The system of governance

The system of governance

Governments have adopted different systems of governance throughout the history. The system of governance adopted, along with the individuals who are in control of the government, has had great impacts on the manner in which countries develop. There are many systems of government each with its distinct characteristics around the world even today, ranging from federal, unitary and confederal system. It is therefore very important to understand the distinct characteristic of each system as well as their functions.

In federal government for instance, power is distributed state governments and center making it indispensable for its existence. For administrative purposes, provincial governments are granted autonomy by the central government. In this system also division of power has been made in such a way that matters related to national importance are dealt with by the central government whereas those of regional interest are dealt with by provincial governments.

The second characteristic of federation is its written and firm constitution. The constitution under this system of government is highly respected and considered as the highest of the laws controlling the way activities are done both at the central and provincial governments. It is therefore clear that any action which violates the constitution direct qualifies to be declared illegal. Additionally, the constitution rigidity ensures that neither the central nor the provincial governments can amend it arbitrarily. Finally, in federal government, another very important feature of the system is the supremacy vested on the judiciary. Considering the fact that disputes arise from time to time in regard to jurisdiction, in such cases it becomes the duty of free and impartial judiciary to interpret the constitution impartially to solve jurisdiction disputes.

Unlike the federal government where power sharing between the central government and the state governments has been exercised, in the unitary system of governance, all the powers are vested on the central government. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the central government to control the whole country with full might. Despite of the fact that the state is divided into provinces and other units just like the federal government, the divisions are just but administrative in nature. This is in consideration to the fact that they all work under complete control and supervision by the central government.

The last system of government is the confederal system whose operation is amazing. Just like the federal and unitary systems, it is expected that the central government should be vested with at least superior powers as compared to the other divisions. This is however not the case in this system. The central government is weaker while component units are usually strong. This is because the powers vested on the central government are fewer and less serious. Another unique feature of this system lies on the rights of secession. In federal government for instance, the right of secession is not easily granted. This is not the case in this system however since the constitution clearly permits any of its units to secede at any point in time when it wishes.

Having the basics of these three systems of governments, it is important to have a look at the democratic Iraq and how it settled at the system of governance it has today. The government of United States in collaboration with other leaders put much effort in establishing a strong federal system of government in Iraq. This was not just out of blues but was necessitated by many reasons considering that there were other systems of government which could have been adopted and work on the countries governance.

It is important to note that Iraq had gone through recurrent civil wars of 2006-2008. In the year 2007-2008, the government of United States committed both their military as well as economic resources to save the country from the first instance of the civil war. The history behind these civil wars clearly demonstrated that only three ways could bring them to an end. The first one was to let the three groups fight until the winner is realized to prevail over the others. Typically this would be brutal and bloody fashion and its outcome could not be the goal of United States. A second option was to partition the country. This faced a challenge since neither the Shi’a Arabs nor the Sunni seemed willing to share power in Iraq. This therefore meant a long and costly civil war.

The final option which looked possibly the best was what the United States administration advocated for, engineering a federal system of government that Shi’a, Kurds and the moderate Sunnis will be in a position to embrace and which could wage a unified military campaign against the Sunni militants and ISIS. Similarly, if the current unitary system of government was to remain as a prescribed system of government, a de facto partition was likely to ensue after the US forces withdrew. This step would have embodied the Sunni militias and Arab insurgents on all sides; this would therefore result into the Iraqi army confronting the insurgents as well as the militias alone.

It is also important to note that creation of federal system for Iraq called for a number of practical as well as theoretical issues to be clearly outlined and explored. In confederal system, for example, each unit was to be sovereign and would unilaterally veto collective actions. There are some characteristics which could favor confederation system in this country however. The main one being the no need for a structural arrangement except when facilitating certain specific agreements when negotiation for bilateral and trilateral cooperative was needed, on the other hand,  considering the Kurdish referendum decision, although federalism could be an answer for the Arab Iraq keeping Kurdistan required more nominal part in Iraq. And that was basically a system closer to confederation.

Work cited

Brancati, Dawn. “Can federalism stabilize Iraq?.” Washington Quarterly 27.2 (2014): 5-21.

Anderson, Lawrence M. “Theorizing federalism in Iraq.” Regional & Federal Studies 17.2             (2013): 159-171.