The Political Structural Theory Of Balance Of Power

Government structures are imperative to having a manageable state of civilization. However, these structures face several difficulties and conflicts. The complex human activity of resolving these conflicts is called politics. According to Bernard Crick, in his book, “In Defense of Politics” he defends this activity and further defines it as a conflict resolution through the process of deliberation, compromise, and listening for the common welfare of the whole community. It is a unified contribution to government that is not solely based on one interest (21). Also, Crick further defends politics from the practice of technology, nationalism, and democracy. Additionally, although it is often assumed politics is done in all governments from local to foreign, in the contrary, all governments don’t adhere to this activity defined by Crick. In fact, with our current president, Donald Trump, based on the actions he has taken so far, he is anti-political.

The debate over federalism is still present, and will endure. Parts of todays’ version of cooperative federalism will surely be replaced by another theory of intergovernmental relations. In addition, the balance of power between the national and the state governments will continue to be settled by political means, and not by theory. The relationships of the federal system, political ideology, and freedom, is no longer as simple as it appeared; recently as 50 years ago.

In the United States Federalism Constitution had another power which is the reserved power. A reserved power gets order by the 10th Amendment. The 10th amendment the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Once the 10th amendment had been used the Anti-Federalists became anxious that the new Constitution exposed the Revolutionary War that object to violence against a form of government or indestructible central government.

The ongoing argument between state government and federal government’s hold on power has been in existence since before the founding of America. If state government and the federal government did not have the correct balance of power it could cause uneasy relations which in turn would be a negative outcome for the nation. This is why federalism in our government is so important. Federalism is when a government's power is divided amongst central and lower levels of government. Throughout the history of the United States, there has been different variations of Federalism. From the founding of America until nineteen thirty-seven there was a form a federalism called dual-federalism which has also been called divided sovereignty in which power was divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms. After the new deal was created, The United States went to cooperative federalism in which national, state, and local governments worked cooperatively, until around the nineteen-sixties. For a short period of time had regulated federalism where congress would impose legislation on the states and local governments requiring them to meet national standards. This then led to what we know now, New Federalism where the federal government transfers certain powers back to the states. New Federalism has been around since the nineteen-seventies.

Every country since the beginning of time has competed with one another to be the most dominant country with the most power. International power differs a little bit from domestic power. Power in regards to global affairs are tangible and intangible resources that have underlying power relationships. Tangible things would be a powerful army. Some of the intangible things would be allies. There are three types of different relational power aspects. They are commanding change, controlling agendas, and establishing preferences. Commanding change is when you can convince others to change their preferences to better accommodate yours. Controlling agendas is when you make another person's agenda irrelevant and replacing it with your own. Establishing

Balance of Power, a type of post war order, could happen when weaker states form alliances with each other in order to counterbalance the leading state. This would prevent the leading state from having all the power, and would prevent tyranny of the leading state. This form of balance of powers is coined “banding,” because the weaker states ‘band’ together (Ikenberry 24). Also this form of post war order allows for the weaker states to have some of their postwar demands carried out. On the other end of balance of powers there is “bandwagoning,” which is where the weaker states ally themselves with the victor (Ikenberry 25). Bandwagoning ensures that the weaker states will not get oppressed and also guarantees them protection due to their alliance with the leading state.

Why is it so difficult to accomplish anything in American government? The answer lies within three features of American government: the Hyperpluralist theory, separation of powers with checks and balances, and divided government. All these aspects of government result in gridlock, “a condition that occurs when interests conflict and no coalition is strong enough to form a majority and establish policy, so nothing gets done” (19).

Out of Friedman’s list of problems that American will be facing in the coming decade, it is hard to justify which one is the most important. Some of the problems are not even problems yet. However, I think the most important problem right now relates to the first chapters to Friedman’s novel; which is the balance of power in America. America has to find the balance of power and morals. As Friedman has explained that we have unintentionally become an empire, it is taking away from the republic that the founders originally set out for it to be.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

The balance of power was a concept or idea in the eighteenth century. By the eighteenth century, the European method of self governing independent states was established greatly in the idea of self-interest. Since international connections were based on deliberation of power, the eighteenth century concept of a “balance of power” was grounded on how to counterbalance the power of one state by another one to stop anyone’s power from controlling over the others. However, this balance of power did not indicate a wish for peace. Huge armies were created to protect a state’s security were sometimes even used for offensive motives as well.

Political institutions become more specialized and complex as they become more modern. Roskin, Cord, Madeiros & Jones (2012) argued that this process can be seen as our societies became more developed. From primitive extended families, where a single leader decided most things, through tribal councils and city-state assemblies that combined legislative, executive, and judicial functions, to the prevailing feudal system in the Middle Ages, with a balance among a monarch, nobles, and leading churchmen, the first true balance of power (p.233).

In accordance with the in-class simulations, an international system includes individuals from different countries. These countries can be called states if they are connected by an organized structure of people, leaders or “government” in those particular countries. In accordance with K.J. Holsti’s article, international systems are “independent political entities that interact with frequency and according to regularized processes”. In other words, international systems represent patterns of interactions between the countries and government structures of power and influence to reach countries’ goals. Polarity, in a generic international system, is the amount of power allotted to each country in an alliance or international organization. An alliance uses defense mechanisms for security purposes and uses force to gain power or influence over another country or group of people. An international organization includes people of a particular country that gets together with other countries to discusses issues related to international laws and legal personalities. Legal personalities express about a country’s rights or lack thereof. An international organization essentially establishes a team of countries working together towards an intended goal. There are three types of international systems: a unipolar system, a bipolar system, and a multipolar system. A unipolar system includes a country that has acquired twice as many power distribution units or more

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

The different theories of political economy had attempted to explain international political economy through formulating a clear relation between the interaction of wealth and power. Is political power more significant on the international level for the stability of the state compared to economic development? How does power and wealth shape the society, and as a result shape the international sphere? The questions regarding the relationship between power and wealth are, in my opinion, the most important questions, not only in the sphere of international political economy, but also in the social sciences sphere as a large. It significance comes from it’s essential role in determining the structure of the society and the nature of every

Power in politics is a central concept, yet a contested one for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them is its contested nature and disagreement among political scientists over the concept itself as well as its operationalization. I refrain from further exploring the literature on power as a general political science concept and focus on its aspects related to negotiation. From an international relations perspective, realists for example, emphasize on the materialistic aspect of power; military, economy and other measurable and quantifiable sources of power (Donnelly 24). Hans Morgenthau, a classical realist, defines power as “men’s control over the minds and actions of other men”, he further states that a political power is “the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large” (32). This definition, to a degree, resonates with power in negotiation since it focuses on one’s ability to influence the perception and action of others. This notion of power is relevant to negotiation in that either sides of a negotiation attempt to influence the decision making of the other side(s). Keohane Nye’s definition of power is closer to Morgenthau. He defines power as “the ability of an actor to get others to do something they otherwise would not do” (10). Roger Fisher defines power in terms of negotiation as “the ability to persuade someone to do something” (182). These definitions do not emphasis on the outcome aspect of