Enhedsregering - Historie

Enhedsregering - Historie

Enhedsregering - regeringssystem, hvor al autoritet er placeret i en central regering. Lande med enhedsregeringer, såsom Storbritannien og Frankrig, har regionale og lokale regeringer, som udleder deres magt fra centralregeringen.

. .



I et føderalt system er magten koncentreret i staterne i et enhedssystem, den er koncentreret i den nationale regering. I et føderalt system tildeler forfatningen beføjelser mellem stater og føderal regering i et enhedssystem, beføjelser indgives i den nationale regering.

I en sådan regering tilhører alle magter, som regeringen besidder, et enkelt, centralt organ. Centralregeringen opretter lokale regeringsenheder for egen bekvemmelighed. Et enhedssystem styres forfatningsmæssigt som en enkelt enhed, med en forfatningsmæssigt oprettet lovgiver. Al magt er ovenfra og ned.


17 Store fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering

En enhedsregering er en stat, der styres under en enkelt central styringsstruktur, der behandler sig selv som værende det sidste ord i enhver beslutning. Centralregeringen kan beslutte at oprette eller afskaffe administrative beslutninger, tilbydes at give subnationale enheder delegeret magt og foretage ændringer på lokalt plan, når det ønsker det. Det er den mest almindelige regeringsform i verden i dag, hvor 165 af 193 FN -medlemsstater har et enhedsstyre.

Kontrasten med en forbundsstat er denne: hvorimod forbundsstaten ser den nationale regering som en ligeværdig aktør med de andre krævede styringsniveauer (lokal, amt og stat/provins), ser enhedsregeringen sig selv som værende overlegen. Det er muligt at have en enhedsrepublik eller monarki, mens man bruger denne struktur.

To af de bedste eksempler på denne styreform findes i Storbritannien og Frankrig. Storbritannien er teknisk set et forfatningsmæssigt monarki, men det fungerer som en enhedsstat, fordi al politisk magt ejes af parlamentet. De andre lande i denne konføderation har deres egne regeringer, men de kan ikke vedtage love, der ville påvirke nogen anden del af Storbritannien. I Frankrig udøver centralregeringen total kontrol over alle de lokale politiske underinddelinger.

Selvom det er den mest almindelige regeringsform, der findes i verden i dag, er der stadig flere fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering at overveje.

Liste over fordelene ved en enhedsregering

1. Det skaber mindre forvirring over den almindelige borgeres styringsproces.
I USA er den gennemsnitlige person underlagt lovene i fire forskellige ligestillede styrelsesorganer samtidigt. Hvis du beslutter dig for at rejse til en anden by i et nærliggende amt, er du stadig underlagt dine egne lokale love i nogle situationer, samtidig med at du også skal følge, hvad der forventes i det andet samfund. Du er også bundet af de forskellige statslove - hvis du køber lovlig rekreativ marihuana i staten Washington, kan du ikke tage det med til et sted, hvor det er ulovligt at have det i din besiddelse.

Fordelen ved enhedsregeringen er, at denne forvirring forsvinder. I stedet for at have flere lag bureaukrati at navigere i, har du et klart sæt forventninger at følge. Det kan til tider give nogle gener, men det kan også reducere risikoen for en ukendt overtrædelse af loven.

2. Denne regeringsstruktur kan reagere hurtigt på nødsituationer.
Enhedsregeringens struktur betyder, at enhver beslutning træffes af det centrale ledelsesorgan. Denne proces sparer tid i en nødsituation, fordi der ikke er flere lag bureaukrati at navigere i, så ressourcer kan nå dertil, hvor de skal hen. Når der opstår en uventet situation, uanset om det er fra en naturkatastrofe eller en krigserklæring, kan regeringen reagere med bedre nøjagtighed og hurtigere indenlands eller i udlandet, fordi der skal træffes en beslutning i stedet for fire eller flere.

3. Enhedsregeringer er normalt billigere at drive.
Fordi du ikke kæmper med flere lag af bureaukrati under enhedsstilen, er der færre administrative omkostninger at styre med denne centraliserede regering. Det giver en mindre struktur til landets overordnede tilstand, hvilket muligvis reducerer skattetrykket for husstande uden at reducere adgangen til tjenester, de har brug for. Denne effektivitet gør det muligt at skabe stærkere sikkerhedsnet til dem, der er arbejdsløse i længere tid eller har handicap, der holder dem ude af arbejdsstyrken.

4. Det er en mindre styreform.
Lokale tjenester er stadig en prioritet for en samlet regeringsform. Den eneste forskel er, hvordan samfund har adgang til denne ressource. I stedet for at arbejde med lokale regeringsembedsmænd sender den centraliserede stat en delegeret til at føre tilsyn med hvert enkelt samfunds behov. Sådan strukturerer Frankrig sin regeringsform.

Der er næsten 1.000 lokale politiske underinddelinger, som de kalder "afdelinger" i landet. Hver ledes af en administrativ præfekt, der blev udnævnt til stillingen fra centralregeringen. Hver regional afdeling eksisterer for at implementere de direktiver, som staten offentliggør regelmæssigt.

5. Der er mindre kompleksitet i retssystemet for en enhedsregering.
I USA forbeholdt forfatningen specifikt nogle af myndighedsbeføjelserne til den føderale regering. Andre beføjelser tildeles derefter de kollektive stater, mens en håndfuld ansvar deles af begge. Hvis staten har magt til at vedtage deres egen lov, skal den være i overensstemmelse med, hvad forfatningen kræver. Magtfordelingen er ofte en kilde til debat, fordi der kan opstå tvister om hver stats rettigheder, der kræver, at retssystemet træder til for at forsure tingene. Det er op til Højesteret at afgøre, hvilke beføjelser der går hvor, hvilket ikke er et element, der findes i enhedsregeringen.

6. Et enhedsstyringssystem kan replikere fødererede stater.
Selvom enhedsregeringen er centraliseret og træffer beslutninger gennem autoritære processer oftere end ikke, kan denne struktur udformes på en sådan måde, at den replikerer stilen i en forbundsstat. I stedet for en lokal regering vil et enhedssystem placere en delegeret, ambassadør eller en person i en lignende position for at administrere lokale ressourcer. Folk kan tale med embedsmændene på deres lokale kontor for at udtrykke deres bekymringer om lokale spørgsmål. Derefter kan statsrepræsentanterne kommunikere disse spørgsmål til det styrende organ for at sikre, at der bliver givet nok opmærksomhed til problemet.

7. Unitære regeringer arbejder på at skabe et system af enhed.
Hele formålet med en korrekt struktureret enhedsregering er at skabe fælles fodslag. I stedet for at dele en persons loyalitet mellem staten og den nationale regering, er alle placeret i en position, hvor de arbejder for at støtte hinanden. Der er ingen overlappende distrikter, problemer med gerrymandering eller politisk polarisering, fordi alt fungerer gennem det centrale system. Selv når der afholdes flere valg hvert år for at sortere national repræsentation, er resultaterne en direkte afspejling af den mangfoldighed, der findes i samfundet. At arbejde med et føderationssystem, især et med kun to parter, skaber mere et kompromissystem i stedet.

Liste over ulemperne ved en enhedsregering

1. En enhedsregering kan mangle infrastruktur.
Selvom det er muligt for en enhedsregering at træffe beslutninger hurtigt, kan strukturen mangle den infrastruktur, den har brug for for at gennemføre de valg, den træffer. Når der ikke er nok lokal støtte til rådighed for lokalsamfund i en nødsituation, kan denne centraliserede administration overlade beslutningen til de lokale beslutningstagere i stedet for at gribe ind. Da denne delegation muligvis ikke omfatter magt til at foretage nødvendige ændringer for at beskytte mennesker, kan fraværet af en uafhængig lokal regering undertiden forårsage mere skade end gavn.

2. Det er en struktur, der kan ignorere lokale behov.
Fordelen ved at have en regering på lokalt, amt og statligt niveau er, at den kan koncentrere sig om lokale behov uden at blande sig på nationalt plan. Den føderale regering i USA bekymrer sig om at levere forsvar, styre transportnetværk og give ressourcer til dem, der mangler socioøkonomisk adgang. Lokale regeringer kan derefter fokusere på deres mikroøkonomi, skabe løsninger til behov, der opstår i deres samfund, og understøtte den nationale regering med deres handlinger samtidigt.

Fordi enhedsregeringen fungerer gennem en centraliseret struktur, er det ikke usædvanligt, at den ikke opfylder lokale behov. Der kan være tidspunkter, hvor nogle samfund ignoreres fuldstændigt, fordi opståede internationale situationer prioriteres frem for ansøgninger om afgrødetilskud eller andre indenlandske spørgsmål.

3. Denne styrende struktur kan tilskynde til misbrug af magt.
Enhedsstyreformen vil normalt placere et lovgivende organ eller et enkelt individ på det ultimative magtsted. Disse mennesker eller regeringsorganer vil bære næsten ethvert beslutningsansvar, når de bliver sat på. Når vi kigger tilbage gennem historiens historier, viser siderne hurtigt, at når magten kun er i besiddelse af få eller bare en, så misbruges den alt for let.

Denne ulempe er den præcise årsag til, at USA i stedet oprettede en fødereret stat. I stedet for at have en form for centraliseret magt, er der et komplet system med kontroller og balancer, der giver mere lighed i styringsprocessen.

4. Manipulation kan forekomme ganske let i en enhedsregering.
Selvom en enhedsregering kan forbedre effektiviteten, fordi der mangler bureaukrati, gør strukturen det også muligt for enkeltpersoner i regeringen at manipulere systemet. Når en magthaver beslutter at forfølge mere rigdom eller styringsmuligheder for sig selv, så er der meget få måder at stoppe den aktivitet på. Ved at oprette et system, der giver mulighed for at manipulere systemet til personlige behov, skal størstedelen af ​​befolkningen betale for det løft i magt og rigdom, som en person modtager.

5. Det er en styrende struktur, der først vil beskytte det centrale legeme.
Fordi målet for en regering er selvbevaring, er de forskellige "arme", der arbejder på lokalt niveau, normalt de første ressourcer, der er skåret ned, når de er i budgetspørgsmål. Behovet på nationalt plan vil altid opveje, hvad de lokale behov er med denne regering. Det betyder, at de beslutninger, den træffer, typisk er baseret på dens egen overlevelse først i stedet for at tage hensyn til befolkningens interesser. Under alvorlige omstændigheder kan det endda føre til, at lokalsamfund bliver ustyrede med mangel på ressourceadgang, selvom der stadig forventes at løfte støtte til regeringen, der ikke støtter dem.

6. Mange enhedsregeringer tillader ikke områder med nogen autonomi.
Når der er en enhedsregering, der ikke tilbyder nogen grad af autonomi til områderne under dens kontrol, har de subnationale regioner ikke lov til at bestemme deres egne love til enhver tid. Eksempler på denne form for styring findes i øjeblikket i Norge, Irland og Rumænien. Selv når regeringen tillader tilstedeværelse af subnationale regeringer i denne struktur, er der ikke deling af magt. Deres ret til eksistens er frit for den overordnede regering, og autoriteten i disse divisioner kan til enhver tid ændre sig.

7. Formålet med enhedsregeringen er at få de få til at styre de mange.
Folk er lige så patriotiske under et enhedsstyringssystem som med et føderalt system. Ulempen ved den centraliserede stat er, at der er færre muligheder for at blive involveret i lovgivningsprocessen. Folk får sjældent mulighed for at interagere med deres regeringsembedsmænd, medmindre de har et specifikt behov for at udfylde, f.eks. Oprettelse af officielt identifikationsmateriale. Hvis der sker et politisk skifte, der tager rettigheder fra udvalgte grupper af mennesker, er der måske ikke noget, som den brede befolkning kan gøre for at stoppe denne proces.

8. Det kan også have en langsommere national reaktion i lokaliserede nødsituationer.
Beslutningsprocessen for en enhedsregering kan være hurtig, men udformningen af ​​deres ressourcer betyder, at reaktionen kan være meget langsom. Enhver autorisation til bistand skal komme gennem den centraliserede regering. Det betyder, at der er tidspunkter, hvor der er mere bureaukrati at navigere i stedet for mindre, da en forbundsstat øjeblikkeligt kunne sende bistand, f.eks. Hvordan en guvernør kan sende nationalgarden ud for at yde støtte.

9. Enhedsregeringer kan støde på meget oppustethed.
Hvis en regering skifter fra et fødereret system til dette, skinner fordelene ofte stærkt i starten. Det føles som om alt begynder at bevæge sig i et hurtigere tempo. Så begynder oppustetheden at ske i regeringen. Fordi det pludselig skal blive alt for alle, kan processerne falde markant ned. Bureaukratiet stiger, fordi hver autorisation kræver en gennemgang fra en central embedsmand. Det kan betyde, at det vil tage endnu mere tid at få tingene gjort, selvom alle er enige om, at en lovændring er nødvendig.

10. Denne struktur kan kunstigt forme diskussionerne om samfundet.
En enhedsregering kan frit beslutte, hvad der er lovligt eller ulovligt i samfundet. Hvis en person med nok magt beslutter, at deres politiske modstandere er en trussel, så kan de vedtage love, der tillader dem at blive fængslet for det, de har gjort. Flertallet bestemmer typisk på bekostning af mindretallet i denne situation og giver kun rettigheder til mennesker, når det passer deres bedste interesser. Denne proces former kunstigt det, der sker i samfundet, fordi blogs, sociale medier og endda samtaler ansigt til ansigt kan overvåges for at se, om der er sagt noget "skadeligt" for regeringen.

Konklusion af enhedsregeringens fordele og ulemper

En enhedsregering er den mest almindelige regeringsform, der findes på vores planet i dag. Der er flere fordele at overveje med denne proces, der hovedsagelig forekommer på grund af enkelheden og omkostningseffektiviteten af ​​denne struktur. I stedet for at følge flere love samtidigt, bliver den generelle befolkning bedt om at følge et specifikt regelsæt i stedet. Denne proces begrænser forvirring og bureaukrati.

Det eneste problem med et centraliseret system som dette er, at det kan udøve så meget kontrol over befolkningen, at et individ ikke kan gøre noget for at ændre deres omstændigheder. En enhedsregering kan arbejde for at kontrollere alle aspekter af livet for de mennesker, den styrer. Det inkluderer, hvordan de finansielle markeder fungerer, hvilke rettigheder mennesker har med deres daglige interaktioner, og hvem der får størstedelen af ​​de monetære fordele i samfundet.

Fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering arbejder på at afbalancere behovene i en nation med det, et samfund kræver for at ringe til et levende land. Når den er struktureret korrekt, kan den tilbyde lokale tjenester til en overkommelig pris gennem en centraliseret og effektiv beslutningsproces. Det kan også blive grundlaget for nogle af de mest undertrykkende samfund, som vores planet nogensinde har set.


17 Fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering

Per definition er det et styringssystem, hvor stort set al magten er placeret inden for en centraliseret regeringsstruktur. Regeringen selv styrer som en enkelt enhed. Det har myndighed til at delegere visse beføjelser til bestemte personer eller steder uden at miste autoriteten til at tilsidesætte den delegerede myndighed til enhver tid.

Det er i stand til at herske over et helt samfund, fordi det har myndighed til at oprette eller fjerne opdelinger, der er nødvendige til enhver tid. Medmindre det specifikt er givet, har ingen myndighed til at anfægte oprettelsen eller fjernelsen af ​​nogen division, og de må heller ikke anfægte regeringens overordnede autoritet.

En enhedsregering er en af ​​de mest almindelige herskende strukturer, som menneskeheden udnytter. Fra 2018 bruger mere end 150 forskellige lande en eller anden form for en enhedsregering på et eller andet niveau.

Der er mange fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering at overveje. Her er nogle af de vigtigste nøglepunkter.

Liste over fordelene ved en enhedsregering

1. Enhedsregeringer kan let kopiere.

Fordi regeringen er centraliseret i en enhedsstruktur, kan den meget hurtigt placere satellitter på stort set alle steder. Dette gør det muligt for enhver borger at få adgang til offentlige ressourcer. Samtidig opretholdes den faktiske myndighed i regeringen uden besvær, fordi den lokale satellit har nøjagtig samme autoritet som den centraliserede placering. Dette skaber infrastruktur, som skaber stabilitet, og som gør det muligt for regeringen at opfylde sine forpligtelser over for sit folk.

2. Enhedsregeringer skaber også samfundsmæssig enhed.

Der er færre lommer med politisk polarisering, der kan findes i en enhedsstyringsstruktur sammenlignet med andre regeringsformer. Det er fordi al regering i det væsentlige er den samme, uanset hvor en persons specifikke placering kan være. Dette er meget anderledes end den nuværende struktur for den amerikanske regering, som kan have lokale, amts-, statslige og nationale regeringer, der alle forsøger at arbejde samtidigt med hinanden. At være loyal over for 4 forskellige regeringer er en meget anderledes proces end at være loyal over for en centraliseret styreform.

3. Det tilskynder regeringen til at være mindre i stedet for større.

Selv med satellitter, der forgrener sig fra det, har en regering, der er baseret på enhedsstandarder, en tendens til at være mindre og mere konsolideret end andre former for styring. Dette er muligt, fordi der er placeret mere autoritet inden for bestemte strukturer, politikere eller grupper. Fordi der er færre niveauer af bureaukrati, der skal navigeres, er regeringen i stand til at bevæge sig hurtigere, når der er behov for et svar. Dette giver ikke kun omkostningsbesparelser for skatteyderne, det gør det også muligt for folk at styre deres egen skæbnes retning uden at føle, at deres regering forsøger at mikro-styre dem hver dag.

4. Omkostninger kan øjeblikkeligt begrænses eller udvides efter behov.

Fordi centralregeringen har myndighed til at oprette eller ophæve med et øjebliks varsel, bliver det muligt at operere på et afbalanceret budget til enhver tid. Denne regering kan øge udgifterne med det samme, når der er behov for ressourcer, f.eks. Under en naturkatastrofeindsats. Det kan også straks reducere udgifterne for at sikre, at skatteydernes midler bliver brugt uden underskud. Færre regeringsniveauer skaber også lavere omkostninger.

5. Det er en regeringsform, der er meget lydhør.

Fordi magten konsolideres centralt, er der færre barrierer på plads for en hurtig reaktion med en enhedsregering. Hvis regeringen føler, at den skal være til stede et bestemt sted, kan den straks indsætte den nødvendige infrastruktur. Regeringen kan endda autorisere en person på stedet til at være den udpegede regeringsrepræsentant, som ville have de samme overordnede beføjelser som den almindelige regering, når opgaverne skal udføres. Hvis der opstår en trussel, eller der er en form for katastrofe, der skal håndteres, er denne type struktur en af ​​de hurtigste og mest effektive, der findes.

6. Forordninger og love er standardiseret.

I USA er der et patchwork af love, regler og standarder, der skal følges ud fra en persons geografiske placering. Dette system forsvinder under en enhedsform. Reglerne bliver standardiseret i hele landet. Alle følger de samme love. Hvad der er lovligt eller ulovligt er klart defineret. Hvis en enhedsregering f.eks. Lovliggjorde besiddelse af rekreativ marihuana, kan du rejse uden bekymringer fra Colorado til Nebraska.

7. Det eliminerer behovet for en lokal eller regional lovgiver.

Omkostningerne ved lokale og amtslige myndigheder varierer i hele USA. Statsregeringer bruger i gennemsnit 2 billioner dollars hvert år gennem finansiering af skatteyderne for at give lokal ressourceadgang uden at den amerikanske regering hjælper. I en enhedsstruktur kan disse ressourcer bruges på andre behov, såsom reducerede omkostninger til collegeundervisning, subsidierede sundhedsomkostninger eller andet, som den centraliserede regering anser for at være nødvendige for samfundets overordnede gode.

Liste over ulemperne ved en enhedsregering

1. En enhedsregering er i det væsentlige et oligarki.

Et enhedsstyringssystem konsoliderer al sin magt inden for en håndfuld enkeltpersoner. Der kan være en bestemt leder, f.eks. En præsident eller en premierminister. Der kan også være folkevalgte, f.eks. En senator eller en repræsentant. I slutningen af ​​dagen har den gennemsnitlige person dog meget ringe indflydelse på, hvad der sker med deres samfund. De kan skrive eller tale med politikere. Alligevel er det i sidste ende politikeren, der træffer beslutningen og ikke den enkelte.

2. Alt er centraliseret i en enhedsregering, uden undtagelse.

Det kan være fordelagtigt at få visse styrende elementer centraliseret, men en enhedsregering centraliserer alt. Det inkluderer bank- og finansmarkeder. Medmindre nogen har rigdomstilgang eller har talenter eller færdigheder, der kan give dem den adgang, er enhedsregeringen i stand til at bevare magt og kontrol ved at begrænse, hvem der kan få adgang til rigdom i det samfund. De kan beskatte mennesker, nægte at beskatte bestemte virksomheder eller stille særlige krav til bestemte karrierer, der kan gøre det svært for den gennemsnitlige person at bygge rigdom over tid.

3. Det er et regeringssystem, der giver en masse magt til et par mennesker eller et individ.

En centraliseret regering har en enorm mængde magt. Samfundsbeslutninger træffes dagligt. Når denne magt er konsolideret til et enkelt individ, bliver det muligt at manipulere dette regeringssystem for personlig vinding. Derfor er den enhedsregeringsstruktur den mest almindelige styreform til overgang til et diktatur. Der er så meget tid og penge investeret i regeringens struktur, at det bliver mere værdifuldt end at have en person til at diktere, hvad der sker, end at have valgfrihed.

4. Enhedsregeringer kan skabe isolerede lommer.

Fordi strømmen er centralt tildelt, skal der være adgang til en regeringssatellit for hvert samfund på et eller andet niveau. Uden adgang er der ingen egentlig regering. Det kan være fordelagtigt, hvis regeringen er krænkende, selvom det er et klart negativt for et samfund, der mangler ressourcer og ikke har offentlig adgang samtidigt. I mange tilfælde bliver styring under et enhedsformat en øvelse i overlevelse i stedet for at det er en øvelse i fremadrettet fremgang.

5. Det kan også være uvidende om lokale bekymringer eller problemer.

Den enhedsregeringsstruktur har et makrosyn på samfundet. Styring skal imidlertid ske på makro- og mikroniveau. Medmindre regeringen er aktiv via en satellit i lokalsamfund, vil den have ringe bevidsthed om, hvad befolkningen i dette samfund kræver. Eller værre - lokale bekymringer er afsat, fordi regeringen mener, at andre trusler har en højere prioritet. Selv om selvstyre tilskyndes, kæmper lokalsamfund for at få adgang til de ressourcer, de har brug for, når en centraliseret regering er operationel.

6. Centraliserede regeringer er lette at manipulere.

Der er fordele ved en centraliseret struktur, f.eks. En reduktion i bureaukrati. Fjernelse af bureaukratiske barrierer har nogle ulemper at tænke på. Til at begynde med er der færre kontroller og saldi på plads. Det betyder, at en person med tilstrækkelig viden og klogskab kan manipulere regeringen med at prioritere deres personlige fordele. Det kan give folk mulighed for at forfølge mere magt til sig selv. Det kan føre til et samfund, hvor alle føler, at de skal manipulere regeringen bare for at få opfyldt deres grundlæggende behov. I stedet for at se ud for andre, handler samfundets fokus om overlevelse.

7. Der er virkelig ikke nogen officiel infrastruktur.

Svaret fra en enhedsregering burde i teorien være hurtigere end andre former for styring. I virkeligheden er tingene meget forskellige. Centraliserede regeringer kan have satellitter til rådighed for dem, men de har ikke formaliserede strukturer, hvor fordele eller forsyninger fysisk kan styres. Det betyder, at den overordnede reaktion på en krisesituation typisk er langsommere med denne regeringsform. Der er en underliggende holdning om, at folk forventes at passe på sig selv først og derefter kun få adgang til regeringens fordele, hvis de har udtømt alle andre muligheder.

8. Det kan lægge vægt på udenlandske spørgsmål frem for indenlandske spørgsmål.

Det samlede fokus for en enhedsregering er baseret på, hvad der er godt for det overordnede samfund. Det betyder, at udenlandske spørgsmål typisk prioriteres frem for lokale spørgsmål. Enhedsregeringer har ofte en prioritet for fred, men det kommer fra et grænseoverskridende perspektiv. De fattigere klasser i denne regeringsstruktur har en tendens til at lide, især uden adgang til deres regering i landdistrikterne, og det kan gøre det svært at overleve. Regeringens reaktioner er nødvendige i denne type system, og de leveres bare ikke 100% af tiden.

9. Enhedsregeringer ignorerer lokale kulturforskelle.

Hvad der er godt for indbyggerne i Californien, er muligvis ikke godt for indbyggerne i Texas. Regionale forskelle undertrykkes eller ignoreres ofte i en enhedsregering, fordi der er et ønske om at skabe autonomi. Alle behandles "ens", men der er ingen individualisering til stede. Alle forventes at følge de samme forventninger, uanset hvad deres lokale kultur eller etniske traditioner måtte være. Over tid kan dette øge opfordringerne til at løsrive sig fra regeringen, når behovet konstant undertrykkes.

10. Der er færre muligheder for at prøve nye ideer.

Enhedsregeringer har en tendens til at dirigere trafik ved hjælp af metoder, der er "afprøvede og sande". Der er lidt plads til innovation eller fremskridt med nye politikker eller procedurer, fordi regeringen eksisterer på en konsolideret måde. Der er relativt få muligheder for at eksperimentere med en ny idé for at se, om det kunne fungere bedre, fordi en sådan handling ville forstyrre den autonomi, der er så stærkt ønsket.

Fordele og ulemper ved en enhedsregering er afhængige af de mennesker, der har magten i dens strukturer. Ledere, der er ærlige og ærlige og hjælper deres land og samfund fremadrettet hurtigt og med et højt innovationsniveau. Ledere uden disse kvaliteter kan vælge at konsolidere deres magt på bekostning af befolkningen og omdanne regeringen til mere et diktatur.


I enhedsstater kan centralregeringen oprette (eller afskaffe) administrative opdelinger (sub-nationale enheder). [1] Sådanne enheder udøver kun de beføjelser, som centralregeringen vælger at delegere. Selvom politisk magt kan delegeres ved decentralisering til regionale eller lokale regeringer ved lov, kan centralregeringen ophæve handlinger fra nedlagte regeringer eller indskrænke (eller udvide) deres beføjelser. Et stort flertal af verdens stater (166 af de 193 FN -medlemsstater) har et enhedsstyre. [2]

I føderationer deler provins-/regionale regeringer beføjelser med centralregeringen som lige aktører gennem en skriftlig forfatning, hvortil samtykke kræves for at foretage ændringer. Det betyder, at de subnationale enheder har en eksistensret og beføjelser, der ikke ensidigt kan ændres af centralregeringen. [3]

Devolution inden for en enhedsstat kan, ligesom federalisme, være symmetrisk, idet alle subnationale enheder har de samme beføjelser og status eller asymmetriske, idet subnationale enheder varierer i deres beføjelser og status. Mange enhedsstater har ingen områder, der besidder en grad af autonomi. [4] I sådanne lande kan sub-nationale regioner ikke bestemme deres egne love. Eksempler er Rumænien, Irland og Norge. Svalbard har endnu mindre autonomi end fastlandet. Det er direkte kontrolleret af regeringen og har ingen lokal regel.

Enhedsrepublikker Rediger

  • Afghanistan
  • Albanien
  • Algeriet
  • Angola
  • Armenien
  • Aserbajdsjan
  • Bangladesh
  • Hviderusland
  • Benin
  • Bolivia
  • Botswana
  • Bulgarien
  • Burkina Faso
  • Burundi
  • Cameroun
  • Kap Verde
  • Den Centralafrikanske Republik
  • Tchad
  • Chile
  • Folkerepublikken Kina [5]
  • Kina (begrænset anerkendelse)
  • Colombia
  • Den Demokratiske Republik Congo
  • Republikken Congo
  • Costa Rica
  • Kroatien
  • Cuba
  • Cypern
  • Tjekkiet
  • Djibouti
  • Dominica
  • Dominikanske republik
  • Øst Timor
  • Ecuador
  • Egypten
  • El Salvador
  • Ækvatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Estland
  • Fiji
  • Finland
  • Frankrig
  • Gabon
  • Gambia
  • Georgien
  • Ghana
  • Grækenland
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Guyana
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • Ungarn
  • Island
  • Indonesien
  • Iran
  • Irland
  • Israel
  • Italien
  • Elfenbenskysten
  • Kasakhstan
  • Kenya
  • Kiribati
  • Nordkorea
  • Sydkorea
  • Kosovo
  • Kirgisistan
  • Laos
  • Letland
  • Libanon
  • Liberia
  • Libyen
  • Litauen
  • Madagaskar
  • Malawi
  • Maldiverne
  • Mali
  • Malta
  • Marshalløerne
  • Mauretanien
  • Mauritius
  • Moldova
  • Mongoliet
  • Montenegro
  • Mozambique
  • Myanmar
  • Namibia
  • Nauru
  • Nicaragua
  • Niger
  • Nordmakedonien
  • Palau
  • Palæstina (begrænset anerkendelse)
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Filippinerne
  • Polen
  • Portugal
  • Rumænien
  • Rwanda
  • Samoa
  • San Marino
  • São Tomé og Principe
  • Senegal
  • Serbien
  • Seychellerne
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Slovakiet
  • Slovenien
  • Somaliland (ikke genkendt)
  • Sydafrika
  • Sri Lanka
  • Surinam
  • Syrien
  • Tadsjikistan
  • Tanzania
  • At gå
  • Transnistrien
  • Trinidad og Tobago
  • Tunesien
  • Kalkun
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uganda
  • Ukraine
  • Uruguay
  • Usbekistan
  • Vanuatu
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Enhedsmonarkier Rediger

Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland er et eksempel på en enhedsstat. Skotland, Wales og Nordirland har en vis grad af selvstændig delegeret magt, men en sådan magt delegeres af Det Forenede Kongeriges parlament, som kan vedtage love, der ensidigt ændrer eller afskaffer devolution (England har ikke nogen delegeret magt). På samme måde i Kongeriget Spanien delegeres de delegerede beføjelser gennem centralregeringen.


Dekoncentration og decentralisering:-

Som anført ovenfor er enhedsregeringen ikke nødvendigvis samtidig centraliseret regering, selv om den altid er sådan i store dele. I Frankrig, for eksempel, hvor regeringssystemet er ensartet i den forstand, at alle endelige styrende myndigheder centrerer sig og udstråler fra centralregeringen i Paris, er effekten blevet dæmpet af en proces med dekoncentration og til en vis grad også af en proces af decentralisering.

Gennem dekoncentrationsprocessen er den aktive administration af mange anliggender blevet flyttet fra centralregeringen i Paris til dens repræsentanter og agenter i afdelingerne, arrondissementerne og kommunerne (præfekterne, sub-præfekterne, borgmestre, politifolk osv.) Effekten har således været at lindre overbelastningen i Paris og lette administrationsarbejdet i hele lokalområderne.

Men alle sådanne embedsmænd og agenter (undtagen borgmestrene) udpeges af centralregeringen i Paris og kontrolleres og ledes (herunder selv borgmestrene, når de fungerer som centralregeringsagenter) fra Paris. I dette omfang er Frankrigs regering centraliseret.

Gennem decentraliseringsprocessen er der givet en begrænset grad af lokalt selvstyre. Således er der ved parlamentsretsakt etableret populærvalgte råd i afdelingerne, arrondissementerne og kommunerne, og hvert kommunalråd vælger en borgmester.

The powers of the local authorities, however, are much restricted and they are subject to a large degree of central administrative control (latutelle administrative). Such local autonomy as has been granted may at any time be further restricted or totally withdrawn by the parliament which granted it.

It thus happens that the government of France, so far as the ultimate source of legislative and administrative authority is concerned, is completely centralized and so far as the actual administration is concerned it is largely so. With varying differences of degree, the governments of other European countries, except the few that are federal in form, are of the same type.


What is a Unitary System? (with pictures)

A unitary system is a form of government in which authority is concentrated in the central government. Local governments, such as those of regions or cities, are under the control of that central authority. They have only those powers granted to them, and the central government may alter or abolish local authorities at will. This distinguishes this type of system from the government of a federal state, in which the federation's constituent units themselves have at least some attributes of a sovereign state in their own right that the federal government must respect, and from confederations, in which sovereign states voluntarily delegate certain powers to a supranational organization.

This system is the world's most common form of government, and it appears in both democratic and nondemocratic countries. Most European nations have unitary governments — with the exceptions of Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Austria and Russia — as do most of Africa and Asia. Most governments based on the Westminster system are unitary, though Canada, Australia, India and Malaysia have federal constitutions. Present-day monarchies where the monarch still has significant power, such as Liechtenstein, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, usually are unitary, though the United Arab Emirates is a federation ruled by an elective monarchy. Dictatorial and single-party governments almost always are unitary, though the defunct Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia was an exception to this.

The central government in a unitary system is responsible for managing national-level concerns, such as foreign relations, national defense and national economic policy. The central ruler or decision-making body controls all aspects of governance, because there are no powers or functions legally reserved to other levels of authority. All areas of government ultimately are under the authority of a single body, so states that have this type of system often have more uniform laws and regulations than federations. The central government also might be responsible for appointing the personnel of lower levels of government, such as regional or provincial governors.

Government decisions in unitary states are not necessarily made by the central authority. Some unitary governments delegate some degree of decision-making power to more regional or local authorities in a process called “devolution,” which often is instituted to accommodate ethnic or linguistic minorities who desire greater autonomy. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament have legislative powers for their respective regions. These bodies were created and their powers defined by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Parliament has the power to abolish these bodies or to increase or decrease their powers as it chooses, and the constituent countries of the United Kingdom have no sovereignty of their own.

Other examples of devolution within such a system include the five autonomous regions of Italy and Papua New Guinea's regional and provincial governments. An extreme case is Spain's system of autonomous communities, which remain officially subordinate to the national government but have extensive powers and account for most government spending. Spain sometimes is regarded as a country that straddles the border between a unitary system and a federal state, because many of the regional governments have more authority within their territories than states in most officially federal forms of government do, and the political entrenchment of the autonomous regions would make it extremely difficult for the central government to abolish them despite officially having the power to do so.


Indhold

Federations Edit

The component states are in some sense sovereign, insofar as certain powers are reserved to them that may not be exercised by the central government. However, a federation is more than a mere loose alliance of independent states. The component states of a federation usually possess no powers in relation to foreign policy and so enjoy no independent status under international law. However, German Länder have that power, [1] which is beginning to be exercised on a European level.

Some federations are called asymmetric because some states have more autonomy than others. An example of such a federation is Malaysia, in which Sarawak and Sabah agreed to form the federation on different terms and conditions from the states of Peninsular Malaysia.

A federation often emerges from an initial agreement between several separate states. The purpose can be the will to solve mutual problems and to provide for mutual defense or to create a nation-state for an ethnicity spread over several states. The former was the case with the United States and Switzerland. However, as the histories of countries and nations vary, the federalist system of a state can be quite different from these models. Australia, for instance, is unique in that it came into existence as a nation by the democratic vote of the citizens of each state, who voted "yes" in referendums to adopt the Australian Constitution. Brazil, on the other hand, has experienced both the federal and the unitary state during its history. Some present-day states of the Brazilian federation retain borders set during the Portuguese colonization (before the very existence of the Brazilian state), whereas the latest state, Tocantins, was created by the 1988 Constitution for chiefly administrative reasons.

Seven of the top eight largest countries by area are governed as federations.

Unitary states Edit

A unitary state is sometimes one with only a single, centralized, national tier of government. However, unitary states often also include one or more self-governing regions. The difference between a federation and this kind of unitary state is that in a unitary state the autonomous status of self-governing regions exists by the sufferance of the central government, and may be unilaterally revoked. While it is common for a federation to be brought into being by agreement between a number of formally independent states, in a unitary state self-governing regions are often created through a process of devolution, where a formerly centralized state agrees to grant autonomy to a region that was previously entirely subordinate. Thus federations are often established voluntarily from "below" whereas devolution grants self-government from "above".

It is often part of the philosophy of a unitary state that, regardless of the actual status of any of its parts, its entire territory constitutes a single sovereign entity or nation-state, [ citat nødvendig ] and that by virtue of this the central government exercises sovereignty over the whole territory as of right. In a federation, on the other hand, sovereignty is often regarded as residing notionally in the component states, or as being shared between these states and the central government. [ citat nødvendig ]

Confederation Edit

A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. [2] The closest entity in the world to a confederation at this time is the European Union. While the word confederation was officially used when the Canadian federal system was established in 1867, the term refers only to the process and not the resulting state since Canadian provinces are not sovereign and do not claim to be. In the case of Switzerland, while the country is still known as the Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica, Confédération Suisse) this is now a misnomer since the Swiss cantons lost their sovereign status in 1848. [3]

In Belgium, however, the opposite movement is underway. [4] Belgium was founded as a centralized state, after the French model, but has gradually been reformed into a federal state by consecutive constitutional reforms since the 1970s. Moreover, although nominally called a federal state, the country's structure already has a number of confederational traits. At present, there is a growing movement to transform the existing federal state into a looser confederation with two or three constitutive states and/or two special regions. [5]

A confederation is most likely to feature three differences when contrasted with a federation: (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalized by member-state legislation (2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member) (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.

Over time these terms acquired distinct connotations leading to the present difference in definition. An example of this is the United States under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles established a national government under what today would be defined as a federal system (albeit with a comparatively weaker federal government). However, Canadians, designed with a stronger central government than the U.S. in the wake of the Civil War of the latter, use the term "Confederation" to refer to the formation or joining, not the structure, of Canada. Legal reforms, court rulings, and political compromises have decentralized Canada in practice since its formation in 1867.

Empire Edit

An empire is a multi-ethnic state, multinational state, or a group of nations with a central government established usually through coercion (on the model of the Roman Empire). An empire often includes self-governing regions, but these will possess autonomy only at the sufferance of the central government. On the other hand, a political entity that is an empire in name, may comprise several partly autonomous kingdoms organised together in a federation, with the empire being ruled over by an emperor or senior king (great king, high king, king of kings. ). One example of this was the German Empire (1871–1918).

Comparison with other systems of autonomy Edit

Federacy Edit

A federacy [6] is where a unitary state incorporates one or more self-governing autonomous areas. It is distinguished from a federation in that the constitutional structure of the state is still unitary, but incorporates federalist principles. Some federacies, notably the Åland Islands, were established through international treaty.

Devolution Edit

A federation differs from a devolved state, such as Indonesia and the United Kingdom, because, in a devolved state, the central government can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the UK) without changing the constitution. In some cases, such as the Autonomous communities of Spain, devolution has led to federation in all but name, or "federation without federalism". [7]

Associated states Edit

A federation also differs from an associated state, such as the Federated States of Micronesia (in free association with the United States) and Cook Islands and Niue (which form part of the Realm of New Zealand). There are two kinds of associated states: in case of Micronesia, the association is concluded by a treaty between two sovereign states in the case of the Cook Islands and Niue, the association is concluded by domestic legal arrangements.

Crown dependencies Edit

The relation between the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom is very similar to a federate relation: the Islands enjoy independence from the United Kingdom, which, via The Crown, takes care of their foreign relations and defense – although the UK Parliament does have overall power to legislate for the dependencies. However, the islands are neither an incorporated part of the United Kingdom nor are they considered to be independent or associated states. The islands do not have a monarch, i sig selv rather in the Isle of Man the British Monarch is, ex officio, Lord of Mann, and in the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey, the British Monarch rules as the Duke of Normandy.

Dependent territories Edit

Dependent territories, such as the British overseas territories, are vested with varying degrees of power some enjoy considerable independence from the sovereign state, which only takes care of their foreign relations and defense. However, they are neither considered to be part of it nor recognized as sovereign or associated states.

De facto federations Edit

The distinction between a federation and a unitary state is often quite ambiguous. A unitary state may closely resemble a federation in structure and, while a central government may possess the theoretical right to revoke the autonomy of a self-governing region, it may be politically difficult for it to do so in practice. The self-governing regions of some unitary states also often enjoy greater autonomy than those of some federations. For these reasons, it is sometimes argued that some modern unitary states are de facto federations. [8]

De facto federations, or quasi-federations, are often termed "regional states".

Spanien Rediger

Spain is suggested as one possible de facto federation [9] as it grants more self-government to its autonomous communities [10] [11] than are retained by the constituent entities of most federations. [12] For the Spanish parliament to revoke the autonomy of regions such as Galicia, Catalonia or the Basque Country would be a political near-impossibility, though nothing bars it legally. The Spanish parliament has, however, suspended the autonomy of Catalonia in response to the Catalan declaration of independence, in the lead up to the 2017 Catalan election. [13] Additionally, some autonomies such as Navarre or the Basque Country have full control over taxation and spending, transferring a payment to the central government for the common services (military, foreign relations, macroeconomic policy). For example, scholar Enrique Guillén López discusses the "federal nature of Spain's government (a trend that almost no one denies)." [14] Each autonomous community is governed by a Statute of Autonomy (Estatuto de Autonomía) under the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

South Africa Edit

Although South Africa bears some elements of a federal system, such as the allocation of certain powers to provinces, it is nevertheless constitutionally and functionally a unitary state. [15]

European Union Edit

The European Union (EU) is a type of political union or confederation (the assemblage of societies or an association of two or more states into one state). [16] Robert Schuman, the initiator of the European Community system, wrote that a transnational Community like the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community lay midway between an association of States where they retained complete independence and a federation leading to a fusion of States in a super-state. [17] The Founding Fathers of the European Union wrote the Europe Declaration (Charter of the Community) at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 18 April 1951 saying that Europe should be organized on a transnational foundation. They envisaged a structure quite different from a federation called the European Political Community. [ citat nødvendig ]

The EU is a three-pillar structure of the original supranational European Economic Community and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Euratom, plus two largely intergovernmental pillars dealing with External Affairs and Justice and Home Affairs. The EU is therefore not a de jure federation, although some [ WHO? ] academic observers conclude that after 50 years of institutional evolution since the Treaties of Rome it is becoming one. [18] The European Union possesses attributes of a federal state. However, its central government is far weaker than that of most federations and the individual members are sovereign states under international law, so it is usually characterized as an unprecedented form of supra-national union. The EU has responsibility for important areas such as trade, monetary union, agriculture, fisheries. Nonetheless, EU member states retain the right to act independently in matters of foreign policy and defense, and also enjoy a near-monopoly over other major policy areas such as criminal justice and taxation. Since the Treaty of Lisbon, the Member States' right to leave the Union is codified, and the Union operates with more qualified majority voting (rather than unanimity) in many areas. [ citat nødvendig ]

By the signature of this Treaty, the participating Parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organized Europe. This Europe remains open to all nations. We profoundly hope that other nations will join us in our common endeavor.

Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism.

Those uncomfortable using the "F" word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system. (See, for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast)

A more nuanced view has been given by the German Constitutional Court. [20] Here the EU is defined as 'an association of sovereign national states (Staatenverbund)'. [21] With this view, the European Union resembles more of a confederation.

Folkerepublikken Kina Rediger

Constitutionally, the power vested in the special administrative regions of the People's Republic is granted from the Central People's Government, through a decision by the National People's Congress. However, there have been certain largely informal grants of power to the provinces, to handle economic affairs and implement national policies, resulting in a system some have termed federalism "with Chinese characteristics". [22]

Myanmar Edit

Constitutionally a unitary state, the political system in Myanmar bears many elements of federalism. Each administrative divisions have its own cabinets and chief ministers, making it more like a federation rather than a unitary state.

Wallis and Futuna Edit

The Overseas collectivity of France of Wallis and Futuna maintained some quasi-federation system. The territory was divided into three traditional chiefdoms Uvea, Sigave, and Alo. The chiefdoms are allowed to have their own legal system which have to be implemented along with French legal system

Certain forms of political and constitutional dispute are common to federations. One issue is that the exact division of power and responsibility between federal and regional governments is often a source of controversy. Often, as is the case with the United States, such conflicts are resolved through the judicial system, which delimits the powers of federal and local governments. The relationship between federal and local courts varies from nation to nation and can be a controversial and complex issue in itself.

Another common issue in federal systems is the conflict between regional and national interests, or between the interests and aspirations of different ethnic groups. In some federations the entire jurisdiction is relatively homogeneous and each constituent state resembles a miniature version of the whole this is known as 'congruent federalism'. On the other hand, incongruent federalism exists where different states or regions possess distinct ethnic groups.

The ability of a federal government to create national institutions that can mediate differences that arise because of linguistic, ethnic, religious, or other regional differences is an important challenge. The inability to meet this challenge may lead to the secession of parts of a federation or to civil war, as occurred in the United States (southern states interpreted slavery under the tenth amendment as a state right, while northern states were against slavery, with a catalysis occurring in the then–Kansas Territory), in Nigeria and in Switzerland. In the case of Malaysia, Singapore was expelled from the federation because of rising racial tension. In some cases, internal conflict may lead a federation to collapse entirely, as occurred the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Gran Colombia, the United Provinces of Central America, and the West Indies Federation.

The federal government is the common or national government of a federation. A federal government may have distinct powers at various levels authorized or delegated to it by its member states. The structure of federal governments vary. Based on a broad definition of a basic federalism, there are two or more levels of government that exist within an established territory and govern through common institutions with overlapping or shared powers as prescribed by a constitution.

The federal government is the government at the level of the sovereign state. Usual responsibilities of this level of government are maintaining national security and exercising international diplomacy, including the right to sign binding treaties. Basically, a modern federal government, within the limits defined by its constitution, has the power to make laws for the whole country, unlike local governments. As originally written, the United States Constitution was created to limit the federal government from exerting power over the states by enumerating only specific powers. It was further limited by the addition of the Tenth Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights and the Eleventh Amendment. However, later amendments, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, gave the federal government considerable authority over states.

Federal government within this structure are the government ministries and departments and agencies to which the ministers of government are assigned.

Contemporary Edit

Current federations
Year est. Federation Type
[t 1]
Top-level subdivisions (federated and other) Major federated units Minor units [t 2] (federated or other)
1853 Argentine Republic R Provinces of Argentina 23 provinces 1 autonomous city
1901 Commonwealth of Australia M States and territories of Australia 6 states 3 internal territories (of which 2 are self-governing) and 7 external territories
1920 Republikken Østrig R States of Austria 9 states (Länder eller Bundesländer) incl. the city-state of Vienna
1993 Kingdom of Belgium M Divisions of Belgium 3 communities, 3 regions 3 communitarian commissions
1995 Bosnien-Hercegovina R Divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 entities, one of which is itself a federation of 10 cantons 1 district [t 3]
1889 Federative Republic of Brazil R States of Brazil
  1. ^ R = Federal republic M = Federal monarchy.
  2. ^ That is, first-level subdivisions possessing less autonomy than the major federating units.
  3. ^Brčko District is de jure part of both entities, and de facto administered separately from either.
  4. ^ 20 provinces during the Empire of Brazil 1822–89
  5. ^ As an independent Dominion republic declared in 1950
  6. ^ As the Federation of Nigeria republic declared in 1963
  7. ^ As an independent Dominion republic declared in 1956
  8. ^ Declared by the Soviet Russian government. Part of the Soviet Union since 1922, which developed into a highly-centralized one party dictatorship after that. After its breakup, a new Treaty of Federation was signed in 1992.
  9. ^ Three pairs of cantons have less power at federal level than the other 20 cantons, but the same degree of internal autonomy.
  10. ^ The United States Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was drafted in 1787 and was ratified in 1788. The first Congress and President did not take office until March 1789.
  11. ^ Of the 5 territories that are permanently inhabited, all are unincorporated, two are commonwealths and a third is formally unorganized. Of the other 11, one is incorporated and all are unorganized together they form the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Begrebet insular area includes both territories and places with a Compact of Free Association.

Long form titles Edit

    : Germany, Somalia, Nigeria.
  • Federation: Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Malaysia (informal)
  • Republic: Argentina, Austria, India, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan.
  • Others:
    • Bolivarian Republic (Venezuela) (Switzerland) (Australia) (Canada before 1982)
    • Federal Democratic Republic (Ethiopia, Nepal)
    • Federated States (Micronesia)
    • Federative Republic (Brazil)
    • Islamic Republic (Pakistan)
    • Kingdom (Belgium)
    • Union (Comoros)
    • United Emirates (United Arab Emirates)
    • United States (United States, Mexico)
      (since 1998)
  • Canada (since 1982)
  • Defunct Edit

    • Inca Empire (1197–1572)
    • United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825)
    • Hispaniola (1822–1844)
    • Peru–Bolivian Confederation (1836–1839)
    • Confederate States of America (1861–1865)
    • Confederate Ireland (1642–1652)
    • Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)
    • Federal Republic of Cameroon (1961–1972)
    • United Provinces of Central America (1823 – circa 1838)
    • United States of Colombia (1863–1886)
    • Czechoslovak Socialist Republic[28] (1969–1992)
    • Republic of Kenya (1963–1964)
    • Federated Dutch Republic (1581–1795)
    • Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea (1952–1962)
    • French Equatorial Africa (1910–1934)
    • French Indochina (1887–1954)
    • French West Africa (1904–1958)
    • Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) [29]
    • North German Confederation (1867–1871)
    • German Empire (1871–1918)
    • Weimar Republic (1919–1933)
    • German Democratic Republic (1949–1952)
    • Confederation of Madja-as (1200–1569)
    • United States of Indonesia (1949–1950)
    • United Kingdom of Libya (1951–1963)
    • Federated Malay States (1896–1946)
    • Federation of Malaya (1948–1963) [30]
    • Malayan Union (1946–1948)
    • Mali Federation (1959–1960)
    • Mengjiang Autonomous United Government (1937–1945, since 1941 autonomous region of the Reorganized National Government of China)
    • Confederation of New Granada (1858–1863)
    • Republic of China (1912–1928)
    • Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795)
    • Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953–1963)
    • Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)
    • Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[31] (1922–1991)
    • Federal Republic of Spain (1873–1874)
    • Syrian Federation (1922–1925)
    • Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (1960–1964)
    • Republic of South Africa (1961–1994)
    • Republic of Uganda (1962–1967)
    • United Republic of Tanzania (1964–1965)
    • West Indies Federation (1958–1962)
    • Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[32] (1943–1992)
    • Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992–2003)
    • Netherlands Antilles (1954–2010)

    Some of the proclaimed Arab federations were confederations de facto.


    3. Federalism


    Before the Constitution was written, each state had its own currency. This four pound note from Philadelphia reads, "To Counterfeit is Death."

    Did you ever wonder why you don't need a passport to go from New York to California, but if you were to move from one state to another, you would need a new driver's license? Or why you can use the same currency in all states, but not be subject to the same speed limits? Or why you have to pay both federal and state taxes?

    The maze of national and state regulations results from federalism &mdash the decision made by the Founders to split power between state and national governments. As James Madison explained in the "Federalist Papers," our government is "neither wholly national nor wholly federal."

    Federalism as a System of Government

    In creating a federalist system the founders were reacting to both the British government and the Articles of Confederation. The British government was &mdash and remains &mdash a unitary system , or one in which power is concentrated in a central government. In England, government has traditionally been centralized in London, and even though local governments exist, they generally have only those powers granted them by Parliament. The national government is supreme, and grants or retains powers to and from local governments at its whim.


    The Russian Federation, also known simply as Russia, has a federal government with a variety of partially self-governing autonomous regions, or oblaster. Most of these, such as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, are concentrations of non-Russian ethnic groups.

    The Articles of Confederation represented an opposite form of government, a confederation , which has a weak central government and strong state governments. In a confederation, the state or local government is supreme. The national government only wields powers granted by the states. Most confederations have allowed the local government to nullify a federal law within its own borders.

    Federalism is a compromise meant to eliminate the disadvantages of both systems. In a federal system, power is shared by the national and state governments. The Constitution designates certain powers to be the domain of a central government, and others are specifically reserved to the state governments.

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Unitary and Confederal Governments

    UnitaryConfederal
    FordeleLaws may be applied uniformly to allLaws may be made to suit individual needs of the states
    RegeringEfforts seldom duplicate or contradict themselvesTyranny can be avoided more easily
    Decision-makingFast and efficientGovernment is closer to the people
    DisadvantagesConcentration of power can lead to tyranny

    If the country is large, a distant central government can lose control

    The country has a tendency to split apart

    Although the federal system seems to strike a perfect balance of power between national and local needs, federations still have internal power struggles. Conflicts between national and state governments are common. In the case of the United States, the argument of state vs. federal power was a major underlying factor that led to the Civil War .

    Fewer than thirty modern countries have federal systems today, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. But even though few other countries practice it today, federalism has provided the balance that the United States has needed since 1787.


    The Advantages and Disadvantages of Unitary Government

    What is a unitary government? It is a government which operates through one central unit of power. It is this central entity which decides on what laws to enact, what policies must be followed, and how that all applies to the nation as a whole. It’s a very common form of government utilized in today’s world, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages that come with this type of structure.

    What Are the Advantages of a Unitary Government?

    1. It creates a government which is highly responsive.
    Because there are fewer levels of bureaucracy that must be navigated to make a decision, the government can be more responsive in times of need. Typically only one person or one body within the government is responsible for the decision needed to act, which is a decision made on behalf of the entire country. This is true whether it’s a response to an emergency or adapting to changing economic circumstances.

    2. It inspires patriotism.
    Under a unitary government, the general population is generally more patriotic than in other government structures because each person has at least one thing in common with their neighbors. Decisions are made that affect everyone, so no one typically feels like their neighbor has better chances to pursue happiness than they do.

    3. It can be adapted to operate at local levels.
    Although the key feature of this government structure is a central governing body, that body can be adapted to local needs and concerns with extensions, branches, or other outreach opportunities.

    4. It eliminates duplication.
    Think about the US food stamp allocation process today. Local communities may offer food stamp benefits. A state may offer benefits. Then there are federal programs like SNAP which are also in place. There may be 5+ programs for some households to navigate. Under a unitary government, much of this duplication can be eliminated, ultimately allowing for taxpayer money to be used more effectively.

    5. It offers opportunity.
    Just because there is a unitary government doesn’t mean all opportunities for advancement are eliminated. Public and private sector opportunities exist in this form of government, although unitary governments do typically have higher tax rates on upper levels of income earned and may even have income caps put into place.

    What Are the Disadvantages of a Unitary Government?

    1. It can be difficult to address local issues.
    Some communities typically feel disenfranchised by a unitary government simply because they have no contact with it. Decisions made by the government may be based on a majority need, but certain groups belonging to the minority may receive no benefit. The end result, especially when this disadvantage happens continuously, will always be conflict and that can tear the nation apart.

    2. It can be difficult to receive an answer.
    A unitary government is required to make all operational decisions, so every little issue that comes up every day must be addressed. This often creates a backlog of issues that require decisions, which means communities must wait for a longer period of time to gain access to the answers or resources they need when compared to other government structures.

    3. It can put citizens at a disadvantage.
    Because there is one central unit making decisions on behalf of everyone, it can be very easy to place specific groups of people at a disadvantage to others. Socioeconomic status, racial demographics, or even sexual orientation can become a basis for legal discrimination simply because the government says one group has a priority over another group.

    4. It reduces cultural diversity.
    What the central government says goes under this government structure, so people ultimately lose some of their individuality. Their culture and family history become less important than following the bidding of the unitary government. This can occur in small and subtle ways… like having an approved list of names which parents can use for a newborn, for example.

    5. Checks and balances are not available.
    There’s no one to “watch the watchers” in this form of government, especially if it is adopting socialistic methods. It becomes easy for the government to consolidate power so the people cannot remove officials from office if they disagree with the decisions which are being made.

    A unitary government, when carefully managed, can do great things. It also offers one person or a small group of people a large amount of power that can be tempting to use for one’s own advantage. That’s why each key point must be carefully considered when looking at a government structure such as this.