Stability in Government

Stability in Government The stability of a democratic government appears to derive from the sovereignty, that is, the people themselves who elect or choose their leaders (Zoarman). That is their sacred right and duty, their only way to voice out their will. But not every qualified citizen registers or casts his vote during election and, therefore, loses that right to run his own government or air their complaint.

The establishment of a stronger political will among the people should put that sovereignty in their hands and fulfill the obligation to vote. That really strong political will should lead them to intelligently and assiduously look into the qualifications of candidates for public office in reaching a decision. The choice should not be left with destiny, the leaders and other citizens. Everyone has a supreme moral obligation to himself and his society to make that decision.

Yet, even this privilege, duty and obligation of investigating a candidate's qualifications cannot just happen, not only because citizens or voters are not inclined to do so but also because the government discourages or prevents this act (Zoarman). It is, however, the citizens' right to resist that discouragement and prohibition. Economic stability is grounded on political stability, and without a stable political system in place, people cannot plan their lives, conduct successful businesses and carry on their lives without a basis for hope (Rhodes 2001).

Great Britain enjoined a high level of political stability since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was ruled by the same dynasty for almost three centuries with peaceful transfers of governments at the time. Other nations, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, were likewise notably stable, primarily because of an efficient system of checks and balances that insured that stability. The system distributed the power to govern between or among branches, so that when there was a division between or among these branches, political instability occurred.

The American system of government observes the same system of checks and balances and has enjoyed political stability for 138 years since the end of the Civil War (Rhodes). It is the only nation in this category. Germany, France, Russia and China may have older cultures than the United States', but their political systems are newer and these countries have been plagued with major political disasters.

But that political stability has been so much of a given to citizens that they now fail to fully understand or appreciate just what they are blessed with. This is the case with citizens of the U.S. And the older members of the British Commonwealth. British subjects always want their sovereign to live long because his ruler-ship was usually predictable (Rhodes). When his rule was stable, his heir insured that stability.

To this day, the birth of an heir to the throne is a time of celebration among the British. The British monarchy evolved through the centuries and the nobles increased the powers of Parliament, leading to the English Civil War in the 1640s during which King Charles I was beheaded and England became a republic, but characterized by rigid autocratic rule. In time, the leaders and citizens restored it to a monarchy, who had limited powers. Vast powers have remained in the Parliament to this day.

The United States has the longest and un-duplicated democratic republic in the world. For a long time, it appears that the American system of government is uniquely suited to this particular country. But in recent years, there have been questions as to whether the U.S. must be having succession problems that less stable countries have faced (Rhodes). If and when this happens, political stability in the Continent will be vastly imperiled.

Its economic gains will be affected and so will that of other nations that depend on the economy of the U.S. Its stability cannot fail or other nations will lose confidence in it with a loss of legitimacy as the established world political and economic leader. All nations need to work out their own systems of government. History shows that the American and British systems have performed better than that of other nations and for a longer period of time.

Political instability or uncertainty is expected in smaller, less powerful and politically stable nations, but not in the American system of government. Recent scandals, terrorist attacks, wrong decisions in the White House and other developments illustrate that American political stability cannot be over-estimated or taken for granted any more. This is clearly a new and jolting experience for the American people and their friends in the world and presents itself as a fertile ground for opportunist-enemies to take advantage of.

Elsewhere, economic pressure from without can render a government to become unstable (Marinov 2003), as a study indicates. It is a political reality that many nations are controlled by stronger world powers like the United States and Great Britain, to which state leaders of these weaker governments are exposed. Findings show that such leaders are very often replaced. Sanctions do not prove very effect in many cases but only serve to bring a weaker government down. Destabilizing state leaders who are exposed to outside pressure is a preference.

Sanctions are also an instrument of intervention (Marinov), either as economic recession or civil insurgency. Outside pressures then become more discriminating and less wasteful. Losses from economic growth must be borne by the targeted civilian population as an overwhelming risk. Domestic political accountability is viewed as.