Topic: EconomicsFinance

Last updated: January 3, 2020

Federalism was the most significant political movement took place out by means of disgruntlement with the Articles of Confederation, the focus of which is on restraining the authority of the federal government. A yeoman of that time (1786-1787) in the western Massachusetts significantly reinforces the movement in response to the Shay’s Rebellion. The incapability of the federal government fueled up the rebellions. The federal government was failed to efficiently manage the debt from American Revolution. The federal government also failed to control the rebellions, in response to these government inefficiencies the Massachusetts had to be enforce to lift up on their own.
In the year 1787, 55 delegates gathered to create ideas for a bicameral legislature at a convention (constitutional convention) in Philadelphia. After the convention completed they concluded to ratify the Constitution. The Federalist Papers was the most influential guard of the new Constitution. These papers compile eighty five anonymous essays printed in New York City. These essays persuade the citizens to vote in favor of Constitution ratification. These papers carry great importance in the US political science.
The anti federalist, who are against the ratification of Constitution demands well-built state government. They also demand weak local governments. They were engaged in farming relative to finance and commerce. They had asked about the lack of Bill of Rights. The federalist later guaranteed to provide it.
In 1789, the Congress of that time planned elections under the Articles of Confederation for the new government. Twelve articles of amendments were submitted by Congress to the state. Out of these 12 articles ten were approved and developed into the Bill of Rights. Now these ten articles known as Tenth Amendment are the guiding principle for federalism in US.

I feel Federalism should be the preferred way because prevents harm of fundamental authorities by securing exemption and non-domination for minority groups. Allocation of powers from the Constitution to a constituent unit defends persons from the center. Federalism actions can hold minority people who desire to self-willpower and the protection of their culture, language or religion. There orders may boost up the prospects for civilian contribution in community decision-making by means of consideration and administrative center at both level (member or central). They guarantee character development through political involvement among more and more citizens. Arrangements of federalism can also protect territorial based members with inclinations that differ from the mainstream population, like racial or cultural minorities. They are not dependent on majority resolutions strictly or methodically opposing to their predilection. Federalism not only guard existing group of persons with common morals or likings, but also support them to take required actions and therefore territorial group of persons with related fondness.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The obvious benefit of a federation is that no single individual or body holds supreme political power over an entire nation. The head of central government is limited in what they can do and many decisions are left to state governors, depending on the level of autonomy said states have. This has provided a shield against tyranny as they cannot so easily come under the influence of anyone who may wish to abuse power. If some states are so dissatisfied with the central government, then they may even secede and this is exactly what happened during the American Civil War.
Another benefit is that the composition of a state government more accurately reflects the population of that state than the central government itself. For example, a state in the US may have a Democratic government but the central government in Washington, D.C. may be Republican. This provides a safeguard against policies that the central government may wish to implement that the population of states may not generally agree with as the domestic policies of Democratic or Republican states will reflect their respective politics regardless of who’s in the White House.
It also provides citizens with an extra layer of government they may confide in if they require help and provides them with both national and state representatives who they may wish to make an appointment, as well as district or council representatives. You have wider representation within a federation and a range of different individuals of different parties you can rely on.
The obvious disadvantage to federalism is that it damages the effectiveness of the national government. If the central government and state governments are controlled by rival parties, then there will be less national consensus and the central and state governments will conflict on key issues. Estranged states, those who may vote for more “radical” parties, may also bring the rest of the nation down if they are so different from the rest of the nation. Therefore, conflict may erupt across the entire country if states, and the central government, are so different from each other.
It also results in a lot of bureaucracy as, with more layers of government, citizens may feel alienated from the central government. There would be local, state and national governments, and citizens would feel choked by all of these officials running around. Councillors, state congressmen, state senators, governors, national congressmen, national senators, the president! It may make them feel unable to reach those on a higher platform, those such as the president or their national representatives, and – if they do not have a general understanding of who controls what – they may find it difficult to know who to talk to.
Lastly, corruption seems to be a major issue in many federations but that is the same for all countries, regardless of whether or not they are federal. With the more political seats available to occupy, the more likely it is for those politicians to be corrupt. This doesn’t necessarily mean that federations are more corrupt but rather that it increases the potential for corruption. However, this is a rather disputed factor as the points made above under the pros of a federation may actually alleviate the possibilities of corruption so long as that country has decent mechanisms in place to combat it.
Apologies if this is a rather basic answer, I’m sure others will be able to expand upon or refute any of my points presented here. Hopefully others will also bring up those that I didn’t touch on. The more arguments available, the easier it is to see a clearer picture on a certain issue. I realize I only offered three points per argument for and against, and that may not be enough to satisfy your needs. However, I hope it helps.
Although I’m mostly in favor of federalism myself and I’d like to see a federal system adopted in my own country of the UK, I don’t wish to influence upon your own view too much and that’s why I gave both sides of the argument. These points are the ones I generally had in mind, and others that I may have forgotten now, when making up my own mind.


I'm Piter!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out