Federalism and Consociational Democracy
Though federalism and consociational democracy overlap in many aspects, some distinctive features that divide them into two distinct terms. Consociational democracy is based on the principles of federalism but has many unique characteristics. Federalism a is political concept applied in countries with big territories and large populations eager to embody into one unity while consociational democracy suggests the willing of a country with small territories to give equal political rights to cleavages inside it. The federal system suggests the existence of central government authority that possess the highest level of power and subordinate political units that have particular federal rights but still need to obey the central power. Consociational democracy suggests that all cleavages in the country have equal rights, and any state decision can be made just in the case that the consensus between all of the cleavages is found. Therefore, consociational democracy is based on federalism but gives more autonomy to each of the cleavages and emphasizes the importance of consensus among them.
Semi-Presidential and Presidential Systems of Government
Though presidential and semi-presidential systems of government both suggest the popularly elected head of a state, there are certain differences between them. The presidential system suggests that a president is also a head of state while the semi-presidential system suggests that the ultimate political power in the state is shared between a president, a Cabinet, and a prime-minister. In the presidential system of government, legislature branch is separate, and a president leads only an executive branch while a president does not have the right to lead legislature but names a Cabinet that is responsible for it in the semi-presidential system. In the presidential system, the legislative branch has the right to dismiss the president through impeachment, but such cases are very rare. In the semi-presidential system, a Cabinet has a right to resign through a motion of no confidence and is more likely to dismiss a president under particular conditions. Therefore, the presidential system suggests the superiority of president, while the semi-presidential system suggests sharing of the power between a president and a Cabinet.
The Reasons against Entrenching Socio-Economic Rights in a Constitution
The adjudication of socio-economic rights has become an issue of numerous debates. International constitutional jurisprudence traditionally considers socio-economic rights non-justiciable. However, a big number of specialist and common people state that socio-economic rights should be entrenched in a constitution. Most countries of the world do not support this view, but as the number of debates grows, it is necessary to define why such initiative is not well-grounded. The rights to housing, food, healthcare, education and other forms of social welfare can be considered a part of nation’s ideals, and that is the reason numerous international organizations exist to support these rights. However, these rights cannot be regarded as a legal declaration of enforceable rights, as they do not make sense from the standpoint of the constitutional design. A constitution is aimed at protecting the individuals from aggressive state and creating the conditions that ensure the absence of violations of individuals’ justiciable rights. Therefore, a constitution is not created for taking actions related to the rights that are not justiciable. The experience of South African government demonstrates the complexity of entrenching socio-economic rights in a constitution due to the absence of relevant methods of their assessment and protection.