how do people enjoy more authority in federlism than in unitary form of the goverment?
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country.
Usually, a federation has two levels of government.
One is the government for the entire country that is usually responsible for a few subjects of common national interest. The others are governments at the level of provinces or states that look after much of the day-to-day administering of their state. Both these levels of governments enjoy their power independent of the other.
It is very doubtful that people have much authority in a federalist system especially compared to a unitary system. Federal system is notorious for diffusion of authority to a point where it is impossible for citizens to assign any blame when things go wrong.
The form of government should reflect the social characteristics of the jurisdiction, so a single form of government probably isn’t best for all nations.
In a large heterogeneous nation, a federal system may be best. A federal system divides powers between the central government and the provincial governments, thereby allowing provinces with different cultures to have institutions and laws best suited to the local culture. I recently lived in India, where this is particularly true. Federalism also allows for a higher degree of democratic exercise, again because decisions are made in more venues.
A small homogeneous nation might be best served by a unitary government, particularly if there are reasons why power should be concentrated in the central government, such as a lower level of literacy. Another situation in which a unitary government may be beneficial is when a nation needs to go through a major transition; the unitary government can push the nation through a major transition more easily than a federal government can.
There is also the question of whether a presidential form of government or a parliamentary government is best. Indians strongly believe the parliamentary government which they have is ideal for the immensely diverse population of India; a presidential government might have a harder time succeeding. Yet, in the U.S., the presidential system, with checks and balances among the 3 branches of government, seems best. The presidential system creates conflict between the executive and the legislature, which the Founding Fathers desired to diminish the possibility of the “tyranny of the majority.”
Historical precedence weighs in very heavily in the form of government. Since Russia is a large heterogeneous nation, one might expect federalism would work best, and if I understand the Constitution of the Russian Federation correctly, it seems there was an intent to build in federal features, but Russia has centuries of experience with a strongly unitary system, so the government has gravitated in the direction of a unitary government. It’s not easy to change the way people think. In the end, what’s important is whether it works.
All in all, different approaches to government (federal vs. unitary, presidential vs. parliamentary, etc.) may work best under differing circumstances.