Anti- Federalist paper: Brutus andFederalist no 10: James Madison - Essay Example

Anti- Federalist paper: Brutus and Federalist no 10: James Madison Federalist no 10: James Madison James Madison, the of Federalist no 10,favours a large, national republic established by the constitution and governed by a handful of people. The elective representatives would be more patriotic (since they would have been nominated by a large number of people), more refined and enthusiastic in performing their tasks, keeping in mind the people whom they are representing. As we say “Majority is authority”, the majority cannot vote for bad or something not of worth. They would definitely be going for someone who could translate their interests and their thinking. The people should be divided into different interest sectors and categories so that they have little time to concentrate over issues like discrimination, disruption and being an oppressor. Madison talks about unity, a united country with united people, common interests, decisions, thinking and arguments. He states up to the extent. The main advantage of having a country under one body is the representatives selected are refined through a lot of people (and a lot of people deciding to cast a vote for the same person cannot be wrong). Such a medium of chosen bodies are the best in wisdom and may best discern and distinguish the true interest of the country. It would be more consonant and publically good to hire people who could translate their thinking and mind-set on a broader scale. The number of the elected representatives should not be increased as selection of a lot of people brings about trouble and selection of a few results in a disaster. You get and elect trained and practiced people who decide for your future thus taking the country to a new direction the best part about such a structure is that no one can dawn upon the other, that means no bullying can be done and no tyrant can be sustainable. Also they cannot just do wrong as they are the centre of attention of a lot of people and their every movement is being recorded. 2. Anti- Federalist paper: Brutus Brutus in the article Anti- Federalist paper states that there should be thirteen different states with an individual executive and judiciary. There shouldn’t be a single state platform forming a set of rules being enforced on the citizens irrespective of what they want and how they want. One body should not have the power to decide the future of a million people without having consent with the people would be facing the outcomes. The constitution is not a good thing in an individuals’ interest as it is aimed for a lot of people and does not cater at an individual level. A constitution for a country does not focus and target an individuals’ interest and rights. The government is a subversion of liberty by applying principles, rules and regulations, and tyrannical atrocities; they forget who voted for them for what reason. They do not care about the people who elected them and made them the representatives of the country and apply restrictions and more rules and principles and enforce them throughout the country. It’s all about their own interests, nothing about the human nature, it’s about them when they are elected and they are chosen to be the representatives. A free republic cannot exceed to such an immense extent. They need to have subordinates who could cater every other individual and could have the info and thee details about a certain person, his problems and should be formulating or devising a solution. They have large fortunes and less moderation towards people and their interests. No time for individual district, it’s all about the country and the bodies organizing, maintaining and showing interests about them; people come in the end. They gratify their own interests and ambitions and forget that they have been elected by these people who are (in that scenario), being betrayed. He further states that the country have independent states deciding their own future and knowing and caring about each n every group. 3. Comparison: The comparison here is of the two articles written by Madison and Brutus. Both have extremely different opinions regarding the same question “A confederated government is best for the United States of America or not.” Madison is in favour of the question while Brutus is against it. Let’s discuss their positive and negative points including the comparison of the strengths and weaknesses. 3.1 Discussion: In Madison’s point of view the whole country should be governed by a set of laws and controlled by a set of people. He further says that the representative elected by a large number of people is better as it will make the chosen representatives more “patriotic” and more “sensitive” for the people. In Madison’s point of view the elected representatives are the Elected are patriotic and distinguished citizens, they will refine and enlarge public views by eliminating the selfish and the short-sighted ones as “majority cannot come on a common ground unless and until it’s for the common good” (Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p. 15). Madison thinks that the chief threat to the organized body is by the people. But Brutus’ point of view is totally opposite to this. He says that if a large number of people vote for a representative then they become out of control as the position granted could not be taken back very easily and in advantage of that they could do anything and then they are not answerable to anyone. Brutus says that “the large republic established by the constitution will be run by aristocratic rules that will eagerly expand their powers and oppress the common people.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p. 15). But in Madison’s point of view “The greater distance will promote public deliberation and public spirits in representatives”, instead Brutus argues “fosters corruption and self-seeking in them. The diversity of a large republic is also an unwelcome development because it will increase self-factionalism, conflict and stalemate.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p. 15) By establishing a national government (in Brutus’s thinking) that possessed only enumerated, limited powers and if the constitution could not have the clauses for the rights of people, then government could take charge over those and could (nonetheless) do any harm to anything or any of the rights thus taking away the liberty the citizens have and imposing its own principles and rules. Madison states that “In smaller republics (Madison warns) selfish factions can attain majority status and will use their power over the government to oppress minorities (such as the wealthy or those who hold unorthodox religious beliefs). Small republics thus allow the worst qualities in human nature to prevail. They allow irrational to overwhelm reasoned deliberation and injustice to supplant the public good.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p.14-15). But Brutus states that the small scale elections and the nomination of representatives will be their own voice. Thus they would be having knowledge (and discussion) over the problems at a very lower level. Small republics will allow better know-how and judgement for every individual. Madison sees small republics as turbulence and misery. Brutus says that in a smaller political setup of the government, the people will share a common economic and social interest and characteristic. Electoral districts will be smaller thus the voters will personally know and trust their representative and those representatives would not let them down either by position or by sentiments. “Rather than breeding tyrannical majorities’ small republics educate law abiding and virtuous citizens.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p. 15) Madison’s rely on the deliberative belief that liberty will produce inequality of property and Brutus believed that a small republic large scale inequalities can be avoided. 3.2 Strengths: The arguments of Madison have a valid point. In terms of a constitution guiding a country and its elected representatives he is absolutely right that the chosen representatives are not what you term as a “layman”. They are far more wise, sharp and sensible. That’s why of hundreds of people they have been appointed and nominated. Thus they can better decide for the future and can take good decisions regarding the country’s future. So, one should rely on them as they will think what is a bit difficult for a common man to do. They will control the situations and will know “what to say at what time” since they know the will of the people and what would they want that’s why it is wise enough to appoint them and leave the rest upon them. He says that the small republics could provide the opportunity to the people to govern others as in to bully others and creation of a mishap would be very easy while it won’t be if the setup is in a larger scale. Brutus on the other hand states that the small republic elections and the nomination of the representatives are far better. The elected ones would be personally known by the people and they would better know who to opt for”. The elected one would also know every other person individually and would therefore be thinking twice to go for a decision as he would know what suits to his people and what not. The small republics would be beneficial for the people to decide what’s good for them as they have the access to the representative who knows them personally. Madison states that in smaller republics the oppression to the orthodox and the people with other beliefs or the minorities could be there and to justify this point he says that the people can only come to a common point when they share a common national interest. Brutus states that in a small republic it would be “Rather than breeding tyrannical majorities small republics educate law abiding and virtuous citizens.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p. 15) 3.3 Weaknesses: Madison’s point of view has a lot of weaknesses as well. He claims that the elected representatives would be very patriotic and enthusiastic but this is not the only side. The other aspect of this is that the representatives would be free of taking decisions. Thus they could easily become corrupt and selfish and no one could do anything about it. Madison states that the large number of people (since can become a threat to the country) so they should be divided into different sectors according to the interests and make them think alike. This cannot be possible. A large number of people cannot be MADE TO THINK ALIKE. Every individual has a different perspective of a single thing. You cannot make everyone like the colour pink. Brutus states that “the large republic established by the constitution will be run by aristocratic rules that will eagerly expand their powers and oppress the common people.” ((Miroff, Seidelman & Swanstrom, 2012, p.15). This is not absolutely true. It’s not always necessary that the representative selected by the people would become tyrant and won’t be listening to the rest. It is also not concrete that they would be expanding their powers and take charge of the constitution and would become autocrats and evil. 4. Conclusion: Madison and Brutus, Federalist and Anti-Federalist have their own opinions. Whether the republic is one (having one constitution) or may small republics, it is the country and the citizens who are important. Being a federal system has its own advantages. The centralised body can well manage things, hiring wiser and getting what they want. The anti-federal states can know and judge (at a lower level) what is best for them. Both the systems have its advantages and disadvantages. My opinion goes in favour of Brutus as small republics can be well managed and could give quicker results. The federalists are better too as they decide keeping in mind the whole country which (sometimes) may be fruitful and sometimes not very effective. References: Miroff, B., Seidelman, R., & Swanstrom, T. (2012). Debating democracy: A reader in American politics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More