Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:10 PM   #21

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,694
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
In any case having nine governments plus parliaments is making Belgium a bit top-heavy.
Over here, with the federal structure organised along linguistic divides (French - Dutch), federalization has created two separate political entities. Separate political press, politicians and parties. On a national level Flemings can't vote for Walloons and vice versa. This ofcourse makes that Flemish voters aren't electorally interesting for Walloon politicians and vice versa.

Then again Belgium is more and more a confederation, or maybe even two or more seperate nations. Personally, i'd like one state with equal rights for everyone. I prefer that state isn't named after the dominant ethnic group.
Without any joke:

Bosnia and herzegovina has two entities, one district, 13 constitutions and 14 governments. Belgium is zero to us
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:10 PM   #22

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
i think the more decentralism there is the better it is. just look at switzerland
for example some parts of the country might not want to pay high taxes as they don't trust the administrative body to spend it for them whereas some parts might...or some parts of the country would want autobahns with no speed limits but some parts would not. stuff like these.
I tend to agree, but small decentralized states do have their disadvantages. Less resources to pool in times of need and passing any legislation becomes more difficult.

There are of course advantages as well.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:12 PM   #23

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,694
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
I tend to agree, but small decentralized states do have their disadvantages. Less resources to pool in times of need and passing any legislation becomes more difficult.

There are of course advantages as well.
More than correct. Being witness to this every single day.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:20 PM   #24

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,821
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
I tend to agree, but small decentralized states do have their disadvantages. Less resources to pool in times of need and passing any legislation becomes more difficult.

There are of course advantages as well.
yes i agree. countries with large population would benefit more from a decentralized administration. take denmark for instance. it has 5½ mil. population (to put it into perspective: 1/3 of istanbul's population ). it's a unitary state. imagine it was a federation and jylland got a bit more redneck-y (and i do see such potential there ) and lowered the taxes. i proclaim that the day it happens there will be no more people in sjælland just cows and horses roaming freely

Last edited by infestør; December 6th, 2012 at 12:28 PM.
infestør is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:23 PM   #25

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,821
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
More than correct. Being witness to this every single day.
i kind of feel sorry for you guys in BiH. you're a state with 3 different entities (bosnia, croatian part, rep. srpska) right? and with 3,8 mil. population.
infestør is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:29 PM   #26

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,694
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
i kind of feel sorry for you guys in BiH. you're a state with 3 different entities (bosnia, croatian part, rep. srpska) right? and with 3,8 mil. population.
Federation is part where Croats and Muslims live, Republika Srpska is Serbian part. The thing is that our constitution is actually peace agreement from Dayton(1996), but it's very difficult to bring changes into it, since every change would took power on a state level, and Union requires exactly changes of constitution, so our country could enter into negotiations. Very complicated system, but if the decision would be on common folks, it would be much easier. Unfortunately, most of the politicians are corrupted, which makes law changes much more complicated.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:48 PM   #27

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 12,797

I believe decentralization in a democracy is a tool to keep politics close to the people, but bring unity among different cultural groups.

Wanting independence from any other country is the best reason for any country to exist. For that reason the states of the Belgians, the Bosnians and the Swiss suit their prupose - despite there being no "one" Belgian, Bosnian or Swiss people.

You can only hope to prevent your nation's democracy to become a battle of numbers in which the largest ethnic or cultural group dominates the others by delegating sovereignty to the local or regional levels.
Zeno is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:26 PM   #28

Jhangora's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Dehradun
Posts: 1,923

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
i think the more decentralism there is the better it is. just look at switzerland
for example some parts of the country might not want to pay high taxes as they don't trust the administrative body to spend it for them whereas some parts might...or some parts of the country would want autobahns with no speed limits but some parts would not. stuff like these.
It is difficult to argue the point in its entirety on this forum, considering I have been planning to leave it for a couple of months now, but keep discovering new things about my real life through it. I have been able to reconnect a few dots, going back many years

The states were organized in India on linguistic lines initially. After that some new states were carved out - from the regions which had strong politicians. The present region of Uttarakhand gave Uttar Pradesh many Chief Ministers, including the first one. However, it seems they had no intention of carving out a separate state.

The senior most Politician from Uttarakhand - Pundit Narayan Dutt Tiwari ... N. D. Tiwari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, who has been a Chief Minister of UP as well as Uttarakhand, and was close to becoming the PM of India about 2 decades back, is now being wooed by the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh to attract Brahmin voters during the National Polls 2014, as he was sidelined by the Congress due to various reasons.

India is a complex entity. Ultimately it boils down to the governance. People had high hopes when a new state was created. Situation is pretty bad here now. There are many instances of the budget not even being spent in its entirety. Government employees don't want to serve in the Mountains and there are whole industries which help people get job posting in the plain/easy areas.

Last edited by Jhangora; December 6th, 2012 at 02:33 PM.
Jhangora is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:42 PM   #29

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

I lived inside federation half of my life and voted in support of its division. Unless federacy is made of single nation, like in case of Germany or USA it is set for problems.

When I simplify it boils down to weaker part (or parts) complaining that stronger parts dominate them and enforce policy which benefits stronger part only and stronger part complains that it have to support (to pay for) weaker part (or parts). Both are usually to some degree correct. If you do not share single ethnicity it can torn county apart. It did Czechoslovakia and it did Yugoslavia.

In 1992 both Czechs and Slovaks were dissatisfied with federacy. Czechs wanted union (more centralization) while Slovaks wanted confederacy (less centralization). As we basically both wanted exact opposite, we decided it will be better to break it up even if majority of people were for common state.

Of course, there are always outside influences as well. When smaller nations form common states it is mostly as defence against their aggressive neighbours. That was the case why Czechs and Slovaks decided to join common state at the beginning and that was reason also for founding of Yugoslavia.
arras is online now  
Old December 7th, 2012, 12:19 AM   #30

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,821
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
I lived inside federation half of my life and voted in support of its division. Unless federacy is made of single nation, like in case of Germany or USA it is set for problems.
there is almost no/few country in the world with a single nation. mongolia maybe? the federation system works well in usa and germany, methinks.
infestør is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
federal, historumites, live


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Ancient creatures used to live in your country? Earl_of_Rochester Ancient History 21 August 19th, 2012 02:29 PM
When a European country tries to conquer Europe again under who woud you rather live? jeroenrottgering European History 89 January 20th, 2012 05:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.