Categories
government

Public Trust in Government Statistics

To what extent should we place trust in the government these days? It is said by American President Barack Obama, ”If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. ” From here, we know the importance of people putting trust in their government. However, we can only place trust in them if they are able to take care of their citizens, fulfilling their needs and acting responsibly in the best interest of the citizens.
Recently, there seem to be an increase in reasons for us to distrust our government for they are fulfilling less of their duties as the leaders of the nation. Firstly, we should remain skeptical about the government due to the simple fact that the government comprises of humans, and as we all know, no human is perfect. As Gandhi said, ”Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed. ” With scientific research stating that the humans are born to be greedy, the innate greed in the government officials might be a dangerous trait.
For the government, their greed would result in various forms of corruption such as bribery and extortion, negatively impacting the lives of the citizens. For example in sub-Saharan African nations, about half of the funds that were donated for health usages were never invested into the health sectors. Instead they were lavished to support the costly high-end lives of the government officials. This problem is not only limited to the developing countries. World wide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.

Due to the innate greed in human nature, it is evident that many times, the government will not do what is best for the people. Instead, they would think of themselves first, thus we should not place our complete trust in the government. Secondly, governments are no longer taking care of the needs of the citizens as well as they did. There are basic needs that one should be entitled to, needs such as education and healthcare, and the government should ensure that its citizens get those needs. However, these days many countries are unable to fulfill their citizens’ needs.
In countries such as Greece, level of healthcare accessible to the public has also been on the decrease due to the recent economic crisis. Five austerity programmes within the space of two and a half years have reduced the health system in Greece to the level of a developing country and stripped working people of the basic right to adequate medical care. Most hospitals lack essential basic materials such as disposable gloves, plaster and catheters. Poorer women have to give birth at home because they cannot afford a hospital birth, which can cost €700-€1,500.
On top of that, control of infectious diseases is no longer guaranteed due to the lower standards of hygiene throughout Greece. Chronic respiratory diseases, skin diseases and tuberculosis are all on the increase. Outbreaks of malaria infections have been reported in five parts of the country, although the disease had been thought be eradicated in 1974. It can be seen that the government do not have the ability to ensure the basic wellbeing of their citizens thus we should place less trust in the government these days.
Thirdly, in many countries, governments are restricting many of the basic rights of people. These rights belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings. However, in many countries, in the excuse to protect national security, the government often stripped the citizens of those rights. Under these kind of circumstances, it is of no surprise why the citizens might not trust the government. For example, in China, the freedom of speech in media and press is largely limited.
They have strict censorship rules that include all capable of reaching a wide audience including television, print media, Internet, text messaging and even video games. These rules will greatly limit the ability for press to act as the 4th estate in the country and their ability to keep the government in check. After the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, many people who tried to report on the shabby construction of schools faced severed punishment. Liu Shaokun, a Sichuan school teacher, was detained for disseminating rumors and destroying social order after taking photos of collapsed school buildings, and putting them online.
With these kind of censorship rules in placed, the citizens would no longer have the faith and confidence in their government as they are denied of the truth of the happenings in their country. Thus, less trust are placed in the government these days. However, there are some people who feel that there has been an increase in trust in the government. 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer conducted by Edelman Public Relations has revealed that Singaporeans are the third most trusting of their government. They account this to the strong economy, high social security and high standard of living in Singapore.
Despite those statistics, the new generation of Singaporeans are placing less and less trust in the government. The parliament of Singapore was traditionally dominated by People’s Action Party and the decrease in trust in the leading party was seen when Worker’s Party, an opposition party, won it’s first Group Representation Constituency in the 2011 general elections. The recent political scandals in Singapore have shaken the trust placed in the government too. Just a month ago, member of parliament, Michael Palmer, announced his resignation after confessing he had an extramarital affair with a community worker.
This caused various debates among the citizens that questions the credibility of the parliament speakers. These debates further illustrates the declining trust placed in the government. In conclusion, I feel that people around the world are beginning to lose trust in the government. They no longer feel that the government is able to act to their best interest and that their needs are not fulfilled. They are beginning to be unsure of their government’s choices and question the transparency of their leaders. Thus, I do not think that we should trust our government to a large extent.

Categories
government

Experience of the Attawapiskat Cree to Ojibwa in relation to the Canadian Government

The Attawaspiskat Cree and Ojibwa are a first nations group living in parts of Canada, mainly northern Ontario. The main languages spoken by these first nation groups are Mushkegowuk Cree and Ojibway. I will compare and contrast the experience of the Attawapiskat Cree to Ojibwa in relation to the Canadian Government. This will include analyzing the treaties introduced by the government towards the Cree and the Ojibwa: in particular, treaty 9 will be discussed. In addition, to these treaties the government has divided the first nation community into two different groups: status-Indians and non-status Indians.
Within these two groups further division has been accomplished by the allocation of lands know as reserves to status-Indians and independent ownership for non-status Indians. This allocation of lands in reserves for status-Indians and independent ownership for non-status Indian is based on the policies developed through dependent and independent tenure. The laws permitting only status-Indians to live in reserves have fragmented the community and changes in culture and traditions have been rapid since the arrival of the government.
The arrival of the Canadian government in the early nineteen-hundreds was the last major encapsulating factor the Cree and the Ojibwa were to face after the Hudson Bay Company and the church. The methods adopted by the government were aimed at changing the social, economic, political and religious practices held within these societies. One of the first efforts undertaken by the Canadian government was to legalize any action it would take in the regions occupied by the Cree and the Ojibwa. Therefore, in 1905 and 1906 treaty 9 was signed with the people of Cree and the people of Ojibwa.

With the introduction of treaty 9, logging, hydroelectric development, minerals, construction of road and railways started. This treaty also introduced new land policies, which allowed non-Indians to exploit the resources used before only by the Indians. Commissioner Scott who represented the government promised the Indians that treaty 9 would not affect the way of living for the Indian people, rather the government would help in times of need: “There will not be any legislation governing trapping, hunting animals and hunting birds and fishing, if you are in favour of the treaty.
If something happens to you as to sickness or need of help the government will help you, all the people from Albany, Attawapiskat, Winisk, Fort Severn, will have this help” (Cummins 2004, 36). However, during the famine of 1909, 1928, 1930-31, 1934-36 and 1946-48 in Attawaspiskat, assistance from the government was little or non-existent. Therefore, the main reason for the treaty was to extinguish aboriginal rights and to take away the land owned by the Indians. Following treaty 9 many different treaties were introduced by the government which further deteriorated the economical conditions present within the Indian community.
These treaties had assured for the Cree and the Ojibwa, that provision would be made for the supply of seed, cattle and agricultural implements as these nations had exhibited an interest in starting farming for economic interest. Additionally, some other treaties had guaranteed distribution of fishing nets, net twins, guns and ammunition so as it can enable the Indians to hunt for subsistence activities, with participation with the new economy. However, the government provided insufficient amenities which were unable to economically improve the position of the Cree and Ojibwa.
In addition, federal legislation – especially the Indian Act – teamed with federal and provincial policy and actions, rendered it arduous for Aboriginal people to undertake other economic interest. (http://www. ainc-inac. gc. ca/ch/rcap/sg/sh45_e. html). It is essential to define the terms land tenure and land use in order to understand how these systems are used as an encapsulating factor for the Ojibwa and the Attawapiskat Cree. Land use is the physical exploitation of land, where as land tenure are the policies which govern the use of land and is based on social, political and exploitative patterns of a group.
Example of social, political and exploitative patterns would include the ways of accommodation, such as living in micro or macro bands and occupying a river drainage or a good fishing site; notion of land ownership; and hunting patters, respectively. Since the incursion of Euro-Canadians in all aspect of Indian life, there have been changes in the traditional land tenure policies held within these societies for centuries. The government has divided the Ojibwa and the Cree into two different categories: status Indians and non-status Indians.
Status Indians are those individuals who according to the Indian Act appear on the governments list of registered Indians. Status-Indians are solely dependent on governmental aid and live on lands turned into reserves by the government; they are also exempted from any provincial or federal programs such as income tax and property tax. Non-status Indians are those who have lost their Indian status by governmental enfranchisement. These people cannot live on reserves; land setup by the government for status-Indians, but they can independently own land and must pay taxes.
The reserves are created by the Indian Act as, “the minister may, when he considers it desirable constitute new bands and when a new band has been established from an existing band or any part thereof, such portion of the reserve lands and funds of the existing band as the minister determines shall be held for the use and benefit of the new band”. (Driben 1986: 114). Therefore, to create a reserve there must be, a new band who has requested the government to be turned into a reserve.
Hence, if approved the government would allocate an existing reserve or some land. Once designated as a reserve, individuals cannot have the title to the land and cannot exercise the freedom to move fluidly in different areas or groups. One major set back by the government to the Ojibwa people living in Aroland are the economic government policy adopted towards them. In 1971, the provincial plan for economic development was revealed, which concluded that land and resource development should take place only in places which demonstrate a potential for growth.
Therefore, the problem arouse when Nakina, a town less than 25 kilometres from Aroland became the centre of growth, this has shifted any incentives from private and government sectors to economically invest in Aroland. The government of Canada has introduced two types of land tenure for the Cree and the Objiwa, dependent and independent land tenure. In dependent land tenure two aspects must be fulfilled, first that region must be made into a reserve, and second, the people occupying the region must be status-Indians. Once the region has become a reserve it falls under the jurisdiction of the ministry of Indian Affairs.
Therefore, by the Indian Act, the ministry has the authority to possess land, prevent the transfer of land between bands, and to allocate land as they see fit. The economic impact of the dependent tenure has its benefits and disadvantages. These benefits include that the ministry of Indian affairs will provide aid for economic development. Such aid can be in forms of loans to bands, groups or individuals. Moreover, the Indians are not required to pay property tax or income tax on the money they earn by working on the reserves.
A disadvantage would be that the reserved land cannot be sold or leased unless it is surrendered to the government, and once the land has been surrendered to the government, it is controlled and owned by the government not the Indians. The social impact of dependent tenure is the segregation caused by the subdivision of Indians into status and non-status Indians. Therefore, to choose dependent tenure would segregate the community into one group, that comprising of status-Indians only. By the Indian act, non-status Indians are considered to be trespassers if they enter a reserve and can be fined and imprisoned for doing so.
On the other hand, Independent Land Tenure is a more euro-Canadian form of land policy. Indians in independent land tenure can buy property. But if the people opt for Independent Land tenure they cannot form any kind of reserve. Since Independent tenure is regulated under provincial government, the federal government would not be involved. Once the provincial government sells the people the land they occupy, the individual will get the title to the land and also some benefits as stated by the minister, “ Firstly, a surface right, which permits a landowner to enjoy the current use of his land.
Secondly, a productive right, which allows an owner to make a profit from the current use of his land. Thirdly, a development right, allowing the owner to improve his property. Fourthly, a pecuniary right, whereby a landowner benefits financially from development value both effectively granting the right not to develop and sixthly, a disposal right, allowing an owner to sell or will his land” (Driben 1986: 105). The economic advantage of independent tenure is that Indians can participate in government programs, can be endowed with equity that can be employed to obtain mortgages and loans from banks and other financial institutions.
Additionally they can have provincially tax-supported services such as fire protection, construction of roads, as well as other provincial benefits. In conclusion, the arrival of the government in the early nineteen-hundred marked a beginning which has rapidly cause change and encapsulated the Ojibwa and the Cree. Treaty 9, also known as the James Bay treaty, has let the government occupy two-third of northern Ontario from the Indians. An encapsulation method adopted by the government was to divide the Indians into different groups; this was done by dividing the people into status-Indians and non-status Indians.
Further, physical sub-division was accomplished by the government through dependent and Independent tenure. Laws forbidding non-status Indians to enter reserves were strictly enforced and any economic incentives approached by the Indians were tentatively dealt with. Therefore the nineteen hundred has been a drastic change for the Ojibwa and the Cree, and it has transformed them from a simpler life of hunting for subsistence to that of trading and has made them conform to the external pressure to acculturate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Cummins, Brian D. 2004. Only God Can Own the Land. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Driben, Paul. 1986. Aroland Is Our Home – An incomplete victory in Applied Anthropology. New York: AMS Press. Martin, Calvin. 1978. Keepers of the Game. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Schmalz, Peter S. 1991. The Ojibwa. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press. Krech, Shepard. 1981. Indians, Animals, and the Fur trade. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. .

Categories
government

Impact of E Government on Public Admin

The Introduction of the IRIS payroll system at the Ministry of Works and Transport was seed as the Case Study for this project; with the mall objective being to highlight the changes being experienced by public administration as a result of the revolution In communication technology. Introduction The revolution of Information Technology and Communication during the 21st Century has impacted on individuals, groups as well as organizations and businesses.
While this has caused changes in people’s lifestyles, it has also effected phenomenal changes in government processes and interactions with citizens, businesses, other government agencies and employees. Within the sphere of governance, Information Communication Technology applications have infiltrated into government’s policies, procedures, infrastructure and its frameworks in order to enhance the delivery of goods and services to the public.
Society has become more aware of obtaining effective and efficient electronic or e-government services mainly because of the advent of the Internet in the sass’s. Globalization and greater customer expectations have created a shift form agency- based to fulfilling the needs of the public. The successful implementation of e-government projects requires a lot of administration restructuring processes, redefining of administrative procedures and formats, which find resistance in almost all departments at all levels. ” 1. Ultimately, In the long -term, e-government alms to reinforce government’s Initiatives towards effective governance and Increased transparency In order to better manage the country social and economic resources for growth and development. 1 . Kananga 2004 An Overview of E-Government The e;government agenda has been widely adopted by governments of many neutrons Walt n ten expectation AT inclemency, effectiveness, accountability, transparency and convenience in the functioning of government agencies. E- Government has become both a vision and the world we live in. Citizen-eccentricity is about turning the focus of government around; looking at the world through the other end of the telescope so that the needs of citizens and business come first. ” 2. The term e-government, short for electronic government is synonymous with digital government or connected government. It can be defined as “the migration of overspent information and services to an online delivery mode. “3. It dates back to the sass’s with the introduction of information technology in the Public Sector.

However it was not until the year 2000 that the conversion of the provision of information and services to electronic means took place. Three components comprise the e-government system, they are: 1 . The provision of services from Government to government (Internal) 2. From government to business (External) 3. From government to citizens (External) Some examples of e-government in action include disbursement of social security- Identification cards driver’s permits, passports; handling of government works projects as well as providing information of representatives online. . Intel , 2006 3. Oliver & sanders, 2004 Definition of E-Government There is no one definition for E-government but it ranges from “the government task of setting a valid legal framework for the effective use of the electronic media in society as well as the application of these media for public procurement, services to companies and the management of the internal organization. “l .
To “the ramification process of the Public administration as a whole and of its interaction with people; this process, through Information and Communication Technologies (Sits), aims at optimizing the provision of services, at increasing participation by citizens and enterprises and at enhancing the governing ability of Public Administration itself in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. ” 2. Public Administration is the executive or operative arm of the government with the responsibility of carrying out their policies and directives.
Therefore within the intent of e-government, Public Administration is now faced with both organizational and institutional transformations as governments move towards the creation of an International Ana Knowledge Dates collect. The use of Information Communication Technology in government, according to the European Union, aims to achieve three goals. They are as follows: to improve public services, to facilitate the democratic process by allowing greater citizen participation and to strengthen support for public policies. The change to e-government requires major organizational and structural hangs.
Within the Public administration framework, numerous reforms have to be undertaken such as redefining of roles and responsibilities, rethinking services and access to them, eliminating redundant functions, developing skills and competencies in staff as well as working hand in hand with other stakeholders to deliver services that go beyond the organization . For e-government to be successful reforms and reinventions in the Public Service are imperative. However, while the technology part may be relatively easy to implement, the difficult part is the human aspect.

Categories
government

Which level of government should take the lead?

In ascertaining which between the federal government and the state and local government can best address the problems facing this nation, it is important that the pressing problems of the United States of America be identified first. Evidently, the most pressing problems of our nation today include job creation and economic growth, the war in Iraq, health care and social security, energy and the cost of gas, terrorism, illegal immigration and environment and global warming.
When it comes to addressing the problem of job creation and economic growth, the lead should not be taken by any of the two levels of government since both the federal as well as the state governments must share the burden of dealing with the same. At the state or local level, intrastate commerce must be readily addressed. While interstate commerce must be facilitated by the federal government.
The federal government however must be permitted to take the lead in addressing the problems of the war in Iraq, terrorism, illegal immigration energy and the cost of gas and the environment and global warming as these problems substantially involves foreign policy works that only the federal government is empowered to do. These problems require immediate attention and may oftentimes necessitate instant action which may only be delivered by the national government.

On the other hand, the problems of health care and social security must be addressed by the state and local governments for the identification as well as the cure to these problems can best be addressed locally. It is within the realm of the power of the state and local governments to make measures to attend to the problems of health care and social security. Discuss the Davis Administration and how it affected the writing of the 1876 Texas Constitution.
Governor Samuel Jackson Davis’ administration was perhaps the most controversial and unpopular one in Texas history. This may be because even his assumption to office was in the first instance questionable. The backbone of his administration was the Texas Constitution of 1869 which provided for the centralization of power into the Governor’s Office and the expansion of governmental power. Davis’ term lengthened from the original two years to four years and his salary was significantly increased.
Davis was able to have control over local state officials because of the vast appointing and removal powers granted to him by the constitution. The Davis administration was also criticized for levying unreasonably high taxes and incurring lavish government expenditures. Aside from his control over the State Police, the Constitution also empowered Davis to take charge of the State Militia which he both used to maintain law and order and compel local officials whenever they refused or failed to obey.
His unpopularity was bolstered by immense corruption coupled with his declaration of martial law in some counties. Texans have always preferred decentralization, cheaper government spending and abhorred the coercive force of the state police and the state militia and the declaration of martial rule. That is why in December of 1873, Texans replaced Governor Davis with a Democrat in the person of Richard Coke and subsequently rewrote their constitution.
Texans promulgated the Constitution of 1876 which, up to this time, remains to be the fundamental organic law of Texas. It provided for shorter terms and lower salaries of elected officials, obliteration of voter registration, local control of schools, low taxation and less government expenditure. Although the governor was given the power to appoint, fill vacancies, and enforce the laws of the land, he was not given control over local or other elected state officials. The 1876 Texas Constitution vastly differed from its predecessor constitution.
References:
Longley, Robert. “Federalism: National Vs. State Government.”  (2008). April 28, 2008 <http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/federalism.htm>.
Webmaster. “The Handbook of Texas Online.”  (2008). April 28, 2008 <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/mhc7.html>.

Categories
government

What the Best Form of Government Is?

The purpose of this essay is to examine how the philosopher Thomas Hobbes answers the question of “what the best form of government is” in objection to Plato’s answer that philosophers should rule.
In this paper, I will defend this statement by using the arguments Plato has made in The Republic on why philosophers should rule and responding to them with critics from Thomas Hobbes, explaining Hobbes belief in absolute monarchy, and using a real-life example of why Thomas Hobbes belief in absolute monarchy is the best form of government.To begin, we must understand the reason behind why Plato decided to make this argument for philosophers to rule.
At the time, the Athenian democracy was very unstable; which is the main reason why Plato decided to write The Republic. He believed that he knew the answer to why this instability was happening; “no competent leadership” (501b), and that is why in the first couple books, Plato focuses on defining the term “justice” and the prevention measures that a state can take in order to avoid the tyrannies that occurred in the Athenian democracy.

As we unravel more, he goes on to write about the importance a governing body has to the state; because it takes the best people found in society and allows them to become moral and political examples for the other “classes” of citizens. In the Republic Book VIII, he mentions five types of regimes starting off with the best form of government which is called “aristocracy”. Philosophers ruling in the aristocracy means this regime is funded from wisdom and reason according to Plato.
For every regime in Plato’s books, he has a man that illustrates what they stand for and are analyzed by Plato to advocate for his best form of government; philosophers as kings that rule. Plato has the aristocratic state divided into three caste-like parts: the ruling class, the auxiliaries, and the rest of people (majority.) Focusing on the ruling class, they are considered the “golden” ones because they have gold souls and are the only ones capable of ruling.
Plato believes that a philosopher king needs to go through proper training from the day they were born in order to become “golden”. The philosopher kings go through an educational system that aims in training them to become selfless and upright, and they are taught “The Truth” based on Platonic ideas which allows their souls to become calm and aware of absolute Good.
That brings us to an important question; what is absolute good? According to Plato, the absolute Good that philosopher kings can see is the metaphysical origin of all that is good, which includes happiness. Philosopher kings do not focus on personal interests or shadows of Good (such as money, fame) but instead shift their focus towards real happiness.
Real happiness for philosopher kings is not to abuse the power given for his own selfish desires, but to dedicate his life into establishing Good in the state. Plato writes in The Republic that humans generally want what is intrinsically good, “even if the person does not realize the nature of what is good” (Plato 505d).
This means that although each person has the ability to commit bad actions, it is general and not based off a fundamental law, but instead appetites and desires. Now we can mention philosopher Thomas Hobbes (who I feel answers this question best) who writes in the “Leviathan” with a similar belief of strong power and human appetites and aversions, but he does not agree with Plato’s statement of humans wanting good necessarily, but rather wanting what protects them best.
Hobbes goes on to write how a man in the state of nature living is at risk of a state of chaos because of his appetites and how humans will “provoke the rest” and create war and aggression. The way both Plato and Hobbes feel about what humans want shapes what kind of ideal society they feel would best work in order to prevent chaos.
For Plato, the philosopher kings are the only ones who possess truth and therefore are the only ones who can show average people how to act in society. Meaning that people in society are going to obey the philosopher kings because at the end of the day; everyone wants the general good. However, Hobbes criticizes Plato’s theory of this by writing how nobody can achieve the possession of truth and therefore will be uncapable of seeing the good for the state and not themselves.
Hobbes feels because nobody can posses the truth; they also can not pass down moral understanding to something they lack and are not qualified in. Hobbes focuses more on ration and logic and does not consider religious aspects or morals when it comes to government which is more effective to this day.
The reason he argues for this is that each person has different moral standpoints and it can not simply be summarized for the over all majority because it is simply not fair. Religion as well varies from person to person and a very common reason for civil war in a state comes from the church and the state, when people are having religious practices forced upon them. In an absolute monarchy, everyone must follow the rules placed upon them which are made to keep peace and avoid all these conflicts.
Thomas Hobbes does not believe that morality has any importance when it comes to government. The purpose of government according to him is to protect every citizen by reinforcing the laws which keeps society at peace. Hobbes summarizes his theory in the Leviathan by explaining, “If two want the same thing and they both cannot have it, they become enemies and endeavor to destroy one another” (Hobbes 141).
This becomes the political theory he stands for because it further means that unlike Plato, men are constantly in battle with other men due to the lack of satisfaction for what he already has. Hobbes believes because humans are selfish, the only proper form of government is absolute monarchy. In the Leviathan, he uses the argument that a civil society would not be subject to destruction within if it is constructed with an absolute monarchy.
An absolute monarchy is a form of monarchy that has one ruler being the supreme power and that power is not limited to any laws that are written, legislations, or customs. He explains how any disagreements between state and church or rival governments or any factionalism in general within society can lead to civil war. He holds onto the concept that any form of civil government that all people of society submit to will maintain common peace because those arising conflict issues will not happen.
The sovereign is in charge of running the government, this includes creating the laws, controlling the churches, determining first principles, and solving any conflicts that happen because of different philosophical beliefs. According to Hobbes, only this absolute sovereign can maintain a civil society, and avoid war from being entered into society. Equality also plays an important role in why Thomas Hobbes believes in absolute monarchy.
Unlike Plato, he does not believe that anyone is better than anyone else, regardless of differences, no man can see ultimate truth and therefore are not so different after all. I agree with Thomas Hobbes belief in absolute monarchy because as he mentions in the Leviathan his main purpose of supporting absolute monarchy it to try to avoid destruction happening within the state.
Civil war can occur in a state from any type of disagreement as Hobbes mentioned between church and state for example that can lead to destruction within, so he feels the best way to avoid that is to create an absolute monarchy so that people will be safe. A real-life famous example of a successful absolute monarchy is in Swaziland and goes way back to the seventeenth-century.
Swaziland is the last monarchy left in Africa, but many middle-eastern countries in the world still have this form of government. The power an absolute monarchy has is still shown today when we look at the 1973 emergency act the king of Sobhuza II took declaring the state in emergency in the country is still in effect today.
In Swaziland, the king had total authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary of the country. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler can impose rules everyone must follow to aim at protecting the country and keeping peace within.Another real-life example from a more personal standpoint would be the country Jordan, which is in the Middle East and my home country.
Jordan is one of the only countries in the Middle East that does not have conflict destroying their countries and does not have war going on. The reason behind this is simply their form of government which is an absolute monarchy. All the power lays on the Hashemite King of Jordan, his name is Abdullah and he is well loved and respected from all the residents living in Jordan.
He has managed to keep the country one of the safest countries in the Middle East and has taken care of the general good of everyone in the country. King Abdullah has so much power to the point where there is no freedom of speech when it comes to the royal family, meaning anyone saying anything negative about the king is a crime and can be imprisoned.
The reason for this law is that there are many great supporters and lovers of the king who would cause harm and start war with those who speak badly of him and for the general good of keeping everyone at peace; the king just puts those people away to prevent things from escalating.
When you really think about it, in this kind of situation both the name of the King and the person who is speaking bad is being protected, which avoided a conflict from rising and creating civil war.
Hobbes is right when he says humans are selfish beings who always want more because other countries in the Middle East who are not ran by an absolute monarchy are destroying one another through civil war within their country.
In conclusion, Hobbes had a main concern regarding that the most effective form of government- whatever its form- must have absolute authority. He states that their powers must be neither divided nor limited.
The reason he feels this as I had mention was for the general well being of the state in avoidance of conflicts occurring from civil disputes. The reason he emphasizes the need for absolutism is because once the authority opens room for limitation of their power, people will over step their limits and their selfish wants will come out and fear is the only way to keep the majority safe.
The only uncertainty Hobbes is yet to explain is his treatment of religion. My paper was only looking at the Leviathan, where it becomes unclear how religion plays out in his whole political theory. In other books, Hobbes discussed his Christian religion in each revision for his political philosophy.
Conflicting examinations from readers on whether Hobbes meant to use his core Christian commitments that come from absolutism, or if he just disregarded the readers religious beliefs by using irony. Regardless of how Hobbes intentions in Leviathan are understood, it seems to me that Hobbes is a rational thinker who only speaks the truth that many people only obey and treat people well due to fear from higher conquers.
In a state of human nature, everyone would do whatever they please because there is no fear; meaning selfish humans will all destroy themselves.