what is government essay

• Utility Menu

Writing in Government

How do i write a gov paper .

Expos teaches you about the fundamentals of writing an analytical argument. As you write papers in Gov, you are adapting the elements of argument to a particular audience: readers in the social sciences. These readers have specific expectations about how to present arguments and supporting evidence. Writing successfully in Gov requires you to identify those expectations in assignment prompts and then  respond to them by making well-supported and clearly reasoned arguments.

__________________________________

"Everybody's work has to stand or fall on the basis of the arguments presented and the evidence." - Prof. Eric Nelson

Do the Exercise

In these exercises, you have two goals: to identify the common elements of essay prompts, and to learn strategies for developing arguments that respond effectively to the expectations presented by a given prompt. 

Decoding Prompts

Developing a thesis.

What to Do:

• Prepare  by reading about the elements of paper prompts in the "Tips" tool to the right.
• Read  the three sample prompts below and select one to work with.
• Answer  the questions in the text boxes below the sample prompts.
• Write  a 1-sentence version in your own words of the prompt you have selected. You can do this in the first “Re-write” box below the questions.
• Try re-writing  the other two prompts in a single sentence. 

Please note that these forms are not monitored; no feedback will be sent at this time.

Sample Prompts

1. The traditional definition of democracy is captured by Schumpeter’s statement that democracy is the “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” Is Schumpeter’s “free competition for the free vote” a sufficient conceptual and normative definition of “democracy”? What else, if anything, would you add to this definition?

2. The majority of Gov 97 has focused on state actors, but the Internet is a whole new non-state world that currently has little to no formal governance. Should the Internet be governed democratically? What does it mean to have democratic governance of the Internet? (Will there be elected bodies? Will the Internet be governed by democratic principles?) If you were on a committee to develop Internet governance, what democratic processes (if any) would you recommend? Why?

3. How do new technologies affect democratic politics? We have read a number of accounts of traditional forms of democratic participation and democratic institutions – choose one topic or outcome (e.g. elections, campaign finance, regime change, economic institutions, the welfare state, democratic peace etc.) that we have read about, and think about how new technologies challenge or add to traditional theories about that outcome.

( Taken from Gov 97, Spring 2015)

Understanding Prompts

Design and purpose.

Instructors have two main goals with most prompts: First, they want to test how well you’ve understood assigned material for the course and gauge your progress over the term. Second, they want to encourage you to think about certain questions in a way that may not be directly covered in the course materials themselves. In this way, prompts facilitates guided learning through writing.

In most cases, the instructor will have both of these goals in mind. Depending on the assignment, though, one goal may carry greater emphasis than the other. 

Central Question

This is the main question that the instructor wants you to answer. It may be a yes/no question, where you need to agree or disagree with a given statement. Or it may be an open-ended question, where you need to develop your own line of argument. Either way, the central question is the core of the paper, i.e., the question your instructor is asking in order to test your knowledge about material from the course or to encourage you to develop a reasoned opinion based on that material. Your thesis statement should respond directly to this central question.

Example of a central question:

What do you think is Aristotle’s strongest justification for participatory citizenship?

Example of a multi-part central question:

What do you think is Aristotle’s strongest justification for participatory citizenship? Does it translate from ancient democracy to the present; does it apply today?

Supporting Questions

In addition to the central question, prompts typically include additional points to consider as you write your paper, and these points often come in the form of secondary or supporting questions. Supporting questions are meant to prompt your thinking and can help remind you of important debates that may exist within the topic you are writing about.  

That being said, prompts made up of more than one question can be harder to decode. For one thing, the first question in the prompt is not always the central question, and it might be possible to interpret more than one of the questions as the central question. This ambiguity might be intentional (to allow students to write a range of essays), or it might be unintentional. For these reasons, it is always helpful to try putting the prompt in your own words. What is the central question being asked? And what is the central question your paper is answering with its thesis? What are the supporting questions being asked? And how will your paper answer those questions in relation to your thesis?

In the following example prompt, notice how the first set of questions (greyed out and in italics) form a multi-part central question about an idea of Aristotle and its relevance to the present day. The subsequent supporting questions provide a number of possible directions in which to elaborate on this question, but none of these supporting questions should be the main focus of an argument responding to this particular prompt.  

Example:        

What do you think is Aristotle’s strongest justification for participatory citizenship? Does it translate from ancient democracy to the present; does it apply today? How do modern democracies define citizenship? Do modern democratic institutions (representation, voting and elections, political parties) and/or the organized groups of civil society (voluntary associations, demonstrations, social movements) provide arenas for political participation? If so, how and why is participation valued? If not, why not, and how is the division of political labor justified?

Additional Cues

Prompts often provide cues about what should or shouldn't be the focus of a writing assignment. For instance, there may be debates or themes that have been raised in the course, but which are not meant to be the particular focus of the paper at hand. In the following excerpt from a prompt, you can see that Aristotle's definition of "citizen" is crucial, but the goal of the essay is to  use  the definition to make a further point, rather than getting bogged down in the definition itself. 

Example from a Gov prompt:

In the Politics , Aristotle defined a citizen as someone who takes turns in ruling and being ruled, identified who was eligible (and ineligible) for citizenship, gave an account of citizens’ judgment, and set out reasons for popular political participation.

Restrictions

Prompts often include additional requirements that either guide or limit a writing assignment. These restrictions are usually straightforward requirements for the essay's form (how long it should be) or for its content (what question(s) it should answer and which sources or cases it should use). 

• You must analyze Aristotle’s text
• You may pick just one or two government institutions or civil society groups to 
illustrate your answer.
• You must refer to at least two authors (in addition to Aristotle) in composing your 
response. 
• Prepare by reading about the elements of thesis statements in the "Tips" tool to the right.
• Read the sample prompt below.
• Answer the questions in the text boxes below the sample prompts.  

Sample Prompt & Theses

Making reference to the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, construct an argument that addresses the following questions: When you consider the various theories you've encountered about the emergence of ethnic politics in your readings as well as in lecture, how well (or how poorly) do specific elements of these two cases fit those theories? What is the strongest explanation overall for why ethnic violence broke out in these two cases and eventually assumed the proportions it did? Does the same answer apply to both cases, or do different answers best explain Rwanda and Yugoslavia separately?

• The Rwandan and Yugoslav genocides were similar in some ways. In other ways, though, they were different. 
• Ethnic politics leads to the emergence of ethnic violence.
• I argue that ethnic politics is important for understanding violence in Rwanda and Yugoslavia and for explaining the genocides there.
• Rwanda and Yugoslavia both experienced similar levels of ethnic politics and ethnic violence during the 1990s and followed similar paths to genocide.
• Ethnic politics does not always lead to ethnic violence, but in cases where the state collapses like it did in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the path from ethnic politics to genocide will be similar.

Taken from Gov 20, Fall 2015

What is an Argument?

In the social sciences, an argument typically make claims about the way the world works. It argues that the world is one way rather than another, and explains why it is that way .

The first part of the bolded statement above is really important. In social science courses, you will rarely be asked to just summarize a set of facts. You will instead be asked to make assertions about how something came to be or how some phenomenon caused another.

This implies a counterfactual , which is a statement about how the world would have been, if something else had happened. For example, you might argue that polarization in American politics is caused by people moving to areas where most people share their political beliefs. This implies that if people didn't move to neighborhoods or cities with like-minded people, there wouldn't be polarization. But they do , so there is .

The first part of the bolded statement above also implies that you will give evidence to show us that your argument is correct.

The latter part of the statement, in turn, implies that you will show us the "why" of the phenomenon you're looking at: how exactly does it work?

Thesis Requirements

A thesis statement will be in response to a specific question, whether that question is explicitly asked in a prompt or is a question you have yourself developed in response to course readings or class discussions. Therefore, your thesis statement should clearly be an answer to a question!

Your answer should not just contain a "what is" statement, but a statement of "how" your argument works. What is the "mechanism" of your argument? If you say that wealth causes democracy, make sure the “how” or “because” is also clearly previewed in your thesis.

This is also your introduction to the reader of what the paper’s really about, and it is your chance to explain how the paper will work. It should prepare them for the direction the paper is going, so they know what kinds of evidence they should expect.

In college-level papers, thesis statements can be more than one sentence long. Being concise is good, but it's ok to have a slightly longer thesis statement if your thesis is somewhat complex, e.g., if there are two or three steps in the "how" part of your paper. 

Scope Conditions

Most papers are not about making universal arguments that showcase  everything you know, but about making an valid argument within a set of parameters that are either provided by the assignment itself, or that you decide to keep your argument clear and effective.

In writing, be clear: what are the “scope conditions” of your argument? In other words, under what conditions or in which cases is your argument valid?

Example: “In democracies,” i.e., not for every country we’ve looked at, but only for democracies.

Example: “Among late developers” i.e., only in those countries that developed recently.

Make sure your these boundaries are clearly stated in your thesis statement . Do you think it will be intuitive to the reader why you used these scope conditions in particular? If not, you may need to briefly explain why you're using them, either in the thesis statement itself or just before (or after) your thesis statement.

Evaluating Theses

Can readers take your thesis statement and test it like they would a hypothesis? Would they know what to look for in order to evaluate how well your argument is made? If so, it's probably a strong thesis.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested . For example, in the statement "wealth leads to democracy," we can imagine testing it by looking for wealthy countries that aren't democratic.

If readers can look at your thesis statement and come up new evidence to refute your claim, it might mean there's room for healthy debate on the topic--and it might mean there's a genuine weakness in your argument--but it also means you probably have a clearly written thesis statement! 

A really common thesis-related problem for students is that readers don't know how to evaluate whether the argument is right or wrong . This idea of being able to test arguments against new evidence is what makes political science "scientific."

Additional Tips

Be direct, and own your answer. Don’t say, “The purpose of my paper is to show that economic development causes democracy.” Say, “Economic development causes democracy, because…”

But it is OK to use the first-person voice in political science! (Example: "Wealth is a necessary condition for democracy. I show this by examining all countries with an average GDP above $6,000 per year")

Make it clear where your thesis statement is. You don’t have to put the thesis statement at the end of a short, first paragraph...but this is common, because it keeps you from writing too much/too little introduction, and it’s often where your reader will look first (because it is so common!)

Avoid the word “prove,” which implies definitive proof (which is rarely possible in social sciences)

Avoid overly stylized language in your thesis statement, and keep it as clear, specific, and unambiguous as possible.

It’s ok to argue that sometimes things work one way, and sometimes another. For example, “wealthy countries are usually democratic, but sometimes they aren’t.” However, it’s much stronger to try and make this difference part of your argument---”Wealthy countries are usually democratic because [reason], but oil-rich countries are an exception because [reason].”

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

Share the 10-k

Item 1 - purpose and function of our government - general.

Published on Mon, May 17, 2021 9:00AM PDT | Updated Mon, May 17, 2021 9:10AM PDT

Data delivered to your inbox

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

The United States of America (US) is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district of Washington, D.C., five major and various minor insular areas, as well as over 90,000 local governments, including counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, and special district governments. At 3.8 million square miles and with over 329 million people, the US is the world’s third-largest country by total area and the third most populous.

Our vision and mission

As documented in the US Constitution, the people of the US, through our Government, seek to form a more perfect union by establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Our strategy

To achieve the mission of the people, our Government raises money, spends money, and exercises its authority. Through these actions, it enables, incentivizes, and forces certain behaviors (e.g. saving for retirement through Social Security and Medicare, attending minimum years of school, getting vaccinated) in an effort to maintain or improve various key metrics related to American life.

Raising and spending money

Our Government raises money through taxes and non-tax sources, including businesses it runs. This money is used to pay government expenditures and to transfer money to individuals and others. At the federal level, when the money raised is not sufficient to cover the money spent (most years), the US Department of the Treasury may borrow money to finance the difference. States may borrow funds for projects but may not borrow to fund annual deficits, except Vermont, where its constitution does not preclude it from doing so.

Exercising authority

Our Government exercises its authority directly by regulating, legislating, and issuing executive orders and court orders. It also grants authority to, and rescinds it from, government agencies and state and local governments.

See more at Government operations below.

Continue exploring

About this report, government structure, explore the 2021 government 10-k, introduction, item 1a. risk factors, item 2. properties, item 3. legal proceedings, item 6. selected financial data, item 7. management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, item 7a. quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk, item 8. financial statements and supplementary data, item 9a. controls and procedures, item 10. executive officers and governance, item 11. executive officer compensation, item 13. certain relationships and related transactions, and director independence, item 15. exhibits, sign up for the newsletter.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 1.

• Separation of powers and checks and balances

Principles of American government

• Federalist No. 51
• Multiple points of influence due to separation of powers and checks and balances
• Impeachment
• Principles of American government: lesson overview
• The Framers of the US Constitution structured the government so that the three branches have separate powers. The branches must both cooperate and compete to enact policy.
• Each of the branches has the power to check the other two, which ensures that no one branch can become too powerful and that government as a whole is constrained.
• This structure ensures that the people’s will is represented by allowing citizens multiple access points to influence public policy, and permitting the removal of officials who abuse their power.

The structure of US government: separation of powers

• (Choice A)   The ability of the president to veto legislation and the judicial branch to declare laws unconstitutional A The ability of the president to veto legislation and the judicial branch to declare laws unconstitutional
• (Choice B)   State governments and the federal government have exclusive and concurrent powers B State governments and the federal government have exclusive and concurrent powers
• (Choice C)   Parts of government act independently from each other and have different responsibilities C Parts of government act independently from each other and have different responsibilities

The structure of US government: checks and balances

• (Choice A)   Each branch of government acts independently of the other two in order to control the effects of factions A Each branch of government acts independently of the other two in order to control the effects of factions
• (Choice B)   The branches of government must agree on a balanced budget before they proceed with policymaking B The branches of government must agree on a balanced budget before they proceed with policymaking
• (Choice C)   Each branch of government has the ability to strongly influence or stop the actions of the other two C Each branch of government has the ability to strongly influence or stop the actions of the other two

What’s important about separation of powers and checks and balances?

Want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Introductory essay

Written by the educators who created Cyber-Influence and Power, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in their field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world’s people and not the other way around. Rebecca MacKinnon

Over the past 20 years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed the globe, facilitating the international economic, political, and cultural connections and exchanges that are at the heart of contemporary globalization processes. The term ICT is broad in scope, encompassing both the technological infrastructure and products that facilitate the collection, storage, manipulation, and distribution of information in a variety of formats.

While there are many definitions of globalization, most would agree that the term refers to a variety of complex social processes that facilitate worldwide economic, cultural, and political connections and exchanges. The kinds of global connections ICTs give rise to mark a dramatic departure from the face-to-face, time and place dependent interactions that characterized communication throughout most of human history. ICTs have extended human interaction and increased our interconnectedness, making it possible for geographically dispersed people not only to share information at an ever-faster rate but also to organize and to take action in response to events occurring in places far from where they are physically situated.

While these complex webs of connections can facilitate positive collective action, they can also put us at risk. As TED speaker Ian Goldin observes, the complexity of our global connections creates a built-in fragility: What happens in one part of the world can very quickly affect everyone, everywhere.

The proliferation of ICTs and the new webs of social connections they engender have had profound political implications for governments, citizens, and non-state actors alike. Each of the TEDTalks featured in this course explore some of these implications, highlighting the connections and tensions between technology and politics. Some speakers focus primarily on how anti-authoritarian protesters use technology to convene and organize supporters, while others expose how authoritarian governments use technology to manipulate and control individuals and groups. When viewed together as a unit, the contrasting voices reveal that technology is a contested site through which political power is both exercised and resisted.

Technology as liberator

The liberating potential of technology is a powerful theme taken up by several TED speakers in Cyber-Influence and Power . Journalist and Global Voices co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon, for example, begins her talk by playing the famous Orwell-inspired Apple advertisement from 1984. Apple created the ad to introduce Macintosh computers, but MacKinnon describes Apple's underlying narrative as follows: "technology created by innovative companies will set us all free." While MacKinnon examines this narrative with a critical eye, other TED speakers focus on the ways that ICTs can and do function positively as tools of social change, enabling citizens to challenge oppressive governments.

In a 2011 CNN interview, Egyptian protest leader, Google executive, and TED speaker Wael Ghonim claimed "if you want to free a society, just give them internet access. The young crowds are going to all go out and see and hear the unbiased media, see the truth about other nations and their own nation, and they are going to be able to communicate and collaborate together." (i). In this framework, the opportunities for global information sharing, borderless communication, and collaboration that ICTs make possible encourage the spread of democracy. As Ghonim argues, when citizens go online, they are likely to discover that their particular government's perspective is only one among many. Activists like Ghonim maintain that exposure to this online free exchange of ideas will make people less likely to accept government propaganda and more likely to challenge oppressive regimes.

A case in point is the controversy that erupted around Khaled Said, a young Egyptian man who died after being arrested by Egyptian police. The police claimed that Said suffocated when he attempted to swallow a bag of hashish; witnesses, however, reported that he was beaten to death by the police. Stories about the beating and photos of Said's disfigured body circulated widely in online communities, and Ghonim's Facebook group, titled "We are all Khaled Said," is widely credited with bringing attention to Said's death and fomenting the discontent that ultimately erupted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, or what Ghonim refers to as "revolution 2.0."

Ghonim's Facebook group also illustrates how ICTs enable citizens to produce and broadcast information themselves. Many people already take for granted the ability to capture images and video via handheld devices and then upload that footage to platforms like YouTube. As TED speaker Clay Shirky points out, our ability to produce and widely distribute information constitutes a revolutionary change in media production and consumption patterns. The production of media has typically been very expensive and thus out of reach for most individuals; the average person was therefore primarily a consumer of media, reading books, listening to the radio, watching TV, going to movies, etc. Very few could independently publish their own books or create and distribute their own radio programs, television shows, or movies. ICTs have disrupted this configuration, putting media production in the hands of individual amateurs on a budget — or what Shirky refers to as members of "the former audience" — alongside the professionals backed by multi-billion dollar corporations. This "democratization of media" allows individuals to create massive amounts of information in a variety of formats and to distribute it almost instantly to a potentially global audience.

Shirky is especially interested in the Internet as "the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversations at the same time." This shift has important political implications. For example, in 2008 many Obama followers used Obama's own social networking site to express their unhappiness when the presidential candidate changed his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The outcry of his supporters did not force Obama to revert to his original position, but it did help him realize that he needed to address his supporters directly, acknowledging their disagreement on the issue and explaining his position. Shirky observes that this scenario was also notable because the Obama organization realized that "their role was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters." This tension between the use of technology in the service of the democratic impulse to convene citizens vs. the authoritarian impulse to control them runs throughout many of the TEDTalks in Cyber-Influence and Power.

A number of TED speakers explicitly examine the ways that ICTs give individual citizens the ability to document governmental abuses they witness and to upload this information to the Internet for a global audience. Thus, ICTs can empower citizens by giving them tools that can help keep their governments accountable. The former head of Al Jazeera and TED speaker Wadah Khanfar provides some very clear examples of the political power of technology in the hands of citizens. He describes how the revolution in Tunisia was delivered to the world via cell phones, cameras, and social media outlets, with the mainstream media relying on "citizen reporters" for details.

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown's TEDTalk also highlights some of the ways citizens have used ICTs to keep their governments accountable. For example, Brown recounts how citizens in Zimbabwe used the cameras on their phones at polling places in order to discourage the Mugabe regime from engaging in electoral fraud. Similarly, Clay Shirky begins his TEDTalk with a discussion of how cameras on phones were used to combat voter suppression in the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. ICTs allowed citizens to be protectors of the democratic process, casting their individual votes but also, as Shirky observes, helping to "ensure the sanctity of the vote overall."

Technology as oppressor

While smart phones and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook have arguably facilitated the overthrow of dictatorships in places like Tunisia and Egypt, lending credence to Gordon Brown's vision of technology as an engine of liberalism and pluralism, not everyone shares this view. As TED speaker and former religious extremist Maajid Nawaz points out, there is nothing inherently liberating about ICTs, given that they frequently are deployed to great effect by extremist organizations seeking social changes that are often inconsistent with democracy and human rights. Where once individual extremists might have felt isolated and alone, disconnected from like-minded people and thus unable to act in concert with others to pursue their agendas, ICTs allow them to connect with other extremists and to form communities around their ideas, narratives, and symbols.

Ian Goldin shares this concern, warning listeners about what he calls the "two Achilles heels of globalization": growing inequality and the fragility that is inherent in a complex integrated system. He points out that those who do not experience the benefits of globalization, who feel like they've been left out in one way or another, can potentially become incredibly dangerous. In a world where what happens in one place very quickly affects everyone else — and where technologies are getting ever smaller and more powerful — a single angry individual with access to technological resources has the potential to do more damage than ever before. The question becomes then, how do we manage the systemic risk inherent in today's technology-infused globalized world? According to Goldin, our current governance structures are "fossilized" and ill-equipped to deal with these issues.

Other critics of the notion that ICTs are inherently liberating point out that ICTs have been leveraged effectively by oppressive governments to solidify their own power and to manipulate, spy upon, and censor their citizens. Journalist and TED speaker Evgeny Morozov expresses scepticism about what he calls "iPod liberalism," or the belief that technology will necessarily lead to the fall of dictatorships and the emergence of democratic governments. Morozov uses the term "spinternet" to describe authoritarian governments' use of the Internet to provide their own "spin" on issues and events. Russia, China, and Iran, he argues, have all trained and paid bloggers to promote their ideological agendas in the online environment and/or or to attack people writing posts the government doesn't like in an effort to discredit them as spies or criminals who should not be trusted.

Morozov also points out that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are tools not only of revolutionaries but also of authoritarian governments who use them to gather open-source intelligence. "In the past," Morozov maintains, "it would take you weeks, if not months, to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other. Now you know how they connect to each other by looking at their Facebook page. KGB...used to torture in order to get this data." Instead of focusing primarily on bringing Internet access and devices to the people in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, Morozov argues that we need to abandon our cyber-utopian assumptions and do more to actually empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs and other members of society, making sure that the "spinternet" does not prevent their voices from being heard.

The ICT Empowered Individual vs. The Nation State

In her TEDTalk "Let's Take Back the Internet," Rebecca MacKinnon argues that "the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens, and…the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us." It is clearly not a given, however, that governments, organizations, and individuals will use technology benevolently. Part of the responsibility of citizenship in the globalized information age then is to work to ensure that both governments and technologies "serve the world's peoples." However, there is considerable disagreement about what that might look like.

WikiLeaks spokesperson and TED speaker Julian Assange, for example, argues that government secrecy is inconsistent with democratic values and is ultimately about deceiving and manipulating rather than serving the world's people. Others maintain that governments need to be able to keep secrets about some topics in order to protect their citizens or to act effectively in response to crises, oppressive regimes, terrorist organizations, etc. While some view Assange's use of technology as a way to hold governments accountable and to increase transparency, others see this use of technology as a criminal act with the potential to both undermine stable democracies and put innocent lives in danger.

ICTs and global citizenship

While there are no easy answers to the global political questions raised by the proliferation of ICTs, there are relatively new approaches to the questions that look promising, including the emergence of individuals who see themselves as global citizens — people who participate in a global civil society that transcends national boundaries. Technology facilitates global citizens' ability to learn about global issues, to connect with others who care about similar issues, and to organize and act meaningfully in response. However, global citizens are also aware that technology in and of itself is no panacea, and that it can be used to manipulate and oppress.

Global citizens fight against oppressive uses of technology, often with technology. Technology helps them not only to participate in global conversations that affect us all but also to amplify the voices of those who have been marginalized or altogether missing from such conversations. Moreover, global citizens are those who are willing to grapple with large and complex issues that are truly global in scope and who attempt to chart a course forward that benefits all people, regardless of their locations around the globe.

Gordon Brown implicitly alludes to the importance of global citizenship when he states that we need a global ethic of fairness and responsibility to inform global problem-solving. Human rights, disease, development, security, terrorism, climate change, and poverty are among the issues that cannot be addressed successfully by any one nation alone. Individual actors (nation states, NGOs, etc.) can help, but a collective of actors, both state and non-state, is required. Brown suggests that we must combine the power of a global ethic with the power to communicate and organize globally in order for us to address effectively the world's most pressing issues.

Individuals and groups today are able to exert influence that is disproportionate to their numbers and the size of their arsenals through their use of "soft power" techniques, as TED speakers Joseph Nye and Shashi Tharoor observe. This is consistent with Maajid Nawaz's discussion of the power of symbols and narratives. Small groups can develop powerful narratives that help shape the views and actions of people around the world. While governments are far more accustomed to exerting power through military force, they might achieve their interests more effectively by implementing soft power strategies designed to convince others that they want the same things. According to Nye, replacing a "zero-sum" approach (you must lose in order for me to win) with a "positive-sum" one (we can both win) creates opportunities for collaboration, which is necessary if we are to begin to deal with problems that are global in scope.

Let's get started

Collectively, the TEDTalks in this course explore how ICTs are used by and against governments, citizens, activists, revolutionaries, extremists, and other political actors in efforts both to preserve and disrupt the status quo. They highlight the ways that ICTs have opened up new forms of communication and activism as well as how the much-hailed revolutionary power of ICTs can and has been co-opted by oppressive regimes to reassert their control.

By listening to the contrasting voices of this diverse group of TED speakers, which includes activists, journalists, professors, politicians, and a former member of an extremist organization, we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the ways that technology can be used both to facilitate and contest a wide variety of political movements. Global citizens who champion democracy would do well to explore these intersections among politics and technology, as understanding these connections is a necessary first step toward MacKinnon's laudable goal of building a world in which "government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around."

Let's begin our exploration of the intersections among politics and technology in today's globalized world with a TEDTalk from Ian Goldin, the first Director of the 21st Century School, Oxford University's think tank/research center. Goldin's talk will set the stage for us, exploring the integrated, complex, and technology rich global landscape upon which the political struggles for power examined by other TED speakers play out.

Navigating our global future

i. "Welcome to Revolution 2.0, Ghonim Says," CNN, February 9, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/02/09/wael.ghonim.interview.cnn .

Relevant talks

Gordon Brown

Wiring a web for global good.

Clay Shirky

How social media can make history.

Wael Ghonim

Inside the egyptian revolution.

Wadah Khanfar

A historic moment in the arab world.

Evgeny Morozov

How the net aids dictatorships.

Maajid Nawaz

A global culture to fight extremism.

Rebecca MacKinnon

Let's take back the internet.

Julian Assange

Why the world needs wikileaks.

Global power shifts

Shashi Tharoor

Why nations should pursue soft power.

Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society Essay

The purpose of government is among the core subjects of discussion in politics. While there may be some individuals who believe that government is unnecessary, most agree that it fulfills several important functions, thus helping people to enjoy higher levels of security and well-being. Personally, I believe that the primary purpose of all levels of government is to provide protection and help people to prosper.

First of all, governments provide protection against external and internal threats. By regulating the military and engaging in diplomacy, governments can secure the country’s borders and keep citizens safe. Moreover, governments also engage in preparedness and relief efforts during natural disasters, which helps to reduce the damage to people and their homes. Governments also facilitate economic growth, for instance, by supporting small business and establishing favorable trade relations. Finally, governments create laws and support the function of the justice system, thus maintaining order in society.

These functions of government are critical because they establish and maintain the security of citizens. However, the scope of government’s involvement here should be limited by individual freedoms and rights. For example, governments should not spy on all citizens for security purposes but could establish surveillance over some individuals if there are reasons to believe that they are planning a crime.

Secondly, the government also offers services that facilitate citizens’ prosperity. Governments can provide free, high-quality education, medical care, and social services. For instance, there are various government programs that support low-income families and homeless persons. Free higher education and universal healthcare are the two essential services that the American government does not provide, although I believe that it should. These services help people to enjoy the highest level of wellbeing and prosperity possible, thus fulfilling the government’s second function.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 2). Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-its-purpose-and-importance-for-society/

"Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society." IvyPanda , 2 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/government-its-purpose-and-importance-for-society/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society'. 2 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society." June 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-its-purpose-and-importance-for-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society." June 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-its-purpose-and-importance-for-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Government, Its Purpose and Importance for Society." June 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-its-purpose-and-importance-for-society/.

• How Stores Spy on You?
• "Spy Novels" and Intelligence Studies
• “The Spy Who Fell to Earth” by Marwan
• Cinematography: “The Spy Next Door” Movie
• How CIGNA Fulfills Service Orders and Improves CRM
• The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale by Joseph Conrad
• Definitions of Diplomacy Analysis
• “The Spy Who Came in From the Cold”, “The Russia House” and “The Little Drummer Girl” by Le Carre
• The New U.S. Public Diplomacy vs. The New French Cultural Diplomacy
• Diplomacy Importance in International Relations
• Presidential Power & Authority Advancements
• Replacing Politicians with Regular People: Receipt for Disaster
• Alexander Huamani’s Perception about Power
• Presidents' Power Over Judiciary in the US
• Underdevelopment, Economic Inequality and Democratization

Essay on Government

Students are often asked to write an essay on Government in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Government

What is government.

Government is a group of people who make decisions and laws for a country. They are responsible for providing services like education, healthcare, and security to the public.

Types of Government

There are different types of governments, such as democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, and communism. In a democracy, people choose their leaders through voting.

Roles of Government

Governments have many roles. They protect citizens, make laws, and manage the economy. They also provide public services like schools and hospitals.

Importance of Government

Government is important because it maintains order, protects citizens, and provides necessary services. Without it, society would be chaotic.

Also check:

• 10 Lines on Government

250 Words Essay on Government

Introduction.

The term ‘Government’ fundamentally signifies the governing body of a nation or state that exercises authority, controls, and administers public policy. It is the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states.

The Role of Government

The government plays a crucial role in society by ensuring the smooth functioning of the nation. It is responsible for maintaining law and order, protecting citizens’ rights, and providing public services. The government also shapes the economy by implementing policies that either stimulate or slow down economic growth.

Governments can be categorized into several types based on their structure and the extent of power they exercise. These include democracy, where power is vested in the people; monarchy, where power is held by a single ruler; and autocracy, where a single person holds unlimited power.

Government and Democracy

In democratic governments, citizens have the right to elect their representatives who make decisions on their behalf. This system promotes accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights. However, democracy’s success hinges on an informed and active citizenry that can hold the government accountable.

In conclusion, the government is a fundamental institution in any society. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining societal order, ensuring the welfare of its citizens, and driving the nation’s growth and development. The efficiency of a government is largely determined by its structure, the extent of its powers, and the level of citizen participation.

500 Words Essay on Government

Introduction to government.

Government, a fundamental construct of societal organization, is an institution that enforces rules and regulations, maintains order, and facilitates the smooth functioning of a country. It’s a complex mechanism that encompasses myriad aspects from legislation to implementation, and from diplomacy to defense.

The government’s primary role is to safeguard the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This involves ensuring the security of the people, maintaining law and order, and providing public goods and services. A government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from internal and external threats, which is why it maintains law enforcement agencies and a military.

The government also plays a crucial role in economic regulation and stabilization. By controlling monetary and fiscal policies, it can influence the country’s economic trajectory, ensuring growth, stability, and equity. Furthermore, the government is responsible for the provision of public goods and services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare programs.

Forms of Government

Governments come in various forms, each with its unique characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Democracies are governments in which power is vested in the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives. Autocracies, on the other hand, are characterized by a single entity possessing all power, with little to no constraint on the exercise of that power.

In between these extremes, there are numerous variations, such as constitutional monarchies, where a monarch shares power with a constitutionally organized government, or oligarchies, where power rests with a small number of people.

The Importance of Good Governance

Good governance is integral to the effective functioning of a government. It is characterized by transparency, accountability, efficiency, and adherence to the rule of law. Good governance ensures that the government’s actions benefit the majority of the population and that public resources are used efficiently and ethically.

Transparency in government actions encourages public participation and holds the government accountable for its decisions. Accountability ensures that those in power can be held responsible for their actions. Efficiency in governance means that resources are used optimally to deliver maximum value to citizens.

Conclusion: The Evolving Role of Government

In today’s rapidly changing world, the role of government is evolving. With the advent of technology and globalization, governments are not just confined to traditional roles but are increasingly involved in areas such as digital infrastructure, climate change, and global health crises.

As we move forward, the challenge for governments worldwide will be to adapt to these changes and continue to serve their citizens effectively. Understanding the nature, role, and complexities of government is crucial for us as we navigate the political landscape of the 21st century.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Gopabandhu Das
• Essay on Google
• Essay on Gold

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Discrimination — Essay On The Purpose Of Government

Essay on The Purpose of Government

• Categories: Discrimination

About this sample

Words: 629 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 629 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 600 words

2 pages / 1081 words

2 pages / 843 words

7 pages / 3279 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Discrimination

Media exposure influences attitudes and behaviors towards out-groups. Barlow and Sibley (2018) suggest that the media can promote pro-social behaviors and reduce racist behaviors. Media characters can provide viewers with [...]

Skin discrimination is a deeply entrenched form of bias that persists in many societies, perpetuating social inequalities and hindering progress towards a more inclusive world. This essay delves into the complexities of skin [...]

In today's competitive job market, companies often prioritize the appearance and image of their employees as a part of their brand strategy. This practice, commonly known as "going for the look," involves hiring individuals [...]

Color discrimination is an insidious form of inequality that continues to persist in various societies around the world, perpetuating injustice and hindering progress towards a more equitable world. This essay delves into the [...]

In a world where access to affordable health care is a pressing issue for many individuals and families, the need for comprehensive solutions has never been more urgent. As the cost of medical treatments and insurance premiums [...]

Jasper Jones is a novel written by Craig Silvey; it was set in the 1960s in Australia within a town called Corrigan. In Jasper Jones being the ‘other’ in a small-town results in discrimination towards characters. Bullying was [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

1.1 What is Government?

Government provides stability to society, as well as many crucial services such as free public education, police and fire services, and mail delivery. It also regulates access to common goods, such as public land, for the benefit of all. Government creates a structure whereby people can make their needs and opinions known to public officials. This is one of the key factors that makes the United States a representative democracy. A country where people elect representatives to make political decisions for them depends on the ability and willingness of ordinary people to make their voices known, unlike an oligarchy dominated by only a small group of people.

1.2 Who Governs? Elitism, Pluralism, and Tradeoffs

Many question whether politicians are actually interested in the needs of average citizens and debate how much influence ordinary people have over what government does. Those who support the elite theory of government argue that a small, wealthy, powerful elite controls government and makes policy to benefit its members and perpetuate their power. Others favor the pluralist theory, which maintains that groups representing the people’s interests do attract the attention of politicians and can influence government policy. In reality, government policy usually is the result of a series of tradeoffs as groups and elites fight with one another for influence and politicians attempt to balance the demands of competing interests, including the interests of the constituents who elected them to office.

1.3 Engagement in a Democracy

Civic and political engagement allows politicians to know how the people feel. It also improves people’s lives and helps them to build connections with others. Individuals can educate themselves on important issues and events, write to their senator or representative, file a complaint at city hall, attend a political rally, or vote. People can also work in groups to campaign or raise funds for a candidate, volunteer in the community, or protest a social injustice or an unpopular government policy. Although wealthier, older, more highly educated citizens are the most likely to be engaged with their government, especially if they have intense preferences about an issue, younger, less wealthy people can do much to change their communities and their country.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-summary

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Meaning of Government

As a society , we have always have flourished when we lived together in communities. A country is nothing but one giant community, and like every community, it must be governed. Let us study about the main purpose and functions of the government . We will also see the three forms of government, democracy , autocracy and oligarchy.

Suggested Videos

What is government.

Every now and then, in social media or newspapers , you may have come across news about a new bill or a new policy update. In recent times, the demonetization move and the GST rollout took over the country with a storm. More often than not, conversations always revolve around politics. What went right or what went wrong. Sometimes it’s about a fuel hike and sometimes it’s about the general law and order or social welfare. All in all, all these topics or conversations revolve around the government.

So, what is a government? A government is an institution or a system made of a group of people that takes care or manages a country or a state. Every government has its own constitution or a set of fundamental principles that it follows to ensure effective governance. Now when we say governance, what does that entail? How does it work? Once appointed or formed, the government is responsible for the social welfare, law and order, defence, and financial affairs of the country.

(Image Source: Wikipedia)

Responsibilities of a Government

Although the list is exhaustive and endless, let’s discuss a few important responsibilities of a government. A government must ensure the security of its people through the means of an effective legislation. A government must form and manage an efficient police force, a fair court justice system, and a robust defense force.

Next, a government must provide civic amenities and build infrastructure for the social welfare, health, and development of its people. In addition to providing amenities and infrastructure, a government must effectively manage the country’s economy. And this involves managing inflation, maintaining sufficient foreign reserves, and stimulating foreign investments .

A government must also take steps to protect the environment from further neglect. It should take steps to protect and clean its local and international waters, set up wildlife sanctuaries, and invest in renewable sources of energy and power.

Levels of a Government

As you already know, a government’s responsibilities towards its people is endless. From forming effective policies to building civic amenities, a government needs to ensure that it’s all done efficiently so that the people can make the most of it. And that’s the reason why a government has its levels. For instance, each state in India has a state government. And within each state, there is a separate municipal body that governs each district or village. And then, every village has its Panchayat. These levels ensure that the central government’s policies and rules are implemented all over the country.

Forms of Government

Now that you are familiar with the basic responsibilities of the government, let’s understand who makes up the government. We all know that India is a democratic country. But there are many other countries that do not follow democracy. Let’s look at a few government types.

In a democracy, a country’s people are involved in choosing its leader or head. The people are involved in the process of forming a government. They have the free will and right to vote for a party to come into power. The right to vote is not determined by wealth or class or race. In a democracy, there are different parties that have a manifesto or an idea about how a country should be governed. A democratic government is formed when a majority of people support a certain party as the ruling party or power.

Within democracy again, there are several forms of democracies such as a republic, a constitutional monarchy, a presidential system, or a parliamentary system.

An autocracy is a form of government where the supreme power or rule is in the hand of one individual or entity. People or external authorities have no say in the decisions of this individual or entity. Autocracy includes absolute monarchy where a family or a group of families, also known as royalty, rule a country. The post of the monarch is inherited in an absolute monarchy. In this system, the monarch’s power is not restricted by any laws or legislation. Some examples of absolute monarchy are Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and Oman.

However, in recent times, there are constitutional monarchies, elected monarchies, or even crowned republics or symbolic monarchies. In a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign exercises its power in accordance with the written or unwritten constitution. An elective monarchy elects its head in contrast to hereditary monarchy. In a symbolic monarchy, the monarch has limited authority in constitutional matters. The monarchy is symbolic or ceremonial in nature.

Now autocracy also includes dictatorship. And there are two types of dictatorship—civilian dictatorship and military dictatorship. Civilian dictatorship is when absolute power is in the hands of a single civilian. This civilian can be an elected person, a monarch, or a dictator. Example of dictators includes the famous Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

A military dictatorship is formed when the military takes control of power in a country. And there may be different reasons why the military seizes power from the ruling party. Sometimes, it is formed with the intention of saving people from corrupt politicians.

Oligarchy or Aristocracy

An oligarchy is a form of government where power or authority is in the hands of a small class of privileged people or people who have similar or shared interests. An oligarchy is different from a democracy in the sense that very few people have the choice to vote or change anything. And it is different from a monarchy in the sense that power is in the hands of a few people and not a king.

Also, the power is not inherited. There are several kinds of oligarchies such as aristocracy (rule by nobles), plutocracy (rule by wealth), timocracy (rule by an honourable), and technocracy (rule by technical experts or educated people).

Solved Question for You

Q: Identify the different forms of monarchy.

• Absolute Monarchy
• Military dictatorship
• Constitutional Monarchy
• Crowned Republic

Correct answer(s): A, C, D

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

What Is Government?

One response to “meaning of government”, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples

Essay Samples on Government

The subject of government is often approached by college students majoring in Law and Political Sciences. At the same time, when you check various government essay examples, you will instantly notice that journalists, psychologists, historians, and even healthcare majors often have to deal with governmental processes and related studies. The complex part of such essays is a necessity of prior exploration and analysis of the information that you have. Remember that the federal laws differ between the states, which is an important point to consider. As you work on your sources, always take notes and write down important names and the laws to provide your readers with at least one piece of evidence per claim. It will help you to keep your writing focused and precise. Successful government essays must operate with the facts and sum things up again in the conclusion part regardless of your essay type. The only difference is posed by the governmental case study writing. The structure requires an introduction part where you explain the problem or an issue researched, three to five body paragraphs that provide analysis, and the conclusion part that should be like an executive summary where you list and explain your findings.

Importance of Entrepreneurship: Economic Growth and Societal Transformation

Importance of entrepreneurship transcends its role as a mere business activity; it stands as a driving force behind innovation, economic growth, and societal transformation. Entrepreneurship fosters the creation of new products, services, and industries, while also generating employment opportunities and catalyzing economic development. This essay...

• Economic Growth
• Entrepreneurship

Escalating Water Crisis: Scarcity, Sustainability, and Global Collaboration

The global water crisis is an urgent and complex issue that threatens the well-being of humanity and the health of our planet. This essay delves into the multifaceted dimensions of the water crisis, investigating its causes, the wide-ranging impacts it generates, and the imperative of...

Rohingya Crisis: A Call for International Action

The Rohingya crisis is a deeply distressing and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe that demands global attention and immediate action. This essay delves into the complexities of the Rohingya crisis, examining its historical context, the harrowing consequences faced by the Rohingya people, the role of international actors,...

Unmasking the Opioid Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Paths to Recovery

The opioid crisis is a harrowing and multifaceted public health emergency that has left a profound impact on communities worldwide. This essay delves into the intricate layers of the opioid crisis, exploring its origins, the devastating consequences it has wrought, and the potential pathways towards...

Navigating the Housing Crisis: Challenges and Implications

The housing crisis is a pressing issue that reverberates across the globe, impacting individuals, families, and communities. This essay delves into the complexities surrounding the housing crisis, investigating its root causes, the far-reaching consequences, and the potential strategies to alleviate the challenges and ensure access...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Government Surveillance in George Orwell's "1984": The Illusion of Security

George Orwell's novel "1984" serves as a haunting portrayal of a dystopian society dominated by government surveillance and control. The government's use of surveillance technologies to monitor and manipulate citizens is presented as a mechanism for maintaining power and suppressing dissent. In this essay, we...

• Government Surveillance

The 2008 Financial Crisis: the Causes and Unraveling the Effects

The financial crisis of 2008 remains etched in history as a watershed moment that shook the global economy to its core. Its causes were intricate, and its effects, profound. This essay embarks on a journey to dissect the intricate web of causation behind the financial...

• Financial Crisis

Unraveling the Ukraine Crisis: Geopolitical Tensions and Regional Dynamics

The Ukraine crisis of recent years has captivated the world's attention, bringing to the forefront complex geopolitical issues, regional dynamics, and the quest for stability. This essay delves into the multifaceted layers of the Ukraine crisis, exploring its historical context, the role of major global...

Addressing the Rape Crisis: Advocacy, Awareness, and Empowerment

The issue of sexual violence and rape is a grave societal concern that demands urgent attention. This essay delves into the complexities surrounding the rape crisis, exploring its root causes, the impact on survivors and society, and the crucial role of advocacy, awareness, and empowerment...

Unveiling the Dynamics of Economic Crises

Economic crises are recurrent phenomena that have the power to disrupt entire economies, destabilize financial systems, and affect the lives of millions. This essay delves into the multifaceted aspects of economic crises, exploring the root causes, their far-reaching impacts, and the strategies that governments, institutions,...

Effective Dispute Resolution and Crisis Management

In the realm of complex human interactions, conflicts and crises are inevitable. Dispute resolution and crisis management play crucial roles in maintaining stability, fostering collaboration, and preventing situations from spiraling out of control. This essay delves into the strategies and principles that underpin effective dispute...

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Lessons in Diplomacy and Deterrence

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 stands as one of the most intense and dangerous episodes of the Cold War era. This essay delves into the multifaceted aspects of the crisis, exploring the causes, the decisions made by key players, and the lessons that have...

• Cuban Missile Crisis

The Impact and Lessons of the 2008 Financial Crisis

The 2008 financial crisis stands as one of the most significant and disruptive events in modern economic history. Its reverberations were felt globally, causing widespread economic turmoil and prompting critical evaluations of financial systems. This essay delves into the causes and consequences of the crisis,...

What is Patriotism: Exploring the Essence of Love for One's Country

Patriotism, a sentiment deeply ingrained in the human spirit, is often described as the love, loyalty, and devotion one feels towards their homeland. It is an emotion that transcends geographical boundaries, uniting individuals under the banner of shared identity and pride. Patriotism has been the...

• Citizenship

The Cold War: A Comprehensive Examination (DBQ)

The Cold War, a geopolitical and ideological conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, left an indelible mark on the 20th century. This essay employs a Document-Based Question (DBQ) approach to delve into the multifaceted aspects of the Cold War, analyzing its origins,...

• International Politics

Ronald Reagan and the Cold War: A Transformational Era

Amidst the intense geopolitical rivalry of the 20th century, ronald reagan cold war emerged as a central figure whose strategic policies and leadership greatly influenced the course of the Cold War. As the 40th President of the United States, Reagan played a pivotal role in...

• Ronald Reagan

NATO, the Cold War, and Civil Rights: Struggles and Achievements

NATO, the Cold War, and civil rights are three interconnected threads that defined the latter half of the 20th century. This essay delves into the complex interplay between these forces, exploring how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) influenced the global landscape during the Cold...

• Civil Rights

NATO in the Cold War: Unity, Security, and Strategic Alliance

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) emerged as a central pillar of stability and cooperation during the tumultuous era of the Cold War. As a military and political alliance formed in the aftermath of World War II, NATO played a crucial role in shaping the...

Why the Tuskegee Study was Unethical: A Dark Chapter in Medical History

"Why the Tuskegee Study Was Unethical" is a question that delves into one of the most infamous and morally reprehensible experiments in medical history. The Tuskegee Study, officially known as the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," was a research project conducted...

• Tuskegee Airmen

Why Prisoners Should Be Allowed to Vote: a Debate

The question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote is a contentious issue that touches upon principles of democracy, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. The denial of voting rights to prisoners raises ethical and legal concerns about disenfranchisement and the potential impact on both the...

Why Is the Second Amendment Important: Examining the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, often a topic of intense debate, holds a pivotal place in American history and culture. Enshrined within the Bill of Rights, this amendment protects the right of citizens to bear arms. This essay delves into the reasons...

• Gun Control
• Second Amendment

Why Do We Celebrate Veterans Day: Honoring Those Who Serve

Why do we celebrate Veterans Day? Veterans Day, observed on November 11th each year, is a significant holiday in the United States that honors the brave men and women who have served in the armed forces. This day holds deep meaning and serves as a...

Why Assault Weapons Should Be Banned

Assault weapons have become a topic of intense debate in recent years due to their potential for mass destruction and the devastating impact they can have on communities. This essay delves into the pressing issue of why assault weapons should be banned, considering their lethal...

Who Was the Best US President: Assessing the Legacy of the American Presidents

The question of who was the best US president is a subject of spirited debate and reflection. The history of the United States is marked by a lineage of leaders who have left lasting impacts on the nation and the world. This essay examines the...

• President of The United States

What Are Our Modern Day Patriots

Who are our modern day patriots? This question invites us to recognize the individuals whose actions, values, and commitments contribute to the betterment of society. While historical figures like the Founding Fathers continue to be celebrated, it is essential to acknowledge that modern patriots also...

Was the Reign of Terror Justified: An Examination

The Reign of Terror, a tumultuous period during the French Revolution, has been a subject of historical debate for centuries. Marked by widespread political violence, executions, and radical measures, this era prompts the question of whether the Reign of Terror can be deemed justified. This...

• American History
• Reign of Terror

Was Andrew Jackson a Good President for the US

Was Andrew Jackson a good president? Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, is a controversial figure in American history. His presidency, marked by significant achievements and divisive policies, prompts the question of whether he can be considered a good president. This essay...

• Andrew Jackson

Understanding Why Do We Need a Government

The question of why we need a government has been at the heart of political and philosophical debates for centuries. The concept of governance and organized authority plays a crucial role in maintaining order, protecting rights, and promoting the common good within a society. This...

• Role of Government

The Role of Media in Democracy: Navigating Information and Accountability

The role of media in democracy is pivotal, serving as a cornerstone of informed citizenship and accountable governance. In democratic societies, media plays a multifaceted role — informing the public, scrutinizing those in power, and fostering open discourse. This essay will delve into the intricate...

Should the Minimum Wage be Raised: Analysis of Arguments

The question of whether the minimum wage should be raised is a topic that ignites passionate discussions about economic fairness, workers' well-being, and business viability. Advocates argue that a higher minimum wage can reduce poverty, improve living standards, and address income inequality. Opponents, on the...

• Minimum Wage

Should Prisoners Be Allowed to Vote: An Examination of the Debate

The question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote has sparked significant debate and controversy in many countries around the world. The issue raises complex ethical, legal, and practical considerations that need to be carefully evaluated. In this essay, we will explore both sides...

Should Police Officers Wear Body Cameras

The question of whether police officers should wear body cameras is a topic that resonates with discussions about accountability, transparency, and the relationship between law enforcement and the community. Advocates argue that body cameras can enhance trust, provide an unbiased record of incidents, and improve...

• Body Camera
• Police Officer

Police Brutality in the Black Community: Addressing Injustice

The issue of police brutality, particularly within the context of the black community, has ignited passionate debates and prompted urgent calls for reform. The alarming frequency of violent encounters between law enforcement and black individuals has raised concerns about systemic racism, excessive use of force,...

• Police Brutality
• Racial Profiling

Is the Constitution a Living Document: A Document with Enduring Relevance

The Constitution of a nation serves as its foundational legal framework, shaping the governance and rights of its citizens. One ongoing debate revolves around whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a static document with fixed meanings or as a living document that evolves with...

• Constitution

Abigail Adams' Letter to John Adams: A Glimpse into History

Abigail Adams' letter to her husband John Adams is a remarkable piece of historical correspondence that provides valuable insights into the thoughts and perspectives of women during the early years of the United States. Written in 1776, amidst the revolutionary fervor and discussions about the...

• Abigail Adams
• John Quincy Adams

Why Student Loans Should be Forgiven: A Path to Economic Relief and Opportunity

The burden of student loans has become a pressing issue for countless individuals pursuing higher education. As tuition costs rise and the job market becomes increasingly competitive, many graduates find themselves weighed down by student debt. In this essay, we will explore the reasons why...

• Student Loan Debt
• Student Loans

Upholding Integrity: Exploring the Importance of Accountability in the Army

Accountability in the army is a cornerstone of discipline, efficiency, and trust within military organizations. Whether on the battlefield or in administrative duties, the concept of accountability is deeply embedded in the ethos of the armed forces. This essay delves into the importance of accountability...

• Army Values

Qualities of a Good Police Officer as the Backbone of Community Safety

A good police officer plays a vital role in maintaining law and order, ensuring the safety of the community, and upholding the principles of justice. This essay explores the essential qualities of a good police officer, shedding light on the characteristics that contribute to their...

My Pledge to Our Veterans: Honoring Sacrifice and Service

Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protecting our nation, defending our freedoms, and upholding the values we hold dear. As a citizen, I am deeply grateful for their sacrifices and unwavering commitment. This essay serves as a reflection of my pledge to our veterans,...

Examining the Pros and Cons of Gun Control

The debate surrounding gun control has been a longstanding and contentious issue, with proponents and opponents presenting valid arguments from their respective standpoints. This essay delves into the multifaceted discussion by exploring the pros and cons of gun control policies, shedding light on the complexities...

• Gun Violence

Kamala Harris Challenges Florida's Education Changes: A Battle Over History and Truth

Vice President Kamala Harris recently traveled to Jacksonville, Florida to speak out against the state's controversial changes to its African American history curriculum. In a speech at the Ritz Theatre and Museum, Harris criticized Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the state Board of Education for...

• Kamala Harris

Biden and Longoria: A Heartwarming Friendship in Celebrating Latino Contributions

In June 2023, actress and activist Eva Longoria visited the White House for a meeting with President Joe Biden. Photos from the visit showed Biden warmly embracing Longoria, sparking amused reactions on social media. The image of the 46th President enveloping the petite Desperate Housewives...

Behind Biden's "God Save the Queen" Comment: Innocent Slip or Inappropriate Remark

President Joe Biden recently left some in the audience confused when he concluded a speech on gun control in Connecticut with the phrase "God Save the Queen." The comment came just months after Queen Elizabeth II passed away in September 2022 at the age of...

How President Biden's Joke on State Secrets Sparked Controversy and Criticism

A recent joke made by President Joe Biden about selling state secrets has sparked controversy and accusations from critics. During an event with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Biden quipped "I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Controversial Views on Race

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hails from one of the most illustrious political lineages in the annals of American history, yet his personal legacy remains a tapestry of intricacies. As the nephew of the former President, John F. Kennedy, and the son of the ex-Attorney General...

• John F. Kennedy
• Politicians

What Is the Deep State: Shadowy Influencers or Conspiracy Theory

What is the Deep State? The notion of the "abyssal authority" alludes to a conjectured assemblage of influential and unelected government dignitaries who clandestinely operate to manipulate politics and policy, often to serve their personal interests. Though interpretations may diverge, the abyssal authority is generally...

• Conspiracy Theory

Unbreakable Spirit: Challenges and Achievements of Malala Yousafzai

This is a 5-paragraph essay about Malala, where we will briefly explore her extraordinary courage, inspiring advocacy for education, and the global impact of her unwavering determination. Malala Yousafzai was born on July 12th, 1997 in Mingora, which happens to be the largest city in...

• Famous Person

He Named Me Malala': Inspiring Hope, Courage, and Education

Malala is a campaigner for girls' education from Pakistan. On the 9th of October Malala was shot in the head by Taliban gunmen because she spoke up for the rights of girls to be educated. Malala survived being shot in the head and is continuing...

• Film Analysis
• Movie Review

How to Reduce Inflation: the Role of Monetary Policy and Measures

Inflation, the persistent rise in the general price level, poses challenges for individuals, businesses, and economies as a whole. Controlling and reducing inflation is a crucial objective for policymakers seeking to maintain stable economic conditions. There are several ways how to reduce inflation and this...

• Monetary Policy

Unraveling Theories of Inflation in Economics and Its Problem Nature

Inflation is the continual rise in prices, this is also known as a monetary problem. There are different monetary policies in order to keep inflation below a certain level one of these consist of inflation targeting which allows banks to keep a good stability on...

• Economic Problem

Malala Yousafzai's Speech: Analysis of Its Global Impact on Society

“I tell my story not because it is unique, but because it is the story of many girls.” Malala Yousafzai, a woman who was shot in the face by a gunman at just 15 years old. Despite facing immense adversity, including a targeted attack by...

The Problem of Police Brutality and Racism in Britain

Introduction Police racism in Britain dates back notably to April 1981 in the Brixton riots where black men were reportedly being maltreated by police (BBC News,2020). Police racism in Britain is understood to be manifested by police discretion that is inevitable in policing- where police...

Integrity and Service Before Self: the Air Force's Core Values

Integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do are the three pillars of an Air Force airman. Many people embody these values before they know anything about an organization such as the United States Air Force. The civilians who live by the...

• United States Army

Analysis of President Barack Obama as a Leader

Successful leaders possess distinct traits and qualities that set them apart. One such leader is Barack Obama, who exemplifies several key leadership characteristics. Inspirational communication, unwavering conviction, and a willingness to take risks are among the qualities that have contributed to Obama's success. Furthermore, Obama's...

• Barack Obama

Examining Totalitarianism: Control and Governance Exposed

Theo Finigan starts by establishing an innocent relationship alongside readers in his persuasive argument. He wants to show a writing style that is meant to show credibility toward his readers as well as establish his credentials as an author. He focuses on totalitarianism, which can...

• Totalitarianism

Totalitarian Regimes of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

Introduction This paper talks about the similarities and differences in the totalitarian elements of rule between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Totalitarianism is defined as a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state to control all aspects of...

• Adolf Hitler
• Joseph Stalin

Comparing Autocracy, Totalitarianism, and Democracy: Strengths and Weaknesses

Introduction There have been many forms of government, some more popular than others, that have been tried and tested globally throughout history. Winston Churchill, a former British prime minister once said, “… democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms...

• Dictatorship

Exploring Perspectives in the Memoir, 'My Father's Daughter'

Introduction In Shelia Fitzpatrick’s memoir ‘My Fathers Daughter’, the subtleties of the Fitzpatrick family dynamics are quite unusual, and throughout the memoir, they strive to be a “normal” family. We learn about these dynamics through the eyes of Fitzpatrick as she takes the reader through...

Public Debt and its Sustainability: Literature Analysis

Introduction The global financial crisis of 2008 triggered a shockwave of sudden awareness amongst all who were able to jump the metaphorical sinking ship in time. Others weren’t as lucky; Lehman Brothers sunk with a bang of almost $US 800billion and shocked the world quite...

• Gross Domestic Product
• Literature Analysis

Historiographical Discourse Around Marxism and Marx's Ideas

Introduction This essay will discuss a gobbet written by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto in 1848. It is a very short gobbet, but the subject matter is incredibly loaded and the historiographical discourse that surrounds the notion presented by Marx here is very wide....

• Historiography

Transitioning to a Cashless Economy: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Path Ahead

The world is now moving on from Paper Currency based economy to Cashless economy. By embracing Alternate Delivery Channels and other Cashless modes of payment which include old ones like NEFT,RTGS etc. to newer one’s like POS, e-wallets, debit and credit cards, UPI, BHIM etc....

Europe: Navigating Identity through Politics, Culture, and Economy

We can understand the term Europe from many different perspectives. There are four main definitions of Europe: Geographic, Political, Cultural and Socio-Economic. In my opinion, all of these definitions partially relate to each other. Despite that, the political definition is the most useful because it...

• European Union

Exploring the Relationship Between Sociological and Social Theory

Marxists stated that ‘’it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.’’ Marxist view of human consciousness is transforming false consciousness to true consciousness which people become aware of their human needs only...

• Critical Theory
• Sociological Theory

Economic Problems and Nationalism: Exploring the Relationship

Introduction when we speak about nationalism the first thought that comes to our mind is that it is a plan which includes some undesirable policies against other nations. From this aspect of the phenomenon, there is no any doubt that to use of aggressive policies...

• Nationalism

The Controversial Potential of Social Media Before Elections

With the rise of social media in recent years, it has slowly become a tool to utilise in democratic elections throughout the world. In this essay I will arguing that politicians participating in these elections are not utilising it to its full potential. I will...

• Effects of Social Media

The Sharing Economy - a New Paradigm in Consumerism

With the rise in technology, people are able to communicate and conduct business through the use of the Internet and social networks. This has led to a sharing economy, where consumers can connect and exchange goods and services. Starting a company in a shared economy...

• Consumer Behavior
• Effects of Industrialization

Joe Biden's Life and Political Activities: a Comprehensive Analysis

Who Is Joe Biden? Joe Biden immediately worked as an attorney preceding going to authoritative issues. He transformed into the fifth-most energetic U.S. senator in history as well as Delaware's longest-serving delegate. His 2008 authority mission never gotten a move on, but Equitable applicant Barack...

• Influential Person

Urban Infrastructure and Its Relation to Modern Living

Urban infrastructure is the networks of systems in a city that aid the running of the city and the people in it. It is a very broad term that refers to the framework that provides operation and organisation which in turn makes economic development possible...

• Infrastructure
• New Urbanism

Introduction to Urban Infrastructure: Transport Sector Development

Urban infrastructure defines the framework of a city and its inhabitants and is an important factor in the outcome of a city’s economic growth. To keep up with GDP growth, it is estimated that $17 trillion is required for the Asia-Pacific region to meet this...

• Transportation

Politicians as the Decision Makers Must Share the Blame

Throughout world war 1, 1914, there were several campaigns fought by the ANZAC’s. The most well-known was the Gallipoli campaign of 1914 fought by the British allies against the Turkish forces. The campaign caused several heavy casualties. Most individuals now days would say that these...

• World History

Racial Inequality: the Changing Role of American Federal Government

Throughout history, our country has faced one problem - Racial inequality. From the very beginning, our country has been built on immigration, but we as a nation tend to forget that. With time has been proven that white male supremacy is one of the oldest...

• African American
• American Government
• Federal Government

The Political Theory of John Locke: a Critical Analysis

This essay aims to discuss John Locke's political theory within the Two Treatises of Government, particularly in regards to the State of Nature due to its imperative role within the foundations of the Social Contract between the legislative and the sovereign (the citizens). The Social...

• Political theories

Two Main Differences Between Conservatives and Socialism

There are numerous contrasts among Conservatives and Socialism, one of them being their perspectives on human instinct. In a socialist's view, individuals are social creatures who flourish best when they are associated with one another. People are not driven exclusively by self-centred interests however can...

• Conservatism

Teen Activists: Great Examples of Youth Bravery

There are innumerable teen activists in the world. Some are famous. Others - unknown. Notwithstanding, they all work to make the world a better place. Three activists are extremely prominent. These three are Malala Yousafzai on education, Alex Lin on e-waste, and Iqbal Masih on child...

Influence and Role of Transportation Infrastructure on Urban Scale

The spatial type of urban areas is obviously impacted by a scope of social, political, institutional and administrative conditions in different settings, and these should be comprehended in considering city structure. Low-thickness urban communities organized around the engine vehicle are frequently hard to access for...

• Public Transport

Federal Government Responsibility for Issues in HealthCare

The health care system in America today is at best a failing system. One both ends of the spectrum we have people who are unable to pay for incilen, prescriptions, and the pharmaceutical companies who abuse the free market and can charge any price they...

• Healthcare Crisis

Factors Leading to Frequent Military Interventions in Pakistan

The evolution of the civil-military relations in Pakistan was affected by many factors that were unique to the developing world. The political and administration infrastructures of Pakistan have to be built from the scratch is one these factors. Like Indian Army, Pakistan army originated from...

• Armed Forces

Comparison of Activism in the 60-70's and Nowadays

The activist during the 60’s and 70’s had different ways of doing things from now on. During the 60’s there was an upsurge in civil rights and promoting freedom and equality. The way that activist do things now are different, they use Twitter or Instagram...

Explanation of the Inconclusiveness of the 1979 Elections in Ghana

The 1925 election made way for subsequent elections to take place in the Gold Coast now known as Ghana. Before, voting was restricted to just a few people mostly chiefs, property owners and others. The beginning of the first proper elections in the then Gold...

• Political Party

The Sharing Economy in Australia and the Associated Tax Obstacles

The 'sharing economy' is a term that describes individuals utilizing web applications to lease their property, assets, time and skills. Sharing economy stages enable users to monetise the estimation of surplus limit in the utilization of advantages or work, for instance, vehicles or transportation administrations....

Vulnerability of Stock Markets During Elections Times

Stock Markets around Elections Surging on waves of excitement and sliding under burdens of panic, Stock Markets are precarious indicators of the economies of nations but accurate reflections of people’s sentiments. They’re shaken by any unexpected event that may or may not affect company fundamentals....

• Stock Market

Politicians and Comedians: It's Time to Change the Voice

Sociopolitical jokes circulated on social media are frequently irreverent and sometimes reflect ignorance. But those that center on issues that are emotive, unpleasant or confusing are often wildly popular. That is because the humor provides comic relief that temporarily defuses the tense feeling evoked by...

A Comparative Analysis: Gunpowder and Nuclear Weapons in Military History

Since the establishment of civilizations, man has been interested in inventing simple tools to defend himself, but with the development of lifestyles and the rise of nations. The interest has become greater in developing military methods and developing weapons. In this article I will discuss...

• Nuclear Weapon

Analysis of the Controversy Surrounding Military Spending

Should the government decrease military spending, or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evoke a sense of security. However, when considering this question...

Formation of Political Theories Using Ideas of Great Philosophers

Politics aid in shaping decisions that affect all aspects of our lives. To begin with, political theory is the study of concepts that have shaped our politics and the enduring questions that individuals are concerned about within society. Some of the issues usually addressed in...

A Story of Pearl Mary Gibbs: Fighting for Equality and Justice

Pearl Mary Gibbs, an Aboriginal Activist, Born in Botany Bay, in 1901, did many things in her lifetime defending indigenous Australians, Gibbs especially focussed her efforts on ATSI women’s rights, particularly regarding their slavery in domestic service and their sexual exploitation, this was inspired by...

The Indian Economy: the Main Changes in the Last 55 Years

On 14 August 1947, Nehru had declared: “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the great triumph and...

Joe Biden's Impact on US Politics: Past, Present, and Future

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Is a politician, lawyer and Author in American, who is the current president of America and is also regarded as the 46th president of American. He was married to Neilia Hunter who died in 1972 and then got married again to...

Joe Biden's Presidency: Possible New Era in American Politics

Joe Biden, who was responsible for introducing the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990, is an accomplished man with a sizeable net worth. Joe Biden had enjoyed enormous praise from the African-American community after serving as former President Barack Obama’s second in command for eight...

The Measures Needed to Ensure Peaceful Elections in Ghana

It is virtually desirable that countries are typically seconding that election is the first rate way of transferring political power. Election is therefore the system by way of which public leaders are chosen with the aid of the heaps with the intention of them fostering...

An In-Depth Analysis of Military Industrial Complex

It has been observed with the passage of time that the military industry has been progressing in terms of their technology as well as their capabilities of production. According to the study it has been observed that in postmodern era, military production plays an important...

Exploring the Importance and Benefits of the Infrastructure Industry

Infrastructure industry managed to set itself as a separate asset class within alternative investments that continuously attracts hefty financial allocations mainly due to its characteristic traits. In the case of this particular sector, however, the investment is a major two-way street, as it also ensures...

• Economic Development

Indian Judiciary System: Public Law and Policies for Development

India is one of the richest country in culture, diversity, heritage, religion, language and known for great history, ruled under many kings and empires. Even it followed many rules and regulation under many emperors. As after India got independence the constitution work started with its...

• Judicial System

The Loss of Sense of Control: the State of American Government

In the U.S. Constitution, Article Ten says “And yet, Trump decided to have a shutdown over his stupid border wall. In recent times, the U.S government has failed to pass laws and create changes without over half the country hating on it. And on top...

The Rise and Leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine

In the early hours of 26 February, during the most significant assault by Russian troops on the capital of Kyiv, the United States government and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan urged Zelenskyy to evacuate to a safer location, and both offered assistance for such an...

• Contemporary History

Utopia as Possible Political Theory for a Perfect Society

In the contemporary era, everyday life is surrounded by utopian images and texts. The term ‘Utopia’ is coined by Thomas More in 1516 in which it is initially the name of his ideal imagined society. The term is combined by the Greek words: outopia and...

Failed Politicians in Mexico: the Lack of Class Consciousness

In Mexico politics has been defined as the art of governing or as the art of the possible. The content of the policy is a relationship between classes and social groups, both economic and immediate and long-term interests. In Mexico there have been several politicians...

• Political Culture

The Importantce of Social Media Influence for Modern Politicians

Early analysis on the results of television election coverage showed that exposure to political broadcasts provided voters with vital information regarding campaign problems and policy proposals. The rise of the internet and social media saw a decline in the audience for television, as now media...

• Social Media

Analysis of Russian Unethical Interference in the US 2016 Elections

Conduct is the aspect of self-determination, a legal term that incorporates the right of the people to make decisions for themselves, both the political affiliations (at a methodical stage) and their forthcoming destiny (at a more granular stage of policy). It is evidently this more...

• Cyber Crimes

The Issue of Financial Indistinctness of the US Federal Government

Budget, allocation of resources, and overspending are all viable issues that are plaguing the United State federal government. Amidst congressional debates and the government shutting down at an alarming rate, the government should be more transparent in showing its constituents how it spends their hard-earned...

Best topics on Government

1. Importance of Entrepreneurship: Economic Growth and Societal Transformation

2. Escalating Water Crisis: Scarcity, Sustainability, and Global Collaboration

3. Rohingya Crisis: A Call for International Action

4. Unmasking the Opioid Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Paths to Recovery

5. Navigating the Housing Crisis: Challenges and Implications

6. Government Surveillance in George Orwell’s “1984”: The Illusion of Security

7. The 2008 Financial Crisis: the Causes and Unraveling the Effects

8. Unraveling the Ukraine Crisis: Geopolitical Tensions and Regional Dynamics

9. Addressing the Rape Crisis: Advocacy, Awareness, and Empowerment

10. Unveiling the Dynamics of Economic Crises

11. Effective Dispute Resolution and Crisis Management

12. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Lessons in Diplomacy and Deterrence

13. The Impact and Lessons of the 2008 Financial Crisis

14. What is Patriotism: Exploring the Essence of Love for One’s Country

15. The Cold War: A Comprehensive Examination (DBQ)

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Handout A: What Is a Federal Republic? (Background Essay)

The Founders were always cautious about government power. They wrote the Constitution to make a strong government, but also to limit its authority. One way they did this was by creating a federal republic. The national government was given specific powers and others remained with the states or the people. These two separate powers – the national government and state governments – could co-exist because the national government was given only those powers listed in the Constitution.

Among these were the powers to regulate commerce between states, to coin money, to raise armies, and to collect taxes. The states have their own laws, but they are also subject to the laws of the federal government. This type of political system is called federalism. This separation makes states better able to create laws based on the will of their citizens. States could also come up with new ideas and experiments. If and when they succeeded, other states could use these tested ideas in their own governments.

Another way federalism was applied in the Constitution was in the U.S. Congress. The people would be represented in the House of Representatives. States would be equally represented in the Senate, with each state legislature selecting two Senators. In this manner, both the states and the people would have a say in federal laws.

The Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate

The two major political groups at the time of the Founding were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. They disagreed about the new distribution of power. Many Anti-Federalists had been happy with the Articles of Confederation and feared that the central government created by the Constitution would take over the states. They believed that the states should keep more power, and they argued that the new Constitution should not be ratified. They did not like the vague phrases about Congress’s powers, like “necessary and proper” and “general welfare.” They worried these words might be interpreted as broad grants of power to allow the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states and the liberties of the people. They also believed that the Constitution needed a bill of rights that listed some of Americans’ specific rights and prohibited the national government from engaging in specific actions.

Federalists favored the Constitution as written. They supported a strong but limited central government with some of the powers formerly exercised by state governments. They believed that state powers and individuals’ rights were protected under the Constitution because the central government’s role was limited by the list of enumerated powers and the list of denied powers. The Constitution did not list powers of states because it was assumed the states kept all the powers given to them by their state constitutions except those given to the federal government and those powers denied to states in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment

The Federalists eventually won the debate when the Constitution was ratified [approved] in 1788, but calls for a bill of rights continued. In fact, eight states not only ratified the Constitution but also submitted lists of proposed amendments. The one amendment proposed by all became the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated [given] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Founders included the Tenth Amendment to support the constitutionally-limited nature of the federal government. It states again that the states and the people keep all powers not given by the Constitution to the federal government. If a power is not given to the federal government, it remains with the states or the people.

Changes to Our Federal System

The Seventeenth Amendment further changed the balance of federalism when it was added to the Constitution in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment let the people of each state directly elect Senators to U.S. Congress. State governments would no longer be represented in one house of Congress. Supporters of this change believed it would result in less corruption and more democracy. Critics argued that the change would result in more federal laws that degraded [damaged] the power of states or that mandated state spending with no federal funding attached.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War in 1868, dramatically altered the federal republic created by the Founders. By limiting the types of laws states could pass, the amendment weakened state sovereignty. About sixty years after it was passed, the Supreme Court began using the Fourteenth Amendment to apply Bill of Rights limits to the states. Until the 1920s, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. This expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment became the basis for equal protection under federal law for all individuals in the states, too.

Legislation also changed the balance of power between the national government and the states. After the Civil War, a majority of states enacted Jim Crow laws requiring racial segregation. By September 1949, only fifteen U.S. states lacked segregation laws. The U.S. armed forces and much of the federal government were also segregated. In response to state segregation laws, many argued for more federal power. They pointed to the legal inequality and violation of natural rights caused by such laws. They claimed a strong federal government could correct such wrongs. They argued that states often commit wrongful acts, and that the federal government should correct these wrongs. Others disagreed, arguing that the federal government did nothing to protect citizens’ rights over decades of segregation. The 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education struck one of the first major blows against segregation. Just ten years later, the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) closed the curtain on the Jim Crow era. These laws and the enforcement of them came almost a century after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Debate over Federalism

Debates over federalism often turn to other topics. Critics of federalism argue that a strong national government is needed to address unequal treatment by states. They state that the many different state laws across the country also can make it difficult for individuals and families who travel or move.

Supporters of federalism, however, argue that individuals and families who dislike the laws in one state have the freedom to move to a different state with different laws. States can make policies that meet the needs of their citizens, or adopt successful policies from other states. What is acceptable for people in some states—casinos and gambling, for example—may not be welcome in others. Finally, some supporters of federalism ask: Why would the people elected to federal offices protect people’s rights any better than people in state offices would? The answer to these questions, they say, is not to trust certain leaders more than others, but to hold all officials accountable to the requirements set by the Constitution.

The Founders believed, like many political philosophers, that the desire for power was natural. This power could be used to do bad things as easily as it could be used to do good things. The American federal system was designed to prevent abuses of power and to protect freedom.

Neither a very strong federal system nor complete state independence is perfect. Finding the right balance of power has been important to liberty—as well as controversial—throughout our history.

Comprehension Questions

• What is federalism?
• What does the Tenth Amendment state?
• How did the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments change the system of federalism originally established in the Constitution?
• Health insurance
• Education standards
• Marriage and family law
• Medical marijuana
• Assisted suicide

• Liberty Fund
• Adam Smith Works
• Law & Liberty
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Topic
• Browse by Date
• Search EconLog
• Latest Episodes
• Browse by Guest
• Browse by Category
• Browse Extras
• Search EconTalk
• Latest Articles
• Liberty Classics
• Search Articles
• Books by Date
• Books by Author
• Search Books
• Browse by Title
• Biographies
• Search Encyclopedia
• #ECONLIBREADS
• College Topics
• High School Topics
• Subscribe to QuickPicks
• Search Guides
• Search Videos
• Library of Law & Liberty
• Home   /  

Essay: Representative Government--What is it Good For

Representative Government—What is it Good For? (1857)

This essay was first published in The Westminster Review for October 1857 and was reprinted in Spencer’s Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative (London and New York, 1892, in three volumes. Shakespeare’s simile for adversity—

Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head,

might fitly be used also as a simile for a disagreeable truth. Repulsive as is its aspect, the hard fact which dissipates a cherished illusion, is presently found to contain the germ of a more salutary belief. The experience of every one furnishes instances in which an opinion long shrunk from as seemingly at variance with all that is good, but finally accepted as irresistible, turns out to be fraught with benefits. It is thus with self-knowledge: much as we dislike to admit our defects, we find it better to know and guard against than to ignore them. It is thus with changes of creed: alarming as looks the reasoning by which superstitions are overthrown, the convictions to which it leads prove to be healthier ones than those they superseded. And it is thus with political enlightenment: men eventually see cause to thank those who pull to pieces their political air-castles, hateful as they once seemed. Moreover, not only is it always better to believe truth than error; but the repugnant-looking facts are ever found to be parts of something far better than the ideal which they dispelled. To the many illustrations of this which might be cited, we shall presently add another.

It is a conviction almost universally entertained here in England, that our method of making and administering laws possesses every virtue. Prince Albert’s unlucky saying that “Representative Government is on its trial,” is vehemently repudiated: we consider that the trial has long since ended in our favour on all the counts. Partly from ignorance, partly from the bias of education, partly from that patriotism which leads the men of each nation to pride themselves in their own institutions, we have an unhesitating belief in the entire superiority of our form of political organization. Yet unfriendly critics can point out vices that are manifestly inherent. And if we may believe the defenders of despotism, these vices are fatal to its efficiency.Now instead of denying or blinking these allegations, it would be wiser candidly to inquire whether they are true; and if true, what they imply. If, as most of us are so confident, government by representatives is better than any other, we can afford to listen patiently to all adverse remarks: believing that they are either invalid, or that if valid they do not essentially tell against its merits. If our political system is well founded, this crucial criticism will serve but to bring out its worth more clearly than ever; and to give us higher conceptions of its nature, its meaning, its purpose. Let us, then, banishing for the nonce all prepossessions, and taking up a thoroughly antagonistic point of view, set down without mitigation its many flaws, vices, and absurdities.

Is it not manifest that a ruling body made up of many individuals, who differ in character, education, and aims, who belong to classes having antagonistic ideas and feelings, and who are severally swayed by the special opinions of the districts deputing them, must be a cumbrous apparatus for the management of public affairs? When we devise a machine we take care that its parts are as few as possible; that they are adapted to their respective ends; that they are properly joined with one another; and that they work smoothly to their common purpose. Our political machine, however, is constructed upon directly opposite principles. Its parts are extremely numerous: multiplied, indeed, beyond all reason. They are not severally chosen as specially qualified for particular functions. No care is taken that they shall fit well together: on the contrary, our arrangements are such that they are certain not to fit. And that, as a consequence, they do not and cannot act in harmony, is a fact nightly demonstrated to all the world. In truth, had the problem been to find an appliance for the slow and bungling transaction of business, it could scarcely have been better solved. Immense hindrance results from the mere multiplicity of parts; a further immense hindrance results from their incongruity; yet another immense hindrance results from the frequency with which they are changed; while the greatest hindrance of all results from the want of subordination of the parts to their functions—from the fact that the personal welfare of the legislator is not bound up with the efficient performance of his political duty.These defects are inherent in the very nature of our institutions; and they cannot fail to produce disastrous mismanagement. If proofs be needed, they may be furnished in abundance, both from the current history of our central representative government, and from that of local ones, public and private. Let us, before going on to comtemplate these evils as displayed on a great scale in our legislature, glance at some of them in their simpler and smaller manifestations.We will not dwell on the comparative inefficiency of deputed administration in mercantile affairs. The untrustworthiness of directorial management might be afresh illustrated by the recent joint-stock-bank catastrophies: the recklessness and dishonesty of rulers whose interests are not one with those of the concern they control, being in these cases conspicuously displayed. Or we could enlarge on the same truth as exhibited in the doings of railway-boards: instancing the malversations proved against their members; the carelessness which has permitted Robson and Redpath frauds; the rashness perseveringly shown in making unprofitable branches and extensions. But facts of this kind are sufficiently familiar.Let us pass, then, to less notorious examples. Mechanics’ Institutions will supply our first. The theory of these is plausible enough. Artisans wanting knowledge, and benevolent middle-class people wishing to help them to it, constitute the raw material. By uniting their means they propose to obtain literary and other advantages, which else would be beyond their reach. And it is concluded that, being all interested in securing the proposed objects, and the governing body being chosen out of their number, the results cannot fail to be such as were intended. In most cases, however, the results are quite otherwise. Indifference, stupidity, party-spirit, and religious dissension, nearly always thwart the efforts of the promoters. It is thought good policy to select as president some local notability; probably not distinguished for wisdom, but whose donation or prestige more than counterbalances his defect in this respect. Vice-presidents are chosen with the same view: a clergyman or two; some neighbouring squires, if they can be had; an ex-mayor; several aldermen; half a dozen manufacturers and wealthy tradesmen; and a miscellaneous complement. While the committee, mostly elected more because of their position or popularity than their intelligence or fitness for cooperation, exhibit similar incongruities. Causes of dissension quickly arise. A book much wished for by the mass of the members, is tabooed, because ordering it would offend the clerical party in the institution. Regard for the prejudices of certain magistrates and squires who figure among the vice-presidents, forbids the engagement of an otherwise desirable and popular lecturer, whose political and religious opinions are somewhat extreme. The selection of newspapers and magazines for the reading-room, is a fruitful source of disputes. Should some, thinking it would be a great boon to those for whom the institution was established, propose to open the reading-room on Sundays, there arises a violent fight; ending, perhaps, in the secession of some of the defeated party. The question of amusements, again, furnishes a bone of contention. Shall the institution exist solely for instruction, or shall it add gratification? The refreshment-question, also, is apt to be raised, and to add to the other causes of difference. In short, the stupidity, prejudice, party-spirit, and squabbling, are such as eventually to drive away in disgust those who should have been the administrators; and to leave the control in the hands of a clique, who pursue some humdrum middle course, satisfying nobody. Instead of that prosperity which would probably have been achieved under the direction of one good man-of-business, whose welfare was bound up with its success, the institution loses its prestige, and dwindles away; ceases almost entirely to be what was intended—a mechanics’ institution; and becomes little more than a middle-class lounge, kept up not so much by the permanent adhesion of its members, as by the continual addition of new ones in place of the old ones constantly falling off. Meanwhile, the end originally proposed is fulfilled, so far as it gets fulfilled at all, by private enterprise. Cheap newspapers and cheap periodicals, provided by publishers having in view the pockets and tastes of the working-classes; coffee-shops and penny reading-rooms, set up by men whose aim is profit; are the instruments of the chief proportion of such culture as is going on.In higher-class institutions of the same order—in Literary Societies and Philosophical Societies, etc.—the like inefficiency of representative government is generally displayed. Quickly following the vigour of early enthusiasm, come class and sectarian differences, the final supremacy of a party, bad management, apathy. Subscribers complain they cannot get what they want; and one by one desert to private book-clubs or to Mudie.Turning from non-political to political institutions, we might, had we space, draw illustrations from the doings of the old poor-law authorities, or from those of modern boards of guardians; but omitting these and other such, we will, among local governments, confine ourselves to the reformed municipal corporations.If, leaving out of sight all other evidences, and forgetting that they are newly-organized bodies into which corruption has scarcely had time to creep, we were to judge of these municipal corporations by the town-improvements they have effected, we might pronounce them successful. But, even without insisting on the fact that such improvements are more due to the removal of obstructions, and to that same progressive spirit which has established railways and telegraphs, than to the positive virtues of these civic governments; it is to be remarked that the execution of numerous public works is by no means an adequate test. With power of raising funds limited only by a rebellion of ratepayers, it is easy in prosperous, increasing towns, to make a display of efficiency. The proper questions to be asked are: Do municipal elections end in the choice of the fittest men who are to be found? Does the resulting administrative body, perform well and economically the work which devolves on it? And does it show sound judgement in refraining from needless or improper work? To these questions the answers are by no means satisfactory.Town-councils are not conspicuous for either intelligence or high character. There are competent judges who think that, on the average, their members are inferior to those of the old corporations they superseded. As all the world knows, the elections turn mainly on political opinions. The first question respecting any candidate is, not whether he has great knowledge, judgement, or business-faculty—not whether he has any special aptitude for the duty to be discharged; but whether he is Whig or Tory. Even supposing his politics to be unobjectionable, his nomination still does not depend chiefly on his proved uprightness or capacity, but much more on his friendly relations with the dominant clique. A number of the town magnates, habitually meeting probably at the chief hotel, and there held together as much by the brotherhood of conviviality as by that of opinion, discuss the merits of all whose names are before the public, and decide which are the most suitable. This gin-and-water caucus it is which practically determines the choice of candidates; and, by consequence, the elections. Those who will succumb to leadership—those who will merge their private opinions in the policy of their party, of course have the preference. Men too independent for this—too far-seeing to join in the shibboleth of the hour, or too refined to mix with the “jolly good fellows” who thus rule the town, are shelved; notwithstanding that they are, above all others, fitted for office. Partly from this underhand influence, and partly from the consequent disgust which leads them to decline standing if asked, the best men are generally not in the governing body. It is notorious that in London the most respectable merchants will have nothing to do with the local government. And in New York, “the exertions of its better citizens are still exhausted in private accumulation, while the duties of administration are left to other hands.” It cannot then be asserted that in town-government, the representative system succeeds in bringing the ablest and most honourable men to the top.The efficient and economical discharge of duties is, of course, hindered by this inferiority of the deputies chosen; and it is further hindered by the persistent action of party and personal motives. Not whether he knows well how to handle a level, but whether he voted for the popular candidate at the last parliamentary election, is the question on which may, and sometimes does, hang the choice of a town-surveyor; and if sewers are ill laid out, it is a natural consequence. When, a new public edifice having been decided on, competition designs are advertised for; and when the designs, ostensibly anonymous but really identifiable, have been sent in; T. Square, Esq., who has an influential relative in the corporation, makes sure of succeeding, and is not disappointed: albeit his plans are not those which would have been chosen by any one of the judges, had the intended edifice been his own. Brown, who has for many years been on the town-council and is one of the dominant clique, has a son who is a doctor; and when, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, an officer of health is to be appointed, Brown privately canvasses his fellow-councillors, and succeeds in persuading them to elect his son; though his son is by no means the fittest man the place can furnish. Similarly with the choice of tradesmen to execute work for the town. A public clock which is frequently getting out of order, and Board-of-Health water-closets which disgust those who have them (we state facts), sufficiently testify that stupidity, favouritism, or some sinister influence, is ever causing mismanagement. The choice of inferior representatives, and by them of inferior employés, joined with private interest and divided responsibility, inevitably prevent the discharge of duties from being satisfactory.Moreover, the extravagance which is now becoming a notorious vice of municipal bodies, is greatly increased by the practice of undertaking things which they ought not to undertake; and the incentive to do this is, in many cases, traceable to the representative origin of the body. The system of compounding with landlords for municipal rates, leads the lower class of occupiers into the erroneous belief that town-burdens do not fall in any degree on them; and they therefore approve of an expenditure which seemingly gives them gratis advantages while it creates employment. As they form the mass of the constituency, lavishness becomes a popular policy; and popularity-hunters vie with one another in bringing forward new and expensive projects. Here is a councillor who, having fears about his next election, proposes an extensive scheme for public gardens—a scheme which many who disapprove do not oppose, because they, too, bear in mind the next election. There is another councillor, who keeps a shop, and who raises and agitates the question of baths and wash-houses; very well knowing that his trade is not likely to suffer from such course. And so in other cases: the small direct interest which each member of the corporation has in economical administration, is antagonized by so many indirect interests of other kinds, that he is not likely to be a good guardian of the public purse.Thus, neither in respect of the deputies chosen, nor the efficient performance of their work, nor the avoidance of unfit work, can the governments of our towns be held satisfactory. And if in these recently-formed bodies the defects are so conspicuous, still more conspicuous are they where they have had time to grow to their full magnitude: witness the case of New York. According to The Times correspondent in that city, the New York people pay “over a million and half sterling, for which they have badly-paved streets, a police by no means as efficient as it should be, though much better than formerly, the greatest amount of dirt north of Italy, the poorest cab-system of any metropolis in the world, and only unsheltered wooden piers for the discharge of merchandise.”And now, having glanced at the general bearings of the question in these minor cases, let us take the major case of our central government; and, in connexion with it, pursue the inquiry more closely. Here the inherent faults of the representative system are much more clearly displayed. The greater multiplicity of rulers involves greater cumbrousness, greater confusion, greater delay. Differences of class, of aims, of prejudices, are both larger in number and wider in degree; and hence arise dissensions still more multiplied. The direct effect which each legislator is likely to experience from the working of any particular measure, is usually very small and remote; while the indirect influences which sway him are, in this above all other cases, numerous and strong; whence follows a marked tendency to neglect public welfare for private advantage. But let us set out from the beginning—with the constituencies.The representative theory assumes that if a number of citizens, deeply interested as they all are in good government, are endowed with political power, they will choose the wisest and best men for governors. Seeing how greatly they suffer from bad administration of public affairs, it is considered self-evident that they must have the will to select proper representatives; and it is taken for granted that average common sense gives the ability to select proper representatives. How does experience bear out these assumptions? Does it not to a great degree negative them?Several considerable classes of electors have little or no will in the matter. Not a few of those on the register pique themselves on taking no part in politics—claim credit for having the sense not to meddle with things which they say do not concern them. Many others there are whose interest in the choice of a member of Parliament is so slight, that they do not think it worth while to vote. A notable proportion, too, shopkeepers especially, care so little about the result, that their votes are determined by their wishes to please their chief patrons or to avoid offending them. In the minds of a yet larger class, small sums of money, or even ad libitum supplies of beer, outweigh any desires they have to use their political powers independently. Those who adequately recognize the importance of honestly exercising their judgements in the selection of legislators, and who give conscientious votes, form but a minority; and the election usually hangs less upon their wills than upon the illegitimate influences which sway the rest. Here, therefore, the theory fails.Then, again, as to intelligence. Even supposing that the mass of electors have a sufficiently decided will to choose the best rulers, what evidence have we of their ability? Is picking out the wisest man among them, a task within the range of their capacities? Let any one listen to the conversation of a farmer’s market-table, and then answer how much he finds of that wisdom which is required to discern wisdom in others. Or let him read the clap-trap speeches made from the hustings with a view of pleasing constituents, and then estimate the penetration of those who are to be thus pleased. Even among the higher order of electors he will meet with gross political ignorance—with notions that Acts of Parliament can do whatever it is thought well they should do; that the value of gold can be fixed by law; that distress can be cured by poor-laws; and so forth. If he descends a step, he will find in the still-prevalent ideas that machinery is injurious to the working-classes, and that extravagance is “good for trade,” indices of a yet smaller insight. And in the lower and larger class, formed by those who think that their personal interest in good government is not worth the trouble of voting, or is outbalanced by the loss of a customer, or is of less value than a bribe, he will perceive an almost hopeless stupidity. Without going the length of Mr. Carlyle, and defining the people as “twenty-seven millions, mostly fools,” he will confess that they are but sparely gifted with wisdom.That these should succeed in choosing the fittest governors, would be strange; and that they do not so succeed is manifest. Even as judged by the most common-sense tests, their selections are absurd, as we shall shortly see.It is a self-evident truth that we may most safely trust those whose interests are identical with our own; and that it is very dangerous to trust those whose interests are antagonistic to our own. All the legal securities we take in our transactions with one another, are so many recognitions of this truth. We are not satisfied with professions. If another’s position is such that he must be liable to motives at variance with the promises he makes, we take care, by introducing an artificial motive (the dread of legal penalties), to make it his interest to fulfil these promises. Down to the asking for a receipt, our daily business-habits testify that, in consequence of the prevailing selfishness, it is extremely imprudent to expect men to regard the claims of others equally with their own: all asseverations of good faith notwithstanding. Now it might have been thought that even the modicum of sense possessed by the majority of electors, would have led them to recognize this fact in the choice of their representatives. But they show a total disregard of it. While the theory of our Constitution, in conformity with this same fact, assumes that the three divisions composing the Legislature will severally pursue each its own ends—while our history shows that Monarch, Lords, and Commons, have all along more or less conspicuously done this; our electors manifest by their votes, the belief that their interests will be as well cared for by members of the titled class as by members of their own class. Though, in their determined opposition to the Reform-Bill, the aristocracy showed how greedy they were, not only of their legitimate power but of their illegitimate power—though, by the enactment and pertinacious maintenance of the Corn-Laws, they proved how little popular welfare weighed in the scale against their own profits—though they have ever displayed a watchful jealousy even of their smallest privileges, whether equitable or inequitable (as witness the recent complaint in the House of Lords, that the Mercantile Marine Act calls on lords of manors to show their titles before they can claim the wrecks thrown on the shores of their estates, which before they had always done by prescription)—though they have habitually pursued that self-seeking policy which men so placed were sure to pursue; yet constituencies have decided that members of the aristocracy may fitly be chosen as representatives of the people. Our present House of Commons contains 98 Irish peers and sons of English peers; 66 blood-relations of peers; and 67 connexions of peers by marriage; in all, 231 members whose interests, or sympathies, or both, are with the nobility rather than the commonalty. We are quite prepared to hear the doctrine implied in this criticism condemned by rose-water politicians as narrow and prejudiced. To such we simply reply that they and their friends fully recognize this doctrine when it suits them to do so. Why do they wish to prevent the town-constituencies from predominating over the county-ones; if they do not believe that each division of the community will consult its own welfare? Or what plea can there be for Lord John Russell’s proposal to represent minorities, unless it be the plea that those who have the opportunity will sacrifice the interests of others to their own? Or how shall we explain the anxiety of the upper class, to keep a tight rein on the growing power of the lower class, save from their consciousness that bona fide representatives of the lower class would be less regardful of their privileges than they are themselves? If there be any reason in the theory of the Constitution, then, while the members of the House of Peers should belong to the peerage, the members of the House of Commons should belong to the commonalty. Either the constitutional theory is sheer nonsense, or else the choice of lords as representatives of the people proves the folly of constituencies.But this folly by no means ends here; it works out other results quite as absurd. What should we think of a man giving his servants equal authority with himself over the affairs of his household? Suppose the shareholders in a railway-company were to elect, as members of their board of directors, the secretary, engineer, superintendent, traffic-manager, and others such. Should we not be astonished at their stupidity? Should we not prophesy that the private advantage of officials would frequently override the welfare of the company? Yet our parliamentary electors commit a blunder of just the same kind. For what are military and naval officers but servants of the nation; standing to it in a relation like that in which the officers of a railway-company stand to the company? Do they not perform public work? Do they not take public pay? And do not their interests differ from those of the public, as the interests of the employed from those of the employer? The impropriety of admitting executive agents of the State into the Legislature, has over and over again thrust itself into notice; and in minor cases has been prevented by sundry Acts of Parliament. Enumerating those disqualified for the House of Commons, Blackstone says:

No persons concerned in the management of any duties or taxes created since 1692, except the commissioners of the treasury, nor any of the officers following, viz, commissioners of prizes, transports, sick and wounded, wine licences, navy, and victualling; secretaries or receivers of prizes; comptrollers of the army accounts; agents for regiments; governors of plantations, and their deputies; officers of Minorca or Gibraltar; officers of the excise and customs; clerks and deputies in the several offices of the treasury, exchequer, navy, victualling, admiralty, pay of the army and navy, secretaries of state, salt, stamps, appeals, wine licences, hackney coaches, hawkers and pedlars, nor any persons that hold any new office under the crown created since 1705, are capable of being elected, or sitting as members.

In which list naval and military officers would doubtless have been included, had they not always been too powerful a body and too closely identified with the dominant classes. Glaring, however, as is the impolicy of appointing public servants to make the laws; and clearly as this impolicy is recognized in the above-specified exclusions from time to time enacted; the people at large seem totally oblivious of it. At the last general election they returned 9 naval officers, 46 military officers, and 51 retired military officers, who, in virtue of education, friendship, and esprit de corps, take the same views with their active comrades—in all 106: not including 64 officers of militia and yeomanry, whose sympathies and ambitions are in a considerable degree the same. If any one thinks that this large infusion of officialism is of no consequence, let him look in the division-lists. Let him inquire how much it has had to do with the maintenance of the purchase-system. Let him ask whether the almost insuperable obstacles to the promotion of the private soldier, have not been strengthened by it. Let him see what share it had in keeping up those worn-out practices, and forms, and mis-arrangements, which entailed the disasters of our late war. Let him consider whether the hushing-up of the Crimean Inquiry and the whitewashing of delinquents were not aided by it. Yet, though abundant experience thus confirms what common sense would beforehand have predicted; and though, notwithstanding the late disasters, exposures, and public outcry for army-reform, the influence of the military caste is so great that the reform has been staved-off; our constituencies are stupid enough to send to Parliament as many military officers as ever!Not even now have we reached the end of these impolitic selections. The general principle on which we have been insisting, and which is recognized by expounders of the constitution when they teach that the legislative and executive divisions of the Government should be distinct—this general principle is yet further sinned against; though not in so literal a manner. For though they do not take State-pay, and are not nominally Government-officers, yet, practically, lawyers are members of the executive organization. They form an important part of the apparatus for the administration of justice. By the working of this apparatus they make their profits; and their welfare depends on its being so worked as to bring them profits, rather than on its being so worked as to administer justice. Exactly as military officers have interests distinct from, and often antagonistic to, the efficiency of the army; so, barristers and solicitors have interests distinct from, and often antagonistic to, the cheap and prompt enforcement of the law. And that they are habitually swayed by these antagonistic interest, is notorious. So strong is the bias, as sometimes even to destroy the power of seeing from any other than the professional stand-point. We have ourselves heard a lawyer declaiming on the damage which the County-Courts-Act had done to the profession; and expecting his non-professional hearers to join him in condemning it there for! And if, as all the world knows, the legal conscience is not of the tenderest, is it wise to depute lawyers to frame the laws which they will be concerned in carrying out; and the carrying out of which must affect their private incomes? Are barristers, who constantly take fees for work which they do not perform, and attorneys, whose bills are so often exorbitant that a special office has been established for taxing them—are these, of all others, to be trusted in a position which would be trying even to the most disinterested? Nevertheless, the towns and counties of England have returned to the present House of Commons 98 lawyers—some 60 of them in actual practice, and the rest retired, but doubtless retaining those class-views acquired during their professional careers.These criticisms on the conduct of constituencies do not necessarily commit us to the assertion that none belonging to the official and aristocratic classes ought to be chosen. Though it would be safer to carry out, in these important cases, the general principle which, as above shown, Parliament has itself recognized and enforced in unimportant cases; yet we are not prepared to say that occasional exceptions might not be made, on good cause being shown. All we aim to show is the gross impolicy of selecting so large a proportion of representatives from classes having interests different from those of the general public. That in addition to more than a third taken from the dominant class, who already occupy one division of the Legislature, the House of Commons should contain nearly another third taken from the naval, military, and legal classes, whose policy, like that of the dominant class, is to maintain things as they are; we consider a decisive proof of electoral misjudgement. That out of the 654 members, of which the People’s House now consists, there should be but 250 who, as considered from a class point of view, are eligible, or tolerably eligible (for we include a considerable number who are more or less objectionable), is significant of anything but popular good sense. That into an assembly established to protect their interests, the commonalty of England should have sent one-third whose interests are the same as their own, and two-thirds whose interests are at variance with their own, proves a scarcely credible lack of wisdom; and seems an awkward fact for the representative theory.If the intelligence of the mass is thus not sufficient even to choose out men who by position and occupation are fit representatives, still less is it sufficient to choose men who are the fittest in character and capacity. To see who will be liable to the bias of private advantage is a very easy thing: to see who is wisest is a very difficult thing; and those who do not succeed in the first must necessarily fail in the last. The higher the wisdom the more incomprehensible does it become by ignorance. It is a manifest fact that the popular man or writer, is always one who is but little in advance of the mass, and consequently understandable by them: never the man who is far in advance of them and out of their sight. Appreciation of another implies some community of thought. “Only the man of worth can recognize worth in men. … The worthiest, if he appealed to universal suffrage, would have but a poor chance. … Alas! Jesus Christ, asking the Jews what he deserved—was not the answer, Death on the gallows!” And though men do not now-a-days stone the prophet, they, at any rate, ignore him. As Mr. Carlyle says in his vehement way:

If of ten men nine are recognisable as fools, which is a common calculation, how, … in the name of wonder, will you ever get a ballot-box to grind you out a wisdom from the votes of these ten men? … I tell you a million blockheads looking authoritatively into one man of what you call genius, or noble sense, will make nothing but nonsense out of him and his qualities, and his virtues and defects, if they look till the end of time.

So that, even were electors content to choose the man proved by general evidence to be the most far-seeing, and refrained from testing him by the coincidence of his views with their own, there would be small chance of their hitting on the best. But judging on him, as they do, by asking him whether he thinks this or that crudity which they think, it is manifest that they will fix on one far removed from the best. Their deputy will be truly representative;—representative, that is, of the average stupidity.And now let us look at the assembly of representatives thus chosen. Already we have noted the unfit composition of this assembly as respects the interests of its members; and we have just seen what the representative theory itself implies as to their intelligence. Let us now, however, consider them more nearly under this last head.And first, what is the work they undertake? Observe, we do not say the work which they ought to do, but the work which they propose to do, and try to do. This comprehends the regulation of nearly all actions going on throughout society. Besides devising measures to prevent the aggression of citizens on one another, and to secure each the quiet possession of his own; and besides assuming the further function, also needful in the present state of mankind, of defending the nation as a whole against invaders; they unhesitatingly take on themselves to provide for countless wants, to cure countless ills, to oversee countless affairs. Out of the many beliefs men have held respecting God, Creation, the Future, etc., they presume to decide which are true; and authorize an army of priests to perpetually repeat them to the people. The distress resulting from improvidence, they undertake to remove: they settle the minimum which each ratepayer shall give in charity, and how the proceeds shall be administered. Judging that emigration will not naturally go on fast enough, they provide means for carrying off some of the labouring classes to the colonies. Certain that social necessities will not cause a sufficiently rapid spread of knowledge, and confident that they know what knowledge is most required, they use public money for the building of schools and paying of teachers; they print and publish State-school-books; they employ inspectors to see that their standard of education is conformed to. Playing the part of doctor, they insist that every one shall use their specific, and escape the danger of small-pox by submitting to an attack of cow-pox. Playing the part of moralist, they decide which dramas are fit to be acted and which are not. Playing the part of artist, they prompt the setting up of drawing-schools, provide masters and models; and, at Marlborough House, enact what shall be considered good taste and what bad. Through their lieutenants, the corporations of towns, they furnish appliances for the washing of peoples’ skins and clothes; they, in some cases, manufacture gas and put down water-pipes; they lay out sewers and cover over cesspools; they establish public libraries and make public gardens. Moreover, they determine how houses shall be built, and what is a safe construction for a ship; they take measures for the security of railway-travelling; they fix the hour after which public-houses may not be open; regulate the prices chargeable by vehicles plying in the London streets; they inspect lodging-houses; they arrange for burial-grounds; they fix the hours of factory hands. If some social process does not seem to them to be going on fast enough, they stimulate it; where the growth is not in the direction which they think most desirable, they alter it; and so they seek to realize some undefined ideal community.Such being the task undertaken, what, let us ask, are the qualifications for discharging it? Supposing it possible to achieve all this, what must be the knowledge and capacities of those who shall achieve it? Successfully to prescribe for society, it is needful to know the structure of society—the principles on which it is organized—the natural laws of its progress. If there be not a true understanding of what constitutes social development, there must necessarily be grave mistakes made in checking these changes and fostering those. If there be lack of insight respecting the mutual dependence of the many functions which, taken together, make up the national life, unforeseen disasters will ensue from not perceiving how an interference with one will affect the rest. That is to say, there must be a due acquaintance with the social science—the science involving all others; the science standing above all others in complexity.And now, how far do our legislators possess this qualification? Do they in any moderate degree display it? Do they make even a distant approximation to it? That many of them are very good classical scholars is beyond doubt: not a few have written first-rate Latin verses, and can enjoy a Greek play; but there is no obvious relation between a memory well stocked with the words spoken two thousand years ago, and an understanding disciplined to deal with modern society. That in learning the languages of the past they have learnt some of its history, is true; but considering that this history is mainly a narrative of battles and plots and negotiations and treacheries, it does not throw much light on social philosophy—not even the simplest principles of political economy have ever been gathered from it. We do not question, either, that a moderate percentage of members of Parliament are fair mathematicians; and that mathematical discipline is valuable. As, however, political problems are not susceptible of mathematical analysis, their studies in this direction cannot much aid them in legislation. To the large body of military officers who sit as representatives, we would not for a moment deny a competent knowledge of fortification, of strategy, of regimental discipline; but we do not see that these throw much light on the causes and cure of national evils. Indeed, considering that war fosters anti-social sentiments, and that the government of soldiers is necessarily despotic, military education and habits are more likely to unfit than to fit men for regulating the doings of a free people. Extensive acquaintance with the laws, may doubtless be claimed by the many barristers chosen by our constituencies; and this seems a kind of information having some relation to the work to be done. Unless, however, this information is more than technical—unless it is accompanied by knowledge of the ramified consequences which laws have produced in times past and are producing now (which nobody will assert), it cannot give much insight into Social Science. A familiarity with laws is no more a preparation for rational legislation, than would a familiarity with all the nostrums men have ever used be a preparation for the rational practice of medicine. Nowhere, then, in our representative body, do we find appropriate culture. Here is a clever novelist, and there a successful maker of railways; this member has acquired a large fortune in trade, and that member is noted as an agricultural improver; but none of these achievements imply fitness for controlling and adjusting social processes. Among the many who have passed through the public school and university curriculum —including though they may a few Oxford double-firsts and one or two Cambridge wranglers—there are none who have received the discipline required by the true legislator. None have that competent knowledge of Science in general, culminating in the Science of Life, which can alone form a basis for the Science of Society. For it is one of those open secrets which seem the more secret because they are so open, that all phenomena displayed by a nation are phenomena of Life, and are dependent on the laws of Life. There is no growth, decay, evil, improvement, or change of any kind, going on the body politic, but what has its cause in the actions of human beings; and there are no actions of human beings but what conform to the laws of Life in general, and cannot be truly understood until those laws are understood.See, then, the immense incongruity between the end and the means. See on the one hand the countless difficulties of the task; and on the other hand the almost total unpreparedness of those who undertake it. Need we wonder that legislation is ever breaking down? Is it not natural that complaint, amendment, and repeal, should form the staple business of every session? Is there anything more than might be expected in the absurd Jack-Cadeisms which disgrace the debates? Even without setting up so high a standard of qualification as that above specified, the unfitness of most representatives for their duties is abundantly manifest. You need but glance over the miscellaneous list of noblemen, baronets, squires, merchants, barristers, engineers, soldiers, sailors, railway-directors, etc., and then ask what training their previous lives have given them for the intricate business of legislation, to see at once how extreme must be the incompetence. One would think that the whole system had been framed on the sayings of some political Dogberry: “The art of healing is difficult; the art of government easy. The understanding of arithmetic comes by study; while the understanding of society comes by instinct. Watchmaking requires a long apprenticeship; but there needs none for the making of institutions. To manage a shop properly requires teaching; but the management of a people may be undertaken without preparation.” Were we to be visited by some wiser Gulliver, or, as in the “Micromegas” of Voltaire, by some inhabitant of another sphere, his account of our political institutions might run somewhat as follows:”I found that the English were governed by an assembly of men, said to empbody the ‘collective wisdom.’ This assembly, joined with some other authorities which seem practically subordinate to it, has unlimited power. I was much perplexed by this. With us it is customary to define the office of any appointed body; and, above all things, to see that it does not defeat the ends for which it was appointed. But both the theory and the practice of this English Government imply that it may do whatever it pleases. Though, by their current maxims and usages, the English recognize the right of property as sacred—though the infraction of it is considered by them one of the gravest crimes—though the laws profess to be so jealous of it as to punish even the stealing of a turnip; yet their legislators suspend it at will. They take the money of citizens for any project which they choose to undertake; though such project was not in the least contemplated by those who gave them authority—nay, though the greater part of the citizens from whom the money is taken had no share in giving them such authority. Each citizen can hold property only so long as the 654 deputies do not want it. It seemed to me that an exploded doctrine once current among them of ‘the divine right of kings,’ had simply been changed into the divine right of Parliaments.”I was at first inclined to think that the constitution of things on the Earth was totally different from what it is with us; for the current political philosophy here, implies that acts are not right or wrong in themselves but are made one or the other by the votes of law-makers. In our world it is considered manifest that if a number of beings live together, there must, in virtue of their natures, be certain primary conditions on which only they can work satisfactorily in concert; and we infer that the conduct which breaks through these conditions is bad. In the English legislature, however, a proposal to regulate conduct by any such abstract standard would be held absurd. I asked one of their members of Parliament whether a majority of the House could legitimize murder. He said, No. I asked him whether it could sanctify robbery. He thought not. But I could not make him see that if murder and robbery are intrinsically wrong, and not to be made right by decisions of statesmen, that similarly all actions must be either right or wrong, apart from the authority of the law; and that if the right and wrong of the law are not in harmony with this intrinsic right and wrong, the law itself is criminal. Some, indeed, among the English think as we do. One of their remarkable men ( not included in their Assembly of Notables) writes thus:

To ascertain better and better what the will of the Eternal was and is with us, what the laws of the Eternal are, all Parliaments, Ecumenic Councils, Congresses, and other Collective Wisdoms, have had this for their object. … Nevertheless, in the inexplicable universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad; and at this day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be found, whose practical belief it is that if we “vote” this or that, so this or that will thenceforth be. … Practically, men have come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of constitutional countries, are decided by voting. … It is an idle fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become such, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not fixable or changeable by voting!

“But I find that, contemptuously disregarding all such protests, the English legislators persevere in their hyperatheistic notion, that an Act of Parliament duly enforced by State-officers, will work out any object: no question being put whether Laws of Nature permit. I forgot to ask whether they considered that different kinds of food could be made wholesome or unwholesome by State-decree.”One thing that struck me was the curious way in which the members of their House of Commons judge of one another’s capacities. Many who expressed opinions of the crudest kinds, or trivial platitudes, or worn-out superstitions, were civilly treated. Follies as great as that but a few years since uttered by one of their ministers, who said that free-trade was contrary to common sense, were received in silence. But I was present when one of their number, who, as I thought, was speaking very rationally, made a mistake in his pronunciation—made what they call a wrong quantity; and immediately there arose a shout of derision. It seemed quite tolerable that a member should know little or nothing about the business he was there to transact; but quite in -tolerable that he should be ignorant of a point of no moment.”The English pique themselves on being especially practical—have a great contempt for theorizers, and profess to be guided exclusively by facts. Before making or altering a law it is the custom to appoint a committee of inquiry, who send for men able to give information concerning the matter in hand, and ask them some thousands of questions. These questions, and the answers given to them, are printed in large books, and distributed among the members of the Houses of Parliament; and I was told that they spent about £100,000 a year in thus collecting and distributing evidence. Nevertheless, it appeared to me that the ministers and representatives of the English people, pertinaciously adhere to theories long ago disproved by the most conspicuous facts. They pay great respect to petty details of evidence, but of large truths they are quite regardless. Thus, the experience of age after age has shown that their state-management is almost invariably bad. The national estates are so miserably administered as often to bring loss instead of gain. The government ship-yards are uniformly extravagant and inefficient. The judicial system works so ill that most citizens will submit to serious losses rather than run risks of being ruined by law-suits. Countless facts prove the Government to be the worst owner, the worst manufacturer, the worst trader: in fact, the worst manager, be the thing managed what it may. But though the evidence of this is abundant and conclusive—though, during a recent war, the bunglings of officials were as glaring and multitudinous as ever; yet the belief that any proposed duties will be satisfactorily discharged by a new public department appointed to them, seems not a whit the weaker. Legislators, thinking themselves practical, cling to the plausible theory of an officially-regulated society, spite of overwhelming evidence that official regulation perpetually fails.”Nay, indeed, the belief seems to gain strength among these fact-loving English statesmen, notwithstanding the facts are against it. Proposals for State-control over this and the other, have been of late more rife than ever. And, most remarkable of all, their representative assembly lately listened with grave faces to the assertion, made by one of their high authorities, that State-workshops are more economical than private workshops. Their prime minister, in defending a recently-established arms-factory, actually told them that, at one of their arsenals, certain missiles of war were manufactured not only better than by the trade, but at about one-third the price; and added, ‘ so it would be in all things. ‘ The English being a trading people, who must be tolerably familiar with the usual rates of profit among manufacturers, and the margin for possible economy, the fact that they should have got for their chief representative one so utterly in the dark on these matters, struck me as a wonderful result of the representative system.”I did not inquire much further, for it was manifest that if these were really their wisest men, the English were not a wise people.”

Representative government, then, cannot be called a success, in so far as the choice of men is concerned. Those it puts into power are the fittest neither in respect of their interests, nor their culture, nor their wisdom. And as a consequence, partly of this and partly of its complex and cumbrous nature, representative government is anything but efficient for administrative purposes. In these respects it is manifestly inferior to monarchical government. This has the advantage of simplicity, which is always conducive to efficiency. And it has the further advantage that the power is in the hands of one who is directly concerned in the good management of national affairs; seeing that the continued maintenance of his power—nay, often his very life—depends on this. For his own sake a monarch chooses the wisest councillors he can find, regardless of class-distinctions. His interest in getting the best help is too great to allow of prejudices standing between him and a far-seeing man. We see this abundantly illustrated. Did not the kings of France take Richelieu, and Mazarin, and Turgot to assist them? Had not Henry VIII his Wolsey, Elizabeth her Burleigh, James his Bacon, Cromwell his Milton? And were not these men of greater calibre than those who hold the reins under out constitutional régime? So strong is the motive of an autocrat to make use of ability wherever it exists, that he will, like Louis XI, take even his barber into council if he finds him a clever fellow. Besides choosing them for ministers and advisers, he seeks out the most competent men for other offices. Napoleon raised his marshals from the ranks; and owed his military success in great part to the readiness with which he saw and availed himself of merit wherever found. We have recently seen in Russia how prompt was the recognition and promotion of engineering talent in the case of Todleben; and know to our cost how greatly the prolonged defence of Sebastopol was due to this. In the marked contrast to these cases supplied by our own army, in which genius is ignored while muffs are honoured—in which wealth and caste make the advance of plebeian merit next to impossible—in which jealousies between Queen’s service and Company’s service render the best generalship almost unavailable; we see that the representative system fails in the officering of its executive, as much as in the officering of its legislative. A striking antithesis between the actions of the two forms of government, is presented in the evidence given before the Sebastopol Committee respecting the supply of huts to the Crimean army—evidence showing that while, in his negotiations with the English Government, the contractor for the huts met with nothing but vacillation, delay, and official rudeness, the conduct of the French Government was marked by promptitude, decision, sound judgement, and great civility. Everything goes to show that for administrative efficiency, autocratic power is the best. If your aim is a well-organized army—if you want to have sanitary departments, and educational departments, and charity-departments, managed in a business-like way—if you would have society actively regulated by staffs of State-agents; then by all means choose that system of complete centralization which we call despotism.

Probably, notwithstanding the hints dropped at the outset, most have read the foregoing pages with surprise. Very likely some have referred to the cover of the Review, to see whether they have not, in mistake, taken up some other than the ” Westiminster “; while some may, perhaps, have accompanied their perusal by a running commentary of epithets condemnatory of our seeming change of principles. Let them not be alarmed. We have not in the least swerved from the confession of faith set forth in our prospectus. On the contrary, as we shall shortly show, our adhesion to free institutions is as strong as ever—nay, has even gained strength through this apparently antagonistic criticism.The subordination of a nation to a man, is not a wholesome but a vicious state of things: needful, indeed, for a vicious humanity; but to be outgrown as fast as may be. The instinct which makes it possible is anything but a noble one. Call it “hero-worship,” and it looks respectable. Call it what it is—a blind awe and fear of power, no matter of what kind, but more especially of the brutal kind; and it is by no means to be admired. Watch it in early ages deifying the cannibal chief; singing the praises of the successful thief; commemorating the most blood-thirsty warriors; speaking with reverence of those who had shown undying revenge; and erecting altars to such as carried furthest the vices which disgrace humanity; and the illusion disappears. Read how, where it was strongest, it immolated crowds of victims at the tomb of the dead king—how, at the altars raised to its heroes, it habitually sacrificed prisoners and children to satisfy their traditional appetite for human flesh—how it produced that fealty of subjects to rulers which made possible endless aggressions, battles, massacres, and horrors innumerable—how it has mercilessly slain those who would not lick the dust before its idols;—read all this, and the feeling no longer seems so worthy an one. See it in later days idealizing the worst as well as the best monarchs; receiving assassins with acclamation; hurrahing before successful treachery; rushing to applaud the processions and shows and ceremonies wherewith effete power stengthens itself; and it looks far from laudable. Autocracy presupposes inferiority of nature on the part of both ruler and subject: on the one side a cold, unsympathetic sacrificing of other’s wills to self-will; on the other side a mean, cowardly abandonment of the claims of manhood. Our very language bears testimony to this. Do not dignity, independence, and other words of approbation, imply a nature at variance with this relation? Are not tyrannical, arbitrary, despotic, epithets of reproach? and are not truckling, fawning, cringing, epithets of contempt? Is not slavish a condemnatory term? Does not servile, that is, serf-like, imply littleness, meanness? And has not the word villain, which originally meant bondsman, come to signify everything which is hateful? That language should thus inadvertently embody dislike for those who most display the instinct of subordination, is alone sufficient proof that this instinct is associated with evil dispositions. It has been the parent of countless crimes. It is answerable for the torturing and murder of the noble-minded who would not submit—for the horrors of Bastiles and Siberias. It has ever been the represser of knowledge, of free thought, of true progress. In all times it has fostered the vices of courts, and made those vices fashionable throughout nations. With a George IV on the throne, it weekly tells ten thousand lies, in the shape of prayers for a “most religious and gracious king.” Whether you read the annals of the far past—whether you look at the various uncivilized races dispersed over the globe—or whether you contrast the existing nations of Europe; you equally find that submission to authority decreases as morality and intelligence increase. From ancient warrior-worship down to modern flunkeyism, the sentiment has ever been strongest where human nature has been vilest.This relation between barbarism and loyalty, is one of those beneficent arrangements which “the servant and interpreter of nature,” everywhere meets with. The sub-ordination of many to one, is a form of society needful for men so long as their natures are savage, or anti-social; and that it may be maintained, it is needful that they should have an extreme awe of the one. Just in proportion as their conduct to one another is such as to breed perpetual antagonism, endangering social union: just in that proportion must there be a reverence for the strong, determined, cruel ruler, who alone can repress their explosive natures and keep them from mutual destruction. Among such a people any form of free government is an impossibility. There must be a despotism as stern as the people are savage; and, that such a despotism may exist, there must be a superstitious worship of the despot. But as fast as the discipline of social life modifies character—as fast as, through lack of use, the old predatory instincts dwindle—as fast as the sympathetic feelings grow; so fast does this hard rule become less necessary; so fast does the authority of the ruler diminish; so fast does the awe of him disappear. From being originally god, or demi-god, he comes at length to be a very ordinary person; liable to be criticized, ridiculed, caricatured. Various influences conspire to this result. Accumulating knowledge gradually divests the ruler of those supernatural attributes at first ascribed to him. The conceptions which developing science gives of the grandeur of creation, as well as the constancy and irresistibleness of its Omnipresent Cause, make all feel the comparative littleness of human power; and the awe once felt for the great man is, by degrees, transferred to that Universe of which the great man is seen to form but an insignificant part. Increase of population, with its average percentage of great men, involves the comparative frequency of such; and the more numerous they are the less respect can be given to each: they dwarf one another. As society becomes settled and organized, its welfare and progress become more and more independent of any one. In a primitive society the death of a chief may alter the whole course of things; but in a society like ours, things go on much as before, no matter who dies. Thus, many influences combine to diminish autocratic power, whether political or other. It is true, not only in the sense in which Tennyson writes it, but also in a higher sense, that:

… the individual withers, and world is more and more.

Further, it is to be noted that while the unlimited authority of the greatest man ceases to be needful; and while the superstitious awe which upholds that unlimited authority decreases; it at the same time becomes impossible to get the greatest man to the top. In a rude social state, where might is right, where war is the business of life, where the qualities required in the ruler, alike for controlling his subjects and defeating his enemies, are bodily strength, courage, cunning, will, it is easy to pick out the best; or rather—he picks himself out. The qualities which make him the fittest governor for the barbarians around him, are the qualities by which he gets the mastery over them. But in an advanced, complex, and comparatively peaceful state like ours, these are not the qualities needed; and even were they needed, the firmly-organized arrangements of society do not allow the possessor of them to break through to the top. For the rule of a settled, civilized community, the characteristics required are—not a love of conquest but a desire for the general happiness; not undying hate of enemies but a calm dispassionate equity; not artful manoeuvring but philosophic insight. How is the man most endowed with these to be found? In no country is he ordinarily born heir to the throne; and that he can be chosen out of thirty millions of people none will be foolish enough to think. The incapacity for recognizing the greatest worth, we have already seen illustrated in our parliamentary elections. And if the few thousands forming a constituency cannot pick out from among themselves their wisest man, still less can the millions forming a nation do it. Just as fast as society becomes populous, complex, peaceful; so fast does the political supremacy of the best become impossible.But even were the relation of autocrat and slave a morally wholesome one; and even were it possible to find the fittest man to be autocrat; we should still contend that such a form of government is bad. We should not contend this simply on the ground that self-government is a valuable educator. But we should take the ground that no human being, however wise and good, is fit to be sole ruler over the doings of an involved society; and that, with the best intentions, a benevolent despot is very likely to produce the most terrible mischiefs which would else have been impossible. We will take the case of all others the most favourable to those who would give supreme power to the best. We will instance Mr. Carlyle’s model hero—Cromwell. Doubtless there was much in the manners of the times when Puritanism arose, to justify its disgust. Doubtless the vices and follies bequeathed by effete Catholicism still struggling for existence, were bad enough to create a reactionary asceticism. It is in the order of Nature, however, that men’s habits and pleasures are not to be changed suddenly. For any permanent effect to be produced it must be produced slowly. Better tastes, higher aspirations, must be developed; not enforced from without. Disaster is sure to result from the withdrawal of lower gratifications before higher ones have taken their places; for gratification of some kind is a condition to healthful existence. Whatever ascetic morality, or rather immorality, may say, pleasures and pains are the incentives and restraints by which Nature keeps her progeny from destruction. No contemptuous title of “pig-philosophy” will alter the eternal fact that Misery is the highway to Death; while Happiness is added Life and the giver of Life. But indignant Puritanism could not see this truth; and with the extravagance of fanaticism sought to abolish pleasure in general. Getting into power, it put down not only questionable amusements but all others along with them. And for these repressions Cromwell, either as enacting, maintaining, or allowing them, was responsible. What, now, was the result of this attempt to dragoon men into virtue? What came when the strong man who thought he was thus “helping God to mend all,” died? A dreadful reaction brought in one of the most degraded periods of our history. Into the newly-garnished house entered “seven other spirits more wicked than the first”. For generations the English character was lowered. Vice was gloried in, virtue was ridiculed; dramatists made marriage the stock-subject of laughter; profaneness and obscenity flourished; high aspirations ceased; the whole age was corrupt. Not until George III reigned was there a better standard of living. And for this century of demoralization we have, in great measure, to thank Cromwell. Is it, then, so clear that the domination of one man, righteous though he may be, is a blessing?Lastly, it is to be remarked that when the political supremacy of the greatest no longer exists in an overt form, it still continues in a disguised and more beneficent form. For is it not manifest that in these latter days the wise man eventually gets his edicts enforced by others, if not by himself. Adam Smith, from his chimney-corner, dictated greater changes than prime ministers do. A General Thompson who forges the weapons with which the Anti-Corn-Law battle is fought—a Cobden and a Bright who add to and wield them, forward civilization much more than those who hold sceptres. Repugnant as the fact may be to statesmen, it is yet one not to be gainsayed. Whoever, to the great effects already produced by Free-trade, joins the far greater effects which will be hereafter produced, must see that the revolution initiated by these men is far wider than has been initiated by any potentate of modern times. As Mr. Carlyle very well knows, those who elaborate new truths and teach them to their fellows, are now-a-days the real rulers—”the unacknowledged legislators”—the virtual kings. Thus we have the good which great men can do us, while we are saved from the evil.No; the old régime has passed away. For ourselves at least, the subordination of the many to the one has become alike needless, repugnant, and impossible. Good for its time, bad for ours, the ancient “hero-worship” is dead; and happily no declamations, be they never so eloquent, can revive it.

Here seem to be two irreconcileable positions—two mutually-destructive arguments. First, a condemnatory criticism on representative government, and then a still more condemnatory criticism on monarchical government: each apparently abolishing the other.Nevertheless, the paradox is easily explicable. It is quite possible to say all that we have said concerning the defects of representative government, and still to hold that it is the best form of government. Nay, it is quite possible to derive a more profound conviction of its superiority from the very evidence which appears so unfavourable to it.For nothing that we have urged tells against its goodness as a means of securing justice between man and man, or class and class. Abundant evidence shows that the maintenance of equitable relations among its subjects, which forms the essential business of a ruling power, is surest when the ruling power is of popular origin; notwithstanding the defects to which such a ruling power is liable. For discharging the true function of a government, representative government is shown to be the best, alike by its origin, its theory, and its results. Let us glance at the facts under these three heads.Alike in Spain, in England, and in France, popular power embodied itself as a check upon kingly tyranny, that is—kingly injustice. The earliest accounts we have of the Spanish Cortes, say that it was their office to advise the King; and to follow their advice was his duty. They petitioned, remonstrated, complained of grievances, and supplicated for redress. The King, having acceded to their requirements, swore to observe them; and it was agreed that any act of his incontravention of the statutes thus established, should be “respected as the King’s commands, but not executed, as contrary to the rights and privileges of the subject.” In all which we see very clearly that the special aim of the Cortes was to get rectified the injustices committed by the King or others; that the King was in the habit of breaking the promises of amendment he made to them; and that they had to adopt measures to enforce the fulfilment of his promises. In England we trace analogous facts. The Barons who bridled the tyranny of King John, though not formally appointed, were virtually impromptu representatives of the nation; and in their demand that justice should neither be sold, denied, nor delayed, we discern the social evils which led to this taking of the power into their own hands. In early times the knights and burgesses, summoned by the King with the view of getting supplies from them, had for their especial business to obtain from him the redress of grievances, that is—the execution of justice; and in their eventually-obtained and occasionally-exercised power of withholding supplies until justice was granted, we see both the need there was for remedying the iniquities of autocracy, and the adaptation of representative institutions to this end. And the further development of popular power latterly obtained, originated from the demand for fairer laws—for less class-privilege, class-exemption, class-injustice: a fact which the speeches of the Reform-Bill agitation abundantly prove. In France, again, representative government grew into a definite form under the stimulus of unbearable oppression. When the accumulated extortion of centuries had reduced the mass of the people to misery—when millions of haggard faces were seen throughout the land—when starving complainants were hanged on “a gallows forty feet high”—when the exactions and cruelties of good-for-nothing kings and vampire-nobles had brought the nation to the eye of dissolution; there came, as a remedy, an assembly of men elected by the people.That, considered a priori, representative government is fitted for establishing just laws, is implied by the unanimity with which Spanish, English, and French availed themselves of it to this end; as well as by the endeavours latterly made by other European nations to do the like. The rationale of the matter is simple enough. Manifestly, on the average of cases, a man will protect his own interests more solicitously than others will protect them for him. Manifestly, where regulations have to be made affecting the interests of several men, they are most likely to be equitably made when all those concerned are present, and have equal shares in the making of them. And manifestly, where those concerned are so numerous and so dispersed, that it is physically impossible for them all to take part in the framing of such regulations, the next best thing is for the citizens in each locality to appoint one of their number to speak for them, to care for their claims, to be their representative. The general principle is that the welfare of all will be most secure when each looks after his own welfare; and the principle is carried out as directly as the circumstances permit. It is inferable, alike from human nature and from history, that a single man cannot be trusted with the interests of a nation of men, where his real or imagined interests clash with theirs. It is similarly inferable from human nature and from history, that no small section of a nation, as the nobles, can be expected to consult the welfare of the people at large in preference to their own. And it is further inferable that only in a general diffusion of political power, is there a safeguard for the general welfare. This has all along been the conviction under which representative government has been advocated, maintained, and extended. From the early writs summoning the members of the House of Commons—writs which declared it to be a most equitable rule that the laws which concerned all should be approved of by all—down to the reasons now urged by the unenfranchised for a participation in political power, this is the implied theory. Observe, nothing is said about wisdom or administrative ability. From the beginning, the end in view has been justice. Whether we consider the question in the abstract, or whether we examine the opinions men have entertained upon it from old times down to the present day, we equally see the theory of representative government to be, that it is the best means of insuring equitable social relations.And do not the results justify the theory? Did not our early Parliaments, after long-continued struggles, succeed in curbing the licentious exercise of royal power, and in establishing the rights of the subject? Are not the comparative security and justice enjoyed under our form of government, indicated by the envy with which other nations regard it? Was not the election of the French Constituent Assembly followed by the sweeping away of the grievous burdens that weighed down the people—by the abolition of tithes, seignorial dues, gabelle, excessive preservation of game—by the withdrawal of numerous feudal privileges and immunities—by the manumission of the slaves in the French colonies? And has not that extension of our own electoral system embodied in the Reform-Bill, brought about more equitable arrangements?—as witness the repeal of the Corn-Laws, and the equalization of probate and legacy duties. The proofs are undeniable. It is clear, both a priori and a posteriori, that representative government is especially adapted for the establishment and maintenance of just laws.And now mark that the objections to representative government awhile since urged, scarcely tell against it at all, so long as it does not exceed this comparatively limited function. Though its mediocrity of intellect makes it incompetent to oversee and regulate the countless involved processes which make up the national life; it nevertheless has quite enough intellect to enact and enforce those simple principles of equity which underlie the right conduct of citizens to one another. These are such that the commonest minds can understand their chief applications. Stupid as may be the average elector, he can see the propriety of such regulations as shall prevent men from murdering and robbing; he can understand the fitness of laws which enforce the payment of debts; he can perceive the need of measures to prevent the strong from tyrannizing over the weak; and he can feel the rectitude of a judicial system that is the same for rich and poor. The average representative may be but of small capacity, but he is competent, under the leadership of his wiser fellows, to devise appliances for carrying out these necessary restraints; or rather—he is competent to uphold the set of appliances slowly elaborated by the many generations of his predecessors, and to do something towards improving and extending them in those directions where the need is most manifest. It is true that even these small demands upon electoral and senatorial wisdom are but imperfectly met. But though constituencies are blind to the palpable truth that if they would escape laws which favour the nobility at the expense of the commonalty, they must cease to choose representatives from among the nobility; yet when the injustice of this class-legislation is glaring—as in the case of the Corn-Laws—they have sense enough to use means for getting it abolished. And though most legislators have not sufficient penetration to perceive that the greater part of the evils which they attempt to cure by official inspection and regulation would disappear were there a certain, prompt, and cheap administration of justice; yet the County-Courts-Act and other recent law-reforms, show that they do eventually recognize the importance of more efficient judicial arrangements. While, therefore, the lower average of intelligence which necessarily characterizes representative government, unfits it for discharging the complex business of regulating the entire national life; it does not unfit it for discharging the comparatively simple duties of protector. Again, in respect of this all-essential function of a government, there is a much clearer identity of interest between representative and citizen, than in respect of the multitudinous other functions which governments undertake. Though it is generally of but little consequence to the member of Parliament whether state-teachers, state-preachers, state-officers of health, state-dispensers of charity, etc., do their work well, it is of great consequence to him that life and property should be secure; and hence he is more likely to care for the efficient administration of justice than for the efficient administration of anything else. Moreover, the complexity, incongruity of parts, and general cumbrousness which deprive a representative government of that activity and decision required for paternally-superintending the affairs of thirty millions of citizens; do not deprive it of the ability to establish and maintain the regulations by which these citizens are prevented from trespassing against one another. For the principles of equity are permanent as well as simple; and once having been legally embodied in their chief outlines, all that devolves on a government is to develop them more perfectly, and improve the appliances for enforcing them: an undertaking for which the slow and involved action of a representative government does not unfit it. So that while by its origin, theory, and results, representative government is shown to be the best for securing justice between class and class, as well as between man and man, the objections which so strongly tell against it in all its other relations to society, do not tell against it in this fundamental relation.Thus, then, we reach the solution of the paradox. Here is the reconciliation between the two seemingly-contradictory positions awhile since taken. To the question—What is representative government good for? our reply is—It is good, especially good, good above all others, for doing the thing which a government should do. It is bad, especially bad, bad above all others, for doing the things which a government should not do.

One point remains. We said, some distance back, that not only may representative government be the best, notwithstanding its many conspicuous deficiencies; but that it is even possible to discern in these very deficiencies further proofs of its superiority. The conclusion just arrived at, implying, as it does, that these deficiencies tend to hinder it from doing the things which no government should do, has already furnished a key to this strange-looking assertion. But it will be well here to make a more specific justification of it. This brings us to the pure science of the matter.The ever-increasing complexity which characterizes advancing societies, is a complexity that results from the multiplication of different parts performing different duties. The doctrine of the division of labour is now-a-days understood by most to some extent; and most know that by this division of labour each operative, each manufacturer, each town, each district, is constantly more and more restricted to one kind of work. Those who study the organization of living bodies find the uniform process of development to be, that each organ gradually acquires a definite and limited function; there arises, step by step, a more perfect “physiological division of labour.” And in an article on “Progress: its Law and Cause,” published in our April number, we pointed out that this increasing specialization of functions which goes on in all organized bodies, social as well as individual; is one of the manifestations of a still more general process pervading creation, inorganic as well as organic.Now this specialization of functions, which is the law of all organization, has a twofold implication. At the same time that each part grows adapted to the particular duty it has to discharge, it grows unadapted to all other duties. The becoming especially fit for one thing, is a becoming less fit than before for everything else. We have not space here to exemplify this truth. Any modern work on physiology, however, will furnish the reader with abundant illustrations of it, as exhibited in the evolution of living creatures; and as exhibited in the evolution of societies, it may be studied in the writings of political economists. All which we wish here to point out is, that the governmental part of the body politic exemplifies this truth equally with its other parts. In virtue of this universal law, a government cannot gain ability to perform its special work without losing such ability as it had to perform other work.This then is, as we say, the pure science of the matter. The original and essential office of a government is that of protecting its subjects against aggression external and internal. In low, undeveloped forms of society, where yet there is but little differentiation of parts, and little specialization of functions, this essential work, discharged with extreme imperfection, is joined with endless other work: the government has a controlling action over all conduct, individual and social—regulates dress, food, ablutions, prices, trade, religion—exercises unbounded power. In becoming so constituted as to discharge better its essential function, the government becomes more limited alike in the power and the habit of doing other things. Increasing ability to perform its true duty, involves decreasing ability to perform all other kinds of actions. And this conclusion, deducible from the universal law of organization, is the conclusion to which inductive reasoning has already led us. We have seen that, whether considered in theory or practice, representative government is the best for securing justice. We have also seen that, whether considered in theory or practice, it is the worst for all other purposes. And here we find that this last characteristic is a necessary accompaniment of the first. These various incapacities, which seem to tell so seriously against the goodness of representative government, are but the inevitable consequences of its more complete adaptation to its proper work; and, so understood, are themselves indications that it is the form of government natural to a more highly-organized and advanced social state.We do not expect this consideration to weigh much with those whom it most concerns. Truths of so abstract a character find no favour with senates. The metamorphosis we have described is not mentioned in Ovid. History, as at present written, makes no comments on it. There is nothing about it to be found in blue-books and committee-reports. Neither is it proved by statistics. Evidently, then, it has but small chance of recognition by the “practical” legislator. But to the select few who study the Social Science, properly so called, we commend this general fact as one of the highest significance. Those who know something of the general laws of life, and who perceive that these general laws of life underlie all social phenomena, will see that this dual change in the character of advanced governments, involves an answer to the first of all political questions. They will see that this specialization in virtue of which an advanced government gains power to perform one function, while it loses power to perform others, clearly indicates the true limitations of State-duty. They will see that, even leaving out all other evidence, this fact alone shows conclusively what is the proper sphere of legislation.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Religious restrictions around the world

For more than a decade, Pew Research Center has been tracking global patterns in restrictions on religion – both those imposed by governments and hostilities committed by individuals and social groups. Scroll down to explore restrictions in 198 countries and territories, and see how each country’s restrictions have changed since 2007.

For more details on restrictions on religion around the world, read our latest report on the topic, “Globally, Government Restrictions on Religion Reached Peak Levels in 2021, While Social Hostilities Went Down.”  

Note: Government restrictions include laws, policies and actions by authorities that impinge on religious beliefs and practices, while social hostilities involving religion include actions by private individuals or groups in society that limit such practices.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism

David Folkenflik

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument. Uri Berliner hide caption

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument.

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner's essay for the online news site The Free Press . It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR's new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization .

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR's journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."

The network noted that "the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions."

In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.

"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month. Stephen Voss/Stephen Voss hide caption

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month.

He said that he tried repeatedly to make his concerns over NPR's coverage known to news leaders and to Maher's predecessor as chief executive before publishing his essay.

Berliner has singled out coverage of several issues dominating the 2020s for criticism, including trans rights, the Israel-Hamas war and COVID. Berliner says he sees the same problems at other news organizations, but argues NPR, as a mission-driven institution, has a greater obligation to fairness.

"I love NPR and feel it's a national trust," Berliner says. "We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they're capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners."

A "final warning"

The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.

Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.

In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times , which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times .

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: "Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think."

Berliner is a member of NPR's business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.

In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world."

Feelings of anger and betrayal inside the newsroom

His essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts. They also note he did not seek comment from the journalists involved in the work he cited.

Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner's concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.

"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway."

Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage.

"Newsrooms run on trust," NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. "If you violate everyone's trust by going to another outlet and sh--ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don't know how you do your job now."

Berliner rejected that critique, saying nothing in his essay or subsequent remarks betrayed private observations or arguments about coverage.

Other newsrooms are also grappling with questions over news judgment and confidentiality. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn announced to his staff that the newspaper's inquiry into who leaked internal dissent over a planned episode of its podcast The Daily to another news outlet proved inconclusive. The episode was to focus on a December report on the use of sexual assault as part of the Hamas attack on Israel in October. Audio staffers aired doubts over how well the reporting stood up to scrutiny.

"We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule," Kahn wrote to Times staffers.

At NPR, some of Berliner's colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR's workforce as its " North Star ," a moral imperative and chief business strategy.

In his essay, Berliner tagged the strategy as a failure, citing the drop in NPR's broadcast audiences and its struggle to attract more Black and Latino listeners in particular.

"During most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding," Berliner writes. "In recent years, however, that has changed."

Berliner writes, "For NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024."

Some colleagues drafted a letter to Maher and NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, seeking greater clarity on NPR's standards for its coverage and the behavior of its journalists — clearly pointed at Berliner.

A plan for "healthy discussion"

On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network's mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner's critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner's essay offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

Late Monday afternoon, Chapin announced to the newsroom that Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez would lead monthly meetings to review coverage.

"Among the questions we'll ask of ourselves each month: Did we capture the diversity of this country — racial, ethnic, religious, economic, political geographic, etc — in all of its complexity and in a way that helped listeners and readers recognize themselves and their communities?" Chapin wrote in the memo. "Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?"

Berliner said he welcomed the announcement but would withhold judgment until those meetings played out.

In a text for this story, Chapin said such sessions had been discussed since Lansing unified the news and programming divisions under her acting leadership last year.

"Now seemed [the] time to deliver if we were going to do it," Chapin said. "Healthy discussion is something we need more of."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

• Katherine Maher
• uri berliner

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

NPR suspends editor who criticized his employer for what he calls an unquestioned liberal worldview

FILE - The headquarters for National Public Radio (NPR) stands on North Capitol Street, April 15, 2013, in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

• Copy Link copied

NEW YORK (AP) — National Public Radio has suspended a veteran editor who wrote an outside essay criticizing his employer for, in his view, journalism that reflects a liberal viewpoint with little tolerance for contrary opinions.

Uri Berliner, a senior editor on NPR’s business desk, was suspended five days without pay, according to an article posted Tuesday by NPR’s media correspondent, David Folkenflik. He wrote that Berliner was told he violated the company’s policy that it must approve work done for outside news organizations.

Berliner told NPR that he was not appealing the suspension. An NPR spokeswoman said the company would not comment on individual personnel matters.

He wrote his essay last week for The Free Press. Berliner wrote that NPR has always had a liberal bent, but for most of his 25-year tenure had an open-minded, curious culture.

“In recent years, however, that has changed,” he wrote. “Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.”

His commentary became an instant hit with outside conservative activists who have made similar criticisms of NPR. He specifically criticized his employer for its coverage of former President Donald Trump, of accusations against the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following publication, NPR’s top editor, Edith Chapin, said she strongly disagrees with Berliner’s conclusions and is proud to stand behind NPR’s work.

One of his NPR colleagues,“Morning Edition” co-host Steve Inskeep, wrote on Substack Tuesday that Berliner’s essay in The Free Press was filled with errors and assumptions.

“If Uri’s ‘larger point’ is that journalists should seek wider perspectives, and not just write stories that confirm their prior opinions, his article is useful as an example of what to avoid,” Inskeep wrote.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Freedom Caucus Started Believing in the Myth of Its Own Power

By Brendan Buck

Mr. Buck worked for two Republican speakers of the House.

On Saturday the House of Representatives approved the most consequential legislation of this Congress, a foreign aid package for American allies. More Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the measure that allowed the package to pass. And once again the speaker’s job is at risk.

This is just the latest example of how this House of Representatives has become unmoored from the normal practices of a body that has long relied on party unity to function. The speaker, Mike Johnson, holds his role only because a few hard-line Republicans ousted the previous speaker for being too dismissive of their demands. But since the moment they threw their support behind Mr. Johnson, these hard-liners have encountered the reality that they’re irrelevant to the governance of the House of Representatives.

For all its rank partisanship, the House right now is functionally and uneasily governed by a group of Republicans and Democrats. The House is led by a conservative speaker, but for any matter of lawmaking, he cannot count on a Republican majority. Instead, a coalition has emerged that is willing to do what is necessary to save the House from itself. But still we must wonder how long a G.O.P. speaker can sustain a position he owes to Democrats. It is no small thing for any speaker to rely on the opposition party to govern.

In the past year, the House has averted a catastrophic debt default, passed foreign military aid when it seemed hopeless and funded the government when a shutdown seemed all but inevitable. Should we expect more from Congress? Of course. But the critical items are getting done in a more bipartisan manner than would seem possible in this era of negative partisanship.

The most conservative voices are getting shut out, and the House Freedom Caucus, ironically, has made sure of it. The sustainability of it all will be decided by whether Mr. Johnson continues down a path of realistic policymaking or feels the urge to now appease the discontents who have worked to stymie him from the start.

To understand how broken down the normal power structures have become — and how, in the process, the hard-liners have removed themselves from lawmaking — consider the basic procedures with which the business of the House is done.

The job of the Rules Committee, often referred to as the speaker’s committee, is to bring the agenda of the majority to the floor and set terms of debate on legislation. It is not a high-profile panel, but its work is critical to the operation of the House. It has long been the responsibility of the majority party to carry the votes on these agenda-setting rules. One of the few things stressed to new members of the House is to never vote against their party on a rule.

Members of the Freedom Caucus, however, now see themselves as watchmen of the floor. They set conservative policy demands that are impossible to achieve with Democrats controlling the Senate and White House. And when these demands are inevitably not met, they routinely hijack the process to stop legislation before it can even get an up-or-down vote, no matter if a measure has the overwhelming support of the Republican conference or the House.

Seven times in the past year an effort to bring a bill up for a vote through the rules process has failed, primarily defeated by conservatives. Before this Congress, it had been more than two decades since a rule had been voted down. A party unable to bring its agenda to the floor for a vote is no longer a functional majority.

But the business of the House must go on somehow, and Mr. Johnson has been forced to go around the blockades. When he reached a bipartisan agreement for funding the government this year, he took the extraordinary step of considering the bill under fast-track procedures that limit floor debate , bar amendments and require a two-thirds vote for passage. This process, typically reserved for noncontroversial measures, is how we’re funding the entire government.

Another procedural abnormality was necessary for last week’s foreign aid package. Despite it being obvious that the House overwhelmingly supports aid for Ukraine, the Freedom Caucus vowed to block consideration of the bill. Democrats were forced to carry the rule teeing up the vote, providing more votes than Republicans.

As a result, Mr. Johnson now waits for Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the anti-Ukraine Freedom Caucus member from Georgia, to follow through on threats to force a vote to remove him from the speakership. She claims it is he who has betrayed Republicans, not the conservatives who continually undermine their own colleagues.

Some Democrats have expressed at least an openness to helping Mr. Johnson retain his speakership if it is threatened for doing what they viewed as the right thing in passing Ukraine assistance. An overwhelming bipartisan repudiation of Ms. Greene’s speaker-removal tactic would be the single best thing the House could do to regain its credibility as a deliberative body.

The Freedom Caucus’s power stems from its willingness to take out the speaker. When those tools are removed, their threats quickly become more bark than bite.

The potential for a bipartisan rejection of the effort to oust Mr. Johnson has spawned hope for a new era of comity in the House. But this is not fairy-tale politics. There will be no sweeping compromise on immigration or the federal deficit.

A coalition works only as long as both sides are getting something from the deal. Mr. Johnson’s survival as speaker for the remainder of this Congress is aided by the fact there is very little that the House must do before the elections. But he will no doubt feel extraordinary pressure to take actions to get back in the good graces of conservatives.

Kevin McCarthy, the previous speaker, lost his job because Democrats had lost faith in him as an honest broker. Mr. Johnson is not immune from a similar erosion of trust. It could happen if he were to abandon the spending agreement put in place last year by President Biden and Mr. McCarthy. He similarly may not be able to count on Democrats again if he tries to impeach the president.

The speakership seems to have given Mr. Johnson, who himself rose to the job from the ranks of the discontented conservatives, a new perspective on the hard-liners, who simply cannot be counted on. And the past week has demonstrated that governance is still possible in the House if, as the speaker said last week, you “ do the right thing .”

Whether it’s Mr. Johnson or Mr. McCarthy or the two previous Republican speakers for whom I worked, it has not been the Republican leadership that cut out the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus, by believing in the myth of its own power, made itself irrelevant to legislative outcomes.

Brendan Buck is a communications consultant who previously worked for the Republican speakers of the House Paul D. Ryan and John Boehner.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .