Madison defined a faction as a given number of people, in this case citizens, who may either be a majority or a minority group and who are driven by a common goal whose outcome could be beneficial to the society or bring about adverse results to the citizenry’s rights. According to Madison, what informed a faction were arguments regarding fundamental issues which originated from political life’s opinion diversity. The fundamental issues which informed the opinion diversity included but were not limited to the preferred religion or even regime. However, according to him, there was a primary source of factions which in his own opinion was property distribution considered to be unequal in one way or the other.
This argument was founded on the premise that those who owned properties and those who did not always regrouped to build up societal interests which were distinct. Madison also argued that individual rights could be suppressed by direct democracy and in his view; the only way to enhance individual rights from ‘majority tyranny’ was to enhance a representative democracy. Additionally, he contended that the faction mischief could not be cured by a pure democracy. It important to note that most of Madison’s arguments especially on faction types were largely influenced in one way or the other by Montesquieu works.
Madison identified unique solutions as far as the elimination of the causes of factions was concerned and the mitigation of their adverse effects on good government. To eliminate the causes of factions, Liberty would first have to be destroyed. This could prove to be effective because liberty sustained factions in the same way oxygen sustains a flame. With that in mind, the destruction of liberty could prove to be effective as factions could not survive without the presence of liberty. However, this would present unique challenges considering that Americans had fought for liberty at the time of the American Revolution and in addition to that, political life would be almost impossible in the absence of liberty.
Secondly, causes of factions according to Madison could be done away with by forming a homogeneous society in terms of interests and opinions. However, this to him was largely impracticable. All in all, Madison concluded that the only way to mitigate the various damages brought about by factions would be to come up with an effective control mechanism as far as the effects of factions were concerned.To keep majority factions in check, Madison also proposed actions aimed at deflating the majority’s interest and passions as well as ensuring that a majority faction found it very hard top perform or act.
Part B
Madison was also largely concerned with a majority that was largely seen to be overbearing as well as interested. He believed that a representative democracy was one of the most effective ways of keeping in check majority rule to ensure that it did not interfere with the rights and liberties of individuals. He foresaw a situation where the weaker party could end up being sacrificed so as to give way to the interests of the majority. According to Madison, majority factions would always keep the minority away from power. This was based on the premise that the popular sovereignty principle would impede any access to power by minority factions.
However, it is important to note that Madison’s views on the majority have largely been disputed by amongst others Garry Willis and Dahl Robert. In Willis opinion, the minority have the ability to obstruct the majority by use of effective machinery (governmental) which can prove effective in hampering as well as effectively obstructing the views and actions of the majority. Madison however contended that proper as well as vital checks on majorities would be enhanced by a new constitution. In his view, a new constitution would be an effective check against class exploitation and avert partisan politics.
Part C
In Madison’s view, a republic is quite distinct in every way from a democracy. This difference is primarily informed by the fact that republic’s government is primarily controlled by delegates and in the light of this; it covers quite a significant area. A democracy was seen to be weak in terms of guaranteeing property rights as well as individual security. Additionally, a democracy did not also address in any way the various faction mischief and according to Madison, a democracy especially a small one could not in any way address the excesses and adverse effects of a majority faction.
Madison also contends that a large democracy is much better that a small democracy. This is informed by the argument that a large republic has a higher number of voters as well as candidates as opposed to a small republic. This essentially means that chances of electing representatives who are largely competent is much higher because voters have a wide variety from whom to choose from. Madison’s also argues that a majority would be harder to find in a large republic and if they are indeed there, they would find it hard to join efforts.
Question 3
Part A
It is important to note that though national government system as per the articles of confederation had some weaknesses, there were also some achievements under this system. As far as the weaknesses are concerned, the first shortcoming of the articles of confederation was the weakness of the central government. As per the articles, states had the majority of the powers leaving the central government with limited powers.The second weakness as far as the articles of confederation are concerned was the inability of congress to source revenues by way of taxes. This effectively means the congress lacked adequate finances to execute various activities.
However, irregardless of the weaknesses the Articles of Confederation had, there were still some successes that were identified. To begin with, they were able to utilize, maintain as well as raise the continental army. This essentially enhanced their ability to fight the American Revolution. In that line, the articles can be credited with the attainment of independence. As a result of the articles, the United States went ahead to attract ‘victory’ as far as the revolution was concerned and this ‘victory’ could not have been easy to come by without the worthy help of France whose union with the United States was also a function of the Articles of Confederation.Secondly, it has been noted that the articles of confederation were most successful as far as he Great Land Ordinances was concerned. The Land systematic survey as well as sale provided made possible by the 1785 land ordinance and this essentially meant that the new nation had enough funds which were utilized to enhance the education system (public) as well as avail income for other activities.
Part B
The Articles of Confederation had far reaching specifications on the operations of the federal government. Over time the U.S government has come embrace associative federalism as it slowly replaces dual federalism. As the war with Great Britain was going on, there were well entrenched divisions between those who favored a national government which was highly centralized and those who preferred a loosely structured federal government. However, a compromise was reached by coming up with a state and federal government division of sovereignty while enhancing the same with a legislature (unicameral) that was meant to enhance the individual states’ liberties. While pushing congress towards the monetary as well as the military issues regulation, here was no mechanism whatsoever provided by the Articles of Confederation as to ensure that requests for either revenue of troops were complied with by the states. In some instances, this was argued to cultivate a precarious position for the military.
Troops requisition was in some instances carried out by congress from the states. However, there was a problem as contributions were largely voluntary and it was further argued particularly by Federalists favoring a new constitution that there was unilateralism amongst politicians while making contributions. Whenever their state interests were not backed by the continental army, they could find it hard to make contributions. However, Anti-federalists were of the opinion that any advancement of the needs of the union was always supported by state politicians. In general terms however, the behavior of states was largely in agreement with the analysis of federalists and this sheds light into why there was a great need for reforms as far as the Articles of confederation were concerned.In conclusion, federalism can be defined as a concept in politics where there is a constitutional division of the sovereignty between the national government and other political units which could be provinces or states.
Part C
The constitutional convention in Philadelphia is also widely known as the U.S. constitutional convention. The most significant compromise resulting from the convention was the three-fifths compromise. This compromise was suggested by Roger Sherman and James Wilson who were delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Slavery was one of the major contentious issues informing the convention. One of the bones of contention was whether slaves were to be considered as part of the general populace as far as the U.S. congress representation determination was concerned or if they were to be taken as property and hence with no representation entitlement. Delegates whose states had a high slave population were of the opinion that slaves be entitled to representation while delegates from those states with a low slave population were of the opinion that slaves be deprived of representation entitlement and instead be considered for purposes of taxation only.
The Three fifths compromise was largely significant as it resolved the standoff between northern and southern states on the issue of slave representation. Here, it was agreed that the slave populace to be considered as far as enumeration was concerned as was three-fifths of the total slave populace. This essentially meant that three fifths of the aggregate slave populace would be taken into consideration when issues to do with taxes distribution were concerned. This compromise was also very vital when it came to the United States House of Representatives member appointment undertaking or exercise
