To begin with, the study of political systems has always provoked a number of questions regarding the reasons and conditions which contributed to the process of establishing of this or that political order. In addition to this, all the researches aimed at uncovering the mysteries of the country and concepts of nationality formation have usually been intended to show the background of the mentioned process.
One of the oldest and most interesting political systems is found in the United States of America. A great number of studies have been conducted to find out the conditions in which the American politics appeared, and the same amount of researches have been examining the essential forces which led it to the highest tops of the world’s prosperous countries (Faber, 2011).
One of the most significant works which regards the political system of the USA is Federalist No. 39 written by James Madison (2004). The work under analysis provides a profound explanation of the government republican system and the conditions in which it had been created. The key idea which was singled out in the essay by Madison (2004) is the assumption that the USA as a country and its political structure had been created in a dual way.
On the one hand, this is a purely national country, as it takes a large care of its people and centers on the lives of Americans, which form its highest value. On the other hand, the author supposes that America is federal as well as national. It means that, first and foremost, the government regulates and controls all the processes which take place in the states. Secondly, it tries to establish control over other countries (Kollman, 2012).
The last assumption can be illustrated with a number of conflicts in Asia and Africa where America took an active part. Certainly, the aim of the USA was to resolve the clash; however, there is a great number of proofs and evidences that the real cause of the conflicts was hidden American intervention into the domestic afairs of other countries.
Regarding anti-federalist argument which appears on the pages of the essay, it is obvious that the federalist system does not contribute a lot to the development of the necessary aspects of the country. In addition to this, the traditional division of the United States has to be redefined, since the time requires it.
As a consequence, Madison (2004) is convinced that the form of federal state has to be reviewed as well as its definition. Thus, the author claims that republican system is represented by the governors elected by the citizens; however, the former do not frequently satisfy the needs and expectations of the latter. Additionally, in accordance with Madison (2004), the responsibilities and obligations as well as the rights of the federal governors have to be revised, since there are many well-known cases when the representatives of authority exceed their powers and use them with illegitimate purposes.
Another anti-federal argument which has been singled out by Madison (2004) consists in the assumption that republican style of government is not suitable enough for the successful functioning of the Constitution and adhering to the laws released by the representatives of authorities. This argument pushes the government to review the approaches to the legislation and authorities’ rights and responsibilities.
It is also necessary to place an emphasis on the fact that the opponents of the new Constitution (who are generally called Anti-federalists) were more federalist in their outlooks and nature than those who claimed (or pretended, as the author assumes) to be purely federal in their thoughts, ideas and actions (Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Rossiter & Kesle, 2006). This difficulty in distinction of the federal and anti-federal trends has resulted in a number of questions which have not been answered yet.
Turning back to the definition of the republican style of governing, it is important to place an emphasis on the necessity to satisfyy the people’s necessities and expectations (Hamilton et al., 2006). The Anti-federal movement representatives claim, in connection with this, that the new Constitution is made not that way which can contribute to the real change in the political system that was expected to be successful and fruitful.
In addition to this, when interpreting the Federal No. 39, it seems obvious that anti-federalists did not acknowledge the new Constitution as a national act, since it determined the real tools for the country’s separation, which is, in any case, unlikely to be performed (Faber, 2011). Claim that all the powers and authorities belong to people did not come true, as Madison (2004) states. This was determined by several factors.
How Can We Help?
First and foremost, the essential aspect was mistrust, since people did not believe that significant changes were likely to happen in their country. Secondly, the new Constitution was called to divide people into several classes: national majority and national minority. Madison (2004) argues that anti-federalists had a real proof for their assumptions as they observed the public and its mood. The directions which had been established in order to implement the new Constitution were mainly focused on the desire to transmit people’s positions from republican to federalist ones (Hamilton et al., 2006). Despite these terms are frequently mixed in the lights of American political system, there existed a number of differences which were not supported by the minority of the nation who called themselves anti-federalists.
The problem which penetrated the anti-federalist movement consisted in the expected lack of unity. Some of the anti-federalists, in accordance with Madison (2004), had a stable and a firm position toward the question of the Constitution. Some of them were in doubts about how the country’s political system should look like. The number of uncertainties has been reflected in a positive way on the country’s Constitution and prosperity.