarily and they can leave at will anytime. Decisions passed by the confederation are not binding laws unless all members agree and sign to this unanimously. This form of governance is not a common occurrence in this twenty-first century because it presents several challenges (Opeyemi 270). For instance, the Confederal government has little powers resulting from the high membership by states that must agree unanimously in every raised issue. Each member has a veto and can use it to oppose any legislation viewed not to be in its interests. Not surprisingly, Confederal governments are week because of the challenges involved in getting unanimous agreement on issues at hand that need to be addressed (Opeyemi 271).
The Federal System of Government
A mix of state and the national governments characterizes the federal system of government (Dickerson and Thomas 331). Federalism is a form of governance that seeks to organize a nation’s administration so that two or more levels of government wield formal authority over the same people occupying a given area or region (Welch 68). However, it should be noted that this form of government wields balanced power between the federal and state governments. When conflicting guidelines arise between the state and the federal government legislation, the latter guidelines prevail over the former. The constitution describes clearly the responsibilities, duties, and rights of the states and the central government. Though the central government can wield so much power in this form of governance, it does not possess the ability to appoint leaders (governors) of the states nor dissolve these states. The power to change the Constitution lays with the states and directly with the people through their representatives who occupy various positions in the national government, for instance, senatorial and congressional seats (Dickerson and Thomas 336). Nations that employ this form of governance include Canada, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States.
The central government holds the responsibility of controlling trade policies in areas that involve the interaction between states, for instance the highway systems (Dickerson and Thomas 331). In addition, the central government has power to levy taxes in the states and to use fiscal policies to control the money supply. Mechanisms used by the United States of America to enforce legislation include the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. The former agency is charged with the responsibility of investigating federal crimes reported in multiple states. The constitution has clearly defined division of powers between the 50 member states and the national government (Elazar 242). The federal government holds exclusive powers in matters of foreign policy and national defense. This means a state cannot declare war against a foreign nation. This is the responsibility of Congress, which represents the views of all the 50 states at a national level. On the other hand, the local governments hold a great say in matters such as administration of national policies at the state level. The policies passed by the national government are usually implemented and administered differently in the 50 states. A perfect example is how the state governments administered Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) during the life of the program as from 1935 to 1997. The federal government defined the rules of how the funds were to be spent, however, the state governments held the final say on how to administer the funds as they saw fit. As a result, some states gave generous contributions to the AFDC program while other gave donated little funds. Several advantages of having a federal system of governance have been documented. The first one is the fact that the governments in local states are responsive to the needs of the grassroots citizens. This accords the federal government time to devote energy to matters of national interests (Dickerson and Thomas 334). The pitfall of this form of governance is the fact that there is likely to be duplication of services that conflict each other at the state and national level if implementation is not carried out carefully.
In a recap, all the three forms of government discussed have their own pros and cons. However, in my view, the federal system is the most suitable for use in the United States of America. This is because it has elements of both the Confederal and unitary systems of governance. It gives the national government power to regulate internal affairs that are above state boundaries, and sets the minimum guidelines of how governments operate at the state level. The system serves the United States of America two level governance systems adequately.
Works Cited
Dickerson, M. O., and Thomas Flanagan. An introduction to government and politics: a conceptual approach. 8th ed. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2010. Print.
Elazar, Daniel J. "Contrasting Unitary and Federal Systems." International Political Science Review 18.3 (1997): 237-251. Print.
Jefferson, Davis. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 1. Boston: MobileReference.com, 2010. Print.
Opeyemi, Ola. "Confederal systems : A comparative analysis." Civilisations 18.2 (1968): 270- 284. Print.
Welch, Susan. Understanding American government. 13th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
