Government Politics and the Federalist Papers - Essay Example

The Federalist Papers, through its motivations, is an ingenious public relations campaign, designed to elicit support for the ratification of the then-proposed Constitution. One of the governing principles of the dissertation is the need for governance that runs along the concept of republicanism, which, at that time, was being drafted in the Constitution. Under a union, the then-thirteen states will be compacted and consolidated under a central government, without removing the sovereignty in rule and authority that was currently enjoyed by the individual states. Since the concept was relatively new, it required quite a hefty effort to convince the states to join the union, most especially that it was realized that factionalism can have a pivotal, destructive effect in breaking apart a republic – which was an unavoidable fear since the consolidation of thirteen new states appeared too ambitious and too good to even last. An advantage of the ratification of a U.S. Constitution lies in its power to effectively manage the typically adverse effects of factions. Factions, according to James Madison in Federalist No. 10, are individuals congregated by common socio-political and/or socio-economic interests. It should be noted that, whether these factions comprise the majority or the minority of the populace or whether factions are actively against each other, is gravely immaterial. Like horses running a race with blinders, these factions become exceedingly passionate in the pursuit of their vested interests that they often overlook public interests. As a result, factions, primarily because of its narrow-minded mechanisms, become disruptive to the public good. There are two typical responses to the adverse effects of faction. The first requires the annihilation of liberty that allows the actual formation and establishment of these factions. Here, the very freedom that allows the propagation of a healthy and diverse political culture is oppressed. In modern history, this is conceptually similar to the installation of a Philippine martial law regime in the 70s to prevent further dissension to the Marcos rule. In this example, the annihilation of liberty was executed through harsh policies like curfew, limited press and the abolition of the Senate. The second response, on the other hand, requires the imposition of beliefs, attitudes and opinions to those who are being governed. While this does not exercise a corporal suppression, similar to the previous example, it takes on a different form – an ideological one. Citizens are forced to accept and believe an ideology, particularly something that would repress alternative opinions and therefore, to ensure the success and longevity of the ruling party or government. Because the flow of ideas is bewilderingly uniform, free thought and free speech are crippled and culture, in its broadest sense, becomes stagnant, monotonous, unable to propel for development. These two typical responses of eliminating the causes of faction, while having been the common road taken in history, do not necessitate that both are proper. It is essential to underline that both responses to factions are culpable violations of human freedom, and it is this very freedom that has enabled mankind to learn hunting and mining, to discover navigation and education, to realize the importance of free speech and governance and in Madison’s period, to formulate that opinion that there is a need to break away from colonial rule and to strive for national independence. To deny one’s freedom is to deny one’s existence because it is freedom that makes a plethora of opportunities possible. Likewise, man will almost always associate himself with ideas he resemble and with people who are most similar to him. Thus, Madison asserts that human freedom, inclusive of factions and its causes, should not be contained, but adapted upon. It is through this effective adaptation to factions (and thus, control of its adverse effects) that Madison interpolates his thematic standpoint that a republican form of government, as proposed in the drafted Constitution, is both viable and necessary. In the context of factions, Madison asserts on the perils of pure and direct democracies. Those who employ such governance are usually small societies which “assemble and administer the government in person”, and whose citizens directly and actively participate in the legislation process. Here, the size of the society plays an important role as an active catalyst in the formation of a majority faction. A small size means that common passions and sentiments are likely to form among a majority number of people. Because of the size, members of the community (or a village, for a more concrete example) will interact with each other. This exchange of ideas results to an agreement and consolidation of ideas and eventually, a formation of a majority. Because the perpetuation of the voice of the majority is the essence of a democracy, balance of power can easily be swayed from the ruling party. Such a process may transpire so numerously and methodologically that a democracy does not offer any room for stability and thus, societies under it may become chaotic in nature. It has been said that these kinds of democracies cannot effectively protect personal and property rights and thus, they are described as undoubtedly “spectacles of turbulence and contention”. This leads us to Madison’s assertion for a republic (defined in the Constitution), described as a type of governance “in which a scheme of representation takes place”. In this system, a small number of citizens (representatives, if you may) are elected by the general populace, and it is this small number of citizens to whom the government will delegate various tasks and responsibilities. Because of this great deal of responsibility, the representatives should be sufficiently endowed with wisdom, prudence and good intentions. As the eyes, ears and voices of their constituents (to the capitol), they are expected to be profound and sensitive with their expression of refined and enlarged public views. In essence, they are also opinion leaders who are all for “patriotism and love of justice”. On the other hand, there lies the possibility of members who are corrupt or pre-occupied by evil motives. Worse, they might be members of the same faction of the same agenda. This possibility is suppressed, however, because the Constitution allows a greater number of people to elect these representatives. Due to the varying opinions of the voting populace, it would be harder to deceive people especially during electioneering. Constituents will be more hard-pressed to select a suitable, more deserving representative. Thus, it is more plausible that the public office will be held by more qualified men who will think twice about betraying the public trust. It has been mentioned that a representative government allows a greater number of people to elect representatives. Essentially, it also means that it can allow a greater geographical scope. The ability to adapt to expanding frontiers and populace is another stark advantage of a republic over a democracy. However, there lies the possibility of a liquefaction of power to which Madison devised an effective counter-argument. Madison argues that larger societies are more conducive to breed various notions of interests, beliefs and virtues. Ultimately, opposing opinions and factions form. However, they will be too weak, too numerous and too scattered to consolidate to an alarming majority. Yet, it is enough to breed multi-culturalism that propels long-term expansion and development. Aside from these stark contrasts to a democracy, the republic also possesses advantages over a small republic. While a republican system generally adapts its number of representatives to its volume of constituencies (it allows fewer representatives with a greater number of people and vice-versa), a small republic cannot have its independent states to have effective governments as those states from a union of a bigger size – primarily because there are more resources that can be shared. A representative, with his “enlightened views and virtuous sentiments”, will be most likely to effectively course his state’s more pressing concerns to the Union, while being able to enjoy the sovereignty to rule itself independently. Through a state’s allegiance and membership with a bigger union, it makes the union more stable as much as it becomes more stable with the security and protection of the union. Aware of the perils of factionalism, especially to a newly-formed union, Madison effectively drafted the constitutional effectiveness of a republican government critical of such a scenario. Then, not only did he devised a structural and constitutional assessment of the republic with other forms of government, Madison provided a political prophecy that, through the establishment of a republic, a geographical and sociological expansion is imminent which will make the union a powerful sovereign – to which modern-day America is a living testament. REFERENCES: The Avalon Project. “The Federalist Papers: No. 10”. 1996. Yale Law School http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm Project Gutenberg. “The Federalist Papers”. University of Oklahoma Law Center. 3 Feb 1997. http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/ Patrick, John. “Teaching the Federalist Papers”. 1995. ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. 2 Feb 1988. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-928/papers.htm Read More