Good Governance Essay Example for Free

Good Governance Essay Introduction The topic of this essay concerns about good governance namely what is it, what is its possible application in the formal and informal sectors added to its context, do the different ideological systems concord with it and lastly does it produce any, whatsoever, improvement or development in any sense and sector? And to answer to all that issues I will firstly define it, secondly discuss all its characteristics and indicators from the various organizations directly and/or indirectly involved with it and thirdly compare and contrast by analysing any situations within the main political orientations in which it is present or absolutely absent and the consequent effects. And finally I will try my conclusions to whatever it could produce with plausible recommendations. Well, the meaning of â€Å"governance in the normal daily use and the first one that comes straightforward to the mind is: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). The concept anyway of governance† is as old as human civilization and that is since human being felt the need to organise themselves by gathering in groups and electing among them those who will decide for the communities way of life, the eventual relation between the members and theirs with any other possible group around. However it is very recent when developmental professionals and different actors (international organizations, local, national and regional governments) noticed the relevance of governance on the causes that produce bad or good outcomes regardless the expected results  and the intentions behind. The increased use of the term â€Å"governance† good or bad, in the development literature is real and evident, but because bad governance is being absolutely regarded as one of the main causes of all evil deeds in all over the world, most of the International developmental institutions and financial donors have changed approaches by pretending from aid eligible poor countries to ensure good governance in order to have access to aids or loans. Not to ignore the fact that it is anyway the civil society, tacitly to ask, first of all, their relative governments for good governance if it ensures for a decent and better standard of life. The aforementioned definition implicates the automatic existence of decision makers whom are usually called actors by scholars and professionals. On the bases of this definition it can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local governance. Add to this that any analysis of governance focuses on the formal and informal actors involved in decision-making and implementing it and the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the decision. Among the various actors Government, is the one per excellence, followed by the numerous local and regional ones in one side and the international or global institutions in the other. Within the same country there are for example, beyond the government that has the super power and final decision, other actors in rural and urban areas such as influential land lords, farmers, cooperatives otherwise known as associations of productive workers, NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions, political parties, the military etc. At the national level, in addition to the above actors, there are media, lobbyists, international donors, multi-national corporations, and many others that may influence the decision-making and or condition the decision-making process. It is worth to remember any way that all actors except government and the military are grouped together under what is known as civil society. In some countries in addition to the civil society, organized crime syndicates also influence decision-making, particularly in urban areas and at the national level. Moreover it is normal to hear about formal and informal government structures and formal and informal sectors and that all of them are one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. In some remote rural areas, locally powerful families may informally make or  influence decision-making and most of the time corrupted practices are the final outcomes. So governance may be a good or a bad one depending mainly on whether it is constructive and positively fruitful or corrupted and destructive. Unfortunately it is a real perception that, almost in the majority of the countries in the South of the world, there is an uncontrolled widespread corruption as a result of the bad governances of those minority, the elite in power with no distinction between the trio: Government, the military and civil society. But on the parallel carriage there is, at a global level, a huge campaign aimed to achieve some bettering improvement with the expectations to at least minimise all that corruption if not eradicate it at all. It is known how usually this minority misuse the governmental power to personal and or restricted group’s interest depriving in that way the civil society which represents the majority. If this sort of government in power is of a military extraction it makes the situation very difficult and worse because they, most of the time, impose themselves by intimidating the citizens and treating them as enemies, but the impact of their mismanagement will be discussed later. So the main problem in developing countries is a combination of power misuse, political immaturity and prioritising of personal interests to the communities expenses. The international community, in order to prevent further power misuse, promotes Good governance as the remedy to all that and in the intent to grant a decent standard of life to every single citizen regardless of her/his race, religion and social, political or ethnic group. It is not an easy target implementing it, and at the same not that hard but it, surely, needs or better demands, professionalism with some good deeds. Professionalism is the difficult task to answer since it requires competence, political maturity, responsiveness and responsibility. In other term, to have functioning governance toward the citizens interests and to achieve such governance there is, for the time being, eight major characteristics and several indicators to be fully implemented. These characteristics are the result of a long and hard work of scholars and professionals that offered their intellectual powerful services to the societies in order to find out the solutions for a better life, on common grounds, regardless the different political and ideological views. The eight characteristics are: Participation, Rule of law, Consensus oriented, Transparency, Equity and  inclusiveness, Effectiveness and efficiency, Accountability and finally Responsiveness. According to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and The Pacific (UN ESCAP) these eight characteristics are defined as follows: â€Å"Participation Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand. Accountability Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. Transparency Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media. Rule of law Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force. Consensus oriented There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community. Equity and inclusiveness A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. Effectiveness and efficiency Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. Responsiveness Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.† In theory it is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. It is people centred matter trying to address gender inequalities. It is really vital and important from local level to global to achieve good governance, with the awareness that its achievement requires absolute professionalism and consciousness, two attributes that are unfortunately absent or worse than that, not considered especially in the South. Following this â€Å"new† approach the international community, leaded by the United  Nations different and various specialised organizations in collaboration with the International Financial Institutions with Bretton Woods institutions in the first place and some other world organizations, demands those countries in the South, who are always involved in corruption, to adopt good governance’s paradigm by modelling their governmental systems so that it might import huge changes and lead to better their country’s economical and social situations. The aforementioned institutions, after long and on-going hard research on what causes bad governance, and as the ones who perpetuate developmental progress, they use to propose solutions, which most of the times fail because of negligence regarding the way they approach and solve or deal with the problems and because of â€Å"disinterest† from both sides: the proposing and the recipient. However each and every institution has its own proposals, indicators and monitoring systems and some of them need revision and reconsiderations. United Nations institutions: The United Nations different institutions are for instance involved in developing country’s redressing developmental programmes according to their specializations and interests and it is sufficient the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) as an example. In fact, their purpose is to tackle the main tragedies that mankind is facing now in most parts of the planet, with different intensity anyway between North and South. These problems are mainly the followings: -widespread poverty and hunger; -lack of primary education; -absence of Gender equality; -Increasing infant and child mortality; -absolute absence of maternal healthcare; -dangerous diseases such as HIV/AIDS; -mismanagement of environmental resource without sustainability; -misconception of what is a global partnership. And according to these problems the Millennium Development Goals are designed to: -eradicate extreme poverty and hunger -achieve universal primary education -promote gender equality and empower women -reduce child mortality -improve maternal healthcare -combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and -ensure environmental sustainability -develop global partnership development. These goals will be achieved and implemented not later than 2015. As seen they are eight goals focusing on the alleviation and tackling of those problems. Each goal has its own targets and indicators under the supervision of the appropriate different organization in order to measurably achieve developmental improvements in the poorest of the developing countries. In total there are 8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators. Regarding to the monitoring institutions there are for example concerning to health based programmes UNICEF, WFP, UNAIDS and WHO while to tackle poverty and hunger there are WB, IMF, FAO and UNICEF. UNESCO is concerned with educational problems while ILO (International Labour Organization) and IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) are more likely to deal with Gender inequality and women empowerment and so on. One of the eighteen targets [target twelve (12) of goal eight (8): Develop a global partnership for development] demands commitment to good governance, but at the other way round these goals are achievable only in an environment where good governance exists. It is a â€Å"cause† and â€Å"effect† at the same time. The expectations anyway and in any case are less encouraging because of unreasonable policies of some aid institutions that are not allowing a bettering situation, such as IMF and WB or the well known Bretton Woods Institutions. The Bretton Woods Institutions Good Governance One of the major causes of under development is represented by the heavy debts that plague these countries as a result of continuous increasing interest loans hardly repayable. Stabilisation, deregulation, devaluation, distortion of prices and many other interventions render developing countries life very miserable. The killing factor anyhow is represented by the Bretton Woods Institution’s Structural Adjustment Programmes (SPA) with the intention to help heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) repay or clear their debts in order to be eligible to new loans . But, these criticised institutions and related organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), dedicated from long time their efforts to help poorer  countries to overcome corruption, but unfortunately and sorely without positive tangible results, and this is because of their mismatching â€Å"rigid† policies and certain conditionals imposed on borrower such as Structural Adjustment Programme, that did n ot succeed to alleviate but, at the contrary, worsen the already existing conditions of poverty. The worse part is that IMF conditionals diminish the states authority to govern its own economy as national economic issue and not differently. But with the stabilisation programmes, deregulation, price distortion and privatisation of nationalised industries predetermined by the structural adjustment packages does not help the borrower to implement good governance. Equally the WB’s acting in partnership with the private sectors of a given country results in substituting the state which represents the primary provider of essential good and services. Imposing the reduction of government’s expenditure on food subsidies, education and healthcare or changing its import and export policies does not at all help developing countries to achieve good governance. This replacement usually ends in a shortfall of those services when most likely the condemned country is more in need. But now the Bretton Woods institutions realized that they need to review their policies in order to en able good governance to be achieved and the veracity of this is reported in the 1994 Naples summit communiquà © of the G-7’s countries. This communication clearly explicitly urged the need of reforms and reviews because of the Bretton Woods failure to achieve its primary mission of poverty alleviation. Reforming and reviewing the International Financial Institutions means they themselves need to practice and apply good governance and not pretending only from their borrowing members. If they succeed to change their policies in better then perhaps there will be a hope of improvement for the developing countries. All the above exposition concerns the theoretical side of good governance and it is very ideal and difficult to be realised in practice up to be considered a utopia. Nevertheless, the real fact is that good governance is absent from the international scenario and only few countries could be said to be close to implement it fully. Besides, the hilarious aspect of this assertion is that they are of different political orientation. This means that good governance does not require a certain political view than othe r. Examples of these politically differently  oriented states are: OECD, Japan, China and the Arabian Gulf countries. Good Governance and the main political systems and governing ideologies As stated before Good governance is not necessarily related to any of the political systems existing nowadays and this because countries with totally different political orientations seem to succeed implementing it. Moreover these systems might be used as temporary solutions in certain difficult political moments regardless their main â€Å"normal† one. In the purpose to understand which of these systems could conciliate with what could be seen as good governance paradigm it is worth to remember them with some useful comments. There are two main different groups on which these systems are based namely collectivism and individualism. The first one considers human being the pillar around which to build a society with the result that the types of the societies are different as it is different the means to design it. What they have in common is the notion that one (king or dictator) or many men (majority) should rule the others. At the contrary the individualist are more philosophical concepts in respect to the other group. Under the umbrella of collectivism there are autocracy/ dictatorship/ despotism, communism, conservatism, democracy, fascism, imperialism, monarchy, pluralism, plutocracy, socialism and theocracy, and the individualist are: anarchism /nihilism, liberalism (classical), libertarianism, objectivism, capitalism, and the republic. Each of them has its characteristics and less or more they could be simply interrelated and or contradictory. -Autocracy, dictatorship and despotism, for instance, are very similar in term of definition and that is an uncontrolled supreme right of governing in a single person with the difference that autocracy is supposedly benevolent. But there is a paradox in the sense that anyway an autocrat needs a huge amount of force to subordinate perhaps an unwilling people and from autocracy we pass to dictatorship. An example of this sort of dictatorship could be the Russia of Stalin for instance. Dictatorship though is the main factor that unfortunately destroyed most of the countries of the South mainly in the decolonization decades (1950-1970) leading them to extreme poverty. It is clearly evident that this type of system does not favourite the achievement of good governance because lacks most of its characteristics such as transparency, accountability, consensus  oriented, and respect for human rights just to mention some. -Communism and socialism have the same collective view of mankind with the difference that socialism is a political system while communism is a scheme that tends to equalize the social conditions of life by collectivising the private property under the governing of the legislator (the State in socialism); a problem that could be mentioned is concerned with what socialists call supervision on freedom of expression just to preserve the community integrity and this represent a restraining factor. Moreover socialism’s paradigms contradicts and represses the private initiatives ignoring so the potentiality of the private on development. Lately in few western countries there is an acceptance of it but in a diluted fashion. This leads to think that socialism differently from communism could give birth a good governance if well managed up to realize at least the corresponding and similar characteristic of both: good governance and socialism. I think this is enough for our purpose but it can be otherwise developed. Opposing to socialism and communism there are, as secular antagonists, democracy and capitalism. Democracy is usually intended for two major modes: 1) retained and directly exercised by the people and 2) retained by the people but governed by a delegated periodically renewable constitutional authority, a popular representation. It relays on whatever the majority’s choice is sacrificing so the minority, even if represented by one single person. This is the same as dictatorship with the difference that in the latter is the single person who sacrifices the majority for his choice. The major difference between socialism and democracy lays in the way deal regarding the collective. Democracy uses to favour the powerful capitalists at the expenses of others with less economic and consequent social power. In this sense capitalism  exerts inequalities born from wrongly created adversarial. Nevertheless capitalism allowed technological progress to be achieved more rapidly than communism. Hence good governance might be implemented by these later systems albeit in a different way and intensity and there are no consistent and distinctive criteria to declare the suitability of one of them to the best achievement of good governance. Remember that all depends about good deeds and professionalism. -Monarchy is a currently used system in different part of the two hemispheres. As a rulership, in which a king or a queen, an emperor or empress, it holds unlimited power having similarity with autocracy or lately limited power (constitutional), usually inherited. It is proven that monarchy in these last centuries succeeded to implement good governance albeit with more suffering civil society. But seen that good governance is people centred system there should be a redressing effort and good intent. According to the other systems I think that they are either out of fashion such as fascism, imperialism or nihilism or have a temporary or transitory use such as pluralism, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, plutocracy, objectivism, theocracy and so on. Among these later systems pluralism seems, in my opinion, to be helpful to most if not totally of the African governments. According to an article on the web of freedom in the UK, pluralism is: â€Å"Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between a variety of competing leadership groups (business, labour, government, etc.). Advocates of pluralism claim that it best serves the democratic ideal in a complex modern society, in which individual participation in every act of decision-making is impractical. According to pluralism, individual rights and interests are protected by a sort of extra-constitutional checks and balances: No single group holds the dominant power position, power is always shifting, and individuals can have influence on policy-making through being active in one of these power groups. Some claim that America is such a pluralistic society; other theories say that pluralism is in fact a myth and American society is elitist. Despite this pluralism is not limited, other than by the common sense of its participants. Therefore it is still, in essence, collectivist and adversarial.† Analysing this sort of definition it is easy to encounter, at least most of good governance’s characteristics such as participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. In 1994-5 I was following Yemen’s political crises during the controversy between the socialists system supporters from the south and the, let us say, non socialist promoters in the north. At the end came winner those from north  formed by a coalition of religious forces and the pseudo capitalist system in power. During the contention the President proposed a joint supreme governing power composed by three representative members of the main three forces: the president, a socialist and a religious leader stabilising so a sort of bargaining government and the result was that the socialist part lost the partnership. My aim anyway was to prove how pluralism worked in this crucial time and for this reason it is seen as a myth since good governance tends to be utopia matter. But nevertheless different countries of different political orientation nearly implemented its characteristics it means that other could succeed by trying it. There is nothing unachievable if there is the willpower to succeed and people are determined to obviate the obstacles. And to do so the actors need to, first of all, understand the nature of the obstacles and then analyse the eventual solutions without being second to none in decision making putting themselves in that way in a subordinated position. They need to be capable of bargaining and only by that way they can validate their voices over bargaining powers on the other side. Understanding your power, resource availability, willpower of bargaining through it and accepting compromises are attributes necessary toward good governance. Representing their civil society properly and honestly and prioritising their basic needs will put the actors in the position of enabling it to benefit from the outcomes. All these requirements are possible of realization if the roles of the three main components of a country are well defined and every component knows its limits, rights and duties. Those mentioned three parts are government, civil society and the force army in its different specialty. Only in the case these parts understand clearly their roles there will be the expected good governance, otherwise the developing countries will hold forever the heavily burdens now devastating their lives and live with it. Good governance and the trio: Government, Civil society and the Military It is absolutely necessary to have distinct these three groups in order to avoid any irregular and regrettable interferences among them. This simply means that government’s role is to rule and to make  decisions, to choose the ways of implanting those decisions while the Military is to defend the country from external aggression or to calm an internal subversive. Regarding the civil society it represents the groups and individuals out of the formal structure of government and the military. Concerning political development it represents the extreme expression of political parties. In it there are the opposing forces that recalls government and military’s misbehaviour. Therefore, if one of them interferes with the other’s role and tries to replace them there will be a chaotic situation, and to sort out or put a remedy will be afterwards difficult. Effectively this is what happens in many of the developing countries causing situations difficult to redress. Nepotism, tribalism, racism, clannish belonging and similar congregations are causes of misuse of power, public and private resources and denying basic human rights to whoever does not belong to their circle. Add to this the fact that if the replacing group are the arm forces, the atrocity of the consequences is very deep and bitter. After the decolonization, in most countries in the South there was a subsequent darkening governmental systems that, based on ignorance and limited professionalism and lacking any sort of political stability due to indecisions regarding to which big power block count lean on, ended in disastrous bad governance and continuous coup dà ©tat from military men. At the beginning this sort of endeavour was aimed for a patriotic purpose but the result afterwards become dictatorship and despotism. The general ideas of governing of creating nations become too hard to be accomplished and it is been replaced by personal enrichment. More these fool governors were enriching themselves the civil society was suffering deep poverty. These facts encouraged military men challenge their adversely rivals in order to access to that wealthy life at the expenses of their poor tribal partners and not any more the whole civil society. Moreover such economic patrimony did not stop them from stealing but they have created tribal-based hatred between the poor people and this ended in between failed states and under the denomination of poorest countries. A failed state is the result of internally not functioning one or externally not recognised and that because the damage is more o less incident. There are so partially or totally failed states or better states that internally function but there is non external recognition and vice versa. Anyway the internal malfunctioning ends  in overthrowing o r secessionism, situations that are to be avoided. Well then, it is time that developing countries leave this nonsense aggregation of tribe, race and similar clannish ones and move forward in order to accomplish decent standard of life becoming equal to the civilised world and to put an end to the greediness of their governors. They have just to ask good governance’s characteristics to be implemented or otherwise they will only regress in respect to the progressive globalizing world. From the above discussion it is clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality but this does not mean that is impossible. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieve it. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of transforming it into a reality. It is a matter of competence/professionalism and good deeds. Competency, or professionalism or skill or aptitude, is very decisive or better it represents the core of the power in the government. It is indeed a requirement. Regarding the good deeds the determining one depends mostly from the rich and free societies and the effort they decide to spend. Actually it is the international community’s interest to show good intents in reasonably and responsibly cooperating with and helping poorest countries all around the world otherwise whatever the outcomes will affect them seen that the whole world is becoming a small village due to globalisation. It is surely known how global warming for example is threatening the whole world. Good deeds from national to international level is required and the rich and free societies role. To support this thesis it is worth to mention the United States of America’ 60th president, John F.Kennedy who said in his inaugural Address in January 20, 1961: If a free society can not help the many who are poor, it can not save the few who are rich. Likewise President Mpaka of Tanzania quoting President Kennedy’s statement said in a speech: In a globalizing world, if we cannot help the many who are excluded in global prosperity, we cannot save the few who are included. In conclusion good governance will definitely improve development’s conditions all over the world if the varied development institutions work in favour of good governance. References: 1. UN ESCAP What is a GOOD GOVERNANCE? INTRODUCTION Recently the terms governance and good governance are being increasingly used in development literature at www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm (accessed 21 December 2004) 2. United Nations Millennium Development Goals. at www.un.org/millenniumgoals (accessed 27 November 2004) 3. Bretton Woods Project Critical voices on the World Bank and IMF. Good governance. 49 items. Fugitive in five-star hotel, IMF foots bill. at www.brettonwoodsproject.org/topic/goodgov/index.shtml 25k (accessed 24 December 2004) 4. Freedom in the UK google search engine: political systems (accessed 28 December 2004) 5. President J. F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech at www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1961Kennedy.html ( accessed 23 December 2004) 6. Chakravarthi Raghavan, Mar 5, 1998 FINANCE: FUND/BANK SHOULD PRACTICE GOOD GOVERNANCE! At www.sunsonline.org.htm 14k (accessed 14 January 2005) ____________________________________________ Bibliography Kingsbury D. et al (2004) Key issues in development 1ST ed. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan

My Philippine Identity Essay examples -- Personal Narrative, Identity

My Philippine Identity Identity is the essence of a person which makes him stand out as an individual. There are various factors which help form and evolve a person's persona, and that is what I write about in the follwing essay. We did not think it mattered! Who needed the "right" car, family lineage, the "right" education, domestic helpers--basically the "right" everything? We perceived all of the above as parts of the pretension of the Philippine society, yet it was so easy for us to ignore and dissociate ourselves from it because we were the products of this "right" term. We could deny the class system and insult it because we were luckily born into the advantageous class, and we had these "right elements" accessible to us. If we became tired of the society we could complain about it or excommunicate ourselves, but since we were considered the "privileged class" we could always return and the level of respect would still be there. We were in a no lose situation in this respect. The Philippine society consists of distinct class systems which depend, number one, on the family background of a person, then number two, the socioeconomic level. Which family you come from, whether they are in business, in politics, etc. is very important. People really look at surnames. If you have a revered surname you get some kind of automatic respect, even if you are not a very kind person. Money also matters but if you have just recently encountered your wealth and you do not belong to the right kind of family, chances are you will be considered "nouveau riche." Many of my friends and I used to complain about the materialism of the people, the way we had to act a certain way in front of adults, the social obligations, and how on... ...e harmonious relationships. These reminders which are trying to reach out to us, so that we may all live together in peace, are extra elements which help push us along the road to better relations. In the end though, people must come to terms with racial, societal, or any kind of discrimination in their own time and pace. That is the only instance that they will be able to get their hatred and awkwardness out of their system. In terms of Philippine Filipinos and Fil-Am relations, as of today, I think that the people are ready to accept each other. It is now the right timing for them to get to know their missing link--their other Filipino half. The occurrence in Boston University was, I feel, the beginning of a trend that will reach all the Filipinos in the United States, and make each and every Filipino part of one group instead of two groups that do not get along.

Bismarcks appointment of Minister President of Prussia Essay

Bismarck’s appointment of Minister President of Prussia (1862) was the most important turning point in the course of German nationalism in the period 1815-1919? By 1919 Germany had been united, and the nature of nationalism had changed from a freedom seeking, democratic force into one which demanded popular subservience to the state. German nationalism had clearly changed radically over the period of more than one hundred years and defining the turning point at which it changed is difficult due to the sheer number of factors that impacted upon it as well as the vast number of events and organisations which interfered with its development. Otto von Bismarck would become viewed in later years as the father of German nationalism. When he came to power 1862 the Kaiser was looking for a man who could oppose the liberals and force through a favourable army bill. However, within just nine years Germany would have become united, not without the help, though not always willing, from Bismarck. Bismarck effected the unification of Germany almost single-handedly. However, many of the opportunities which Bismarck actually attempted to manipulate were neither created by him nor very successful. Bismarck did not always manage nationalism as effectively as it is suggested. The Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 forced to unite with the southern states in Germany when in reality it would have been unlikely that he desired this. Prussia was still attempting to absorb the north German states and to add the southern states, especially with their un-Prussian culture, risked diluting Prussia’s culture too far. It is clear that in 1890 Bismarck was managed by nationalism because he was forced to resign due to the outpouring of nationalist feeling that resented him attempting to hold Germany in check. He represented the old Germany, a Prussian dominated one and in an effort to find a â€Å"German† chancellor he was removed from office. Even the Dual Alliance in 1879 demonstrated how German nationalism forced him to take actions against his will. With his Prussian upbringing his loyalties more likely lay with Russian rather than Austria and the decline of Austria was increasingly clear for all too see, to join the young, powerful Germany with this crumbling empire would do nothing to help the country yet nationalistic feeling in Germany forced the Alliance. Bismarck’s appointment in 1882 was an important moment in German nationalism but the theory that one man had such an impact upon the fate of a nation does not stand so well in light of deeper scrutiny. The Congress of Vienna held in 1815 helped create an environment which would help the growth of German nationalism. Prussia’s gains in the west of Germany were actually intended by the Allies to be a burden. They had given the smallest of the Great Powers the most difficult job as acting as a barricade against France. However, this would backfire on the Allies when it would later become Germany’s massive industrial growth. It also affected the nature of Prussia, whereas she had previously been a predominantly Eastern European power she now had a pan-German outlook, though it appeared to begin with that she had little in common with her western population. The distance between the two main blocks of land meant that transporting goods between the two would prove difficult and this would spur the creation and development of the Prussian Customs Union in 1818 which would later become the Zollverein in 1834. However, when at the Congress of Vienna the Allies faced the question of â€Å"what is Germany† they fell back on historical precedent, the Holy Roman Empire. This can be seen as a retrospective step because it actually excluded areas of both Austria and Prussia, as well as making many of the smaller states much larger. The Congress of Vienna was not a turning point in German nationalism, but without it the nature of Germany could have been very different from that with which we are familiar if it existed at all. The creation of the Zollverein in 1834 was a critical turning point for German nationalism, formed from the Prussian Customs Union in 1818. Thomas Nipperdy described the creation of the Zollverein as â€Å"the outstanding event in all-German history†. Given the basis as a pan-German union it improved the contacts between all of the German states, encouraging them to work together for mutual benefit and broke down barriers between the regions of Germany both officially and culturally. It is often the case that economic unity leads to political as appears to be the case with the EU, formerly the European Economic Community (EEC) and the push for a European constitution. However, German political unity was far from inevitable, many Germans now saw political unity as obsolete because they achieved all the benefits of such a union without the risk of losing any of their own unique regional culture. The Zollverein was also critical in training a new cadre of diplomats for Prussia and teaching them to administer a â€Å"German† organisation, experience which would be invaluable in the post-unification era. Bismarck once declared in a speech to the North German Reichstag in 1869 that â€Å"He who has his thumb on the purse has the power† and by taking the economic leadership of the German states Prussia rose importantly and a Kleindeutsch solution to the German problem became much more feasible. It also struck a double blow in this respect. It not only made a Prussian-led Germany more likely but it made an Austrian-led Germany less likely. Because of her exclusion from the customs union the Austrian economy suffered and her already fragile market became on step closer to failing and this would be one of the major reasons for her defeat to Prussia. The use of the economy mirrored the nature of German nationalism; initially it was a liberal move, the reduction of trade barriers embodied by the introduction of the Zollverein. However, by the time unification was achieved economic policy turned its back on liberalism and the economic protectionism Bismarck employed against Russia helped show how far nationalism had changed. The Zollverein would form the template upon which the German Empire would eventually be founded, a kleindeutsch dominated by Prussia. Some historians even go so far to view the whole of the unification of Germany as purely an economic transaction, that it was not driven by political ideology but by the cold logic of money and economic expansionism. The Zollverein did represent an important twist in the history of German nationalism but it did not utterly change the face of the ideology but simply made the prospect more likely. In addition to this, the success of the Zollverein would provide the necessary environment for the rapid expansion of industry within German and this would have a critical impact upon nationalism. 1848 can very easily be viewed as the critical turning point in the history of German nationalism. It is often seen as a turning point about which history failed to turn, and it is this very failure which makes it such an important date in the history of German nationalism. 1848 presented revolutionary factions within Germany, and other countries throughout Europe, with a window of opportunity. In Paris the Second Republic is established in a welter of violence; in Sicily the Palermo Uprising takes place; in Hungary revolution boils over; Swedish revolutionaries are gunned down by their government and in Ireland the potato famine sparks the Tipperary Revolt. To the established order it appeared that stability was breaking down and anarchy threatened them. It was in this climate of exceptional change that the German revolutionary effort failed. The dithering incompetence of the middle classes, coupled with their glaring impotence discredited liberal politics and any idea of a revolution from below. This would prove potentially dangerous for the development of German nationalism. Divorced from its liberal and democratic roots it became a force of the right and of the paternalist government. This resulted in the desire for individual freedoms being sacrificed for the will of state. The government was paranoid about the dangers of the socialist movement within Germany, but they actually shared many common ideals, most markedly the concept of the priority of the state over the individual. It became obvious that power and change could not be achieved without the power of an army to back themselves; Bismarck summarised this problem in his most famous speech â€Å"the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and majority decisions – that was the error of 1848 – but by iron and blood†. Given our knowledge of how German nationalism developed into a violent, racist, militaristic force it is clear to see that 1848 was a seminal moment in its development, the pre-1848 liberal, French-styled nationalism became a force of the militant right. 1848 also represented a turning point for German nationalism in a European context. It appeared that countries were naturally progressing from being authoritarian monarchies to becoming nationalistic, liberal democracies. Germany’s refusal to follow this trend fundamentally altered the nature of German nationalism. This turning point about which history failed to turn left something rotten at the core of German nationalism. The change from idealism to brutal pragmatism, combined with the machinations of Bismarck and the authoritarian government meant that the German people’s cause was subverted and used as a weapon against those European powers who had abused Germany for such a long time. On the 18th of January 1871 the German Empire was proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. This can easily be seen as a turning point in German nationalism, it finally created what the nationalists had been striving for over the past half century. Though it is true that the majority of what then became Germany existed in the North German Confederation created 4 years earlier after Prussia’s victory over Austria it represented a subtle but important shift in the history of German nationalism and the process of reaching the announcement played a very important role in defining the new Germany. Even the date upon which the Empire was announced held special significance, 270 years earlier the first Elector of Brandenburg was crowned King in Prussia. This clearly symbolically established Prussian hegemony over the newly created German Reich. Even the fact that the proclamation was made at Versailles was more significant than simple a quick expediency. Were the proclamation were to be made in Berlin, the capital of the new Empire, it would have most likely been made in Parliament. For Bismarck this would have been intolerable, in his eyes it was the army and their feudal, warlord leaders who had united the new empire rather than the romantic liberals and their â€Å"speeches and majority votes†. The Reich was declared in the home of imperial power, Versailles was the benchmark against which all other symbols of imperial might were measured and it clearly showed how the ruling elite of the new Germany planned to rule the country. It would be easy to say that it was a simple political humiliation for the French to have their enemies declare their new country in the French capital but to do this would ignore the deeper significance of both the time and place it was made. Nationalism within Germany underwent many changes over the period from 1815 to 1919. It suffered from a gradual change from its ideals over the time and it is difficult to differentiate between the impacts that the different potential turning points had on German nationalism. However, the most seminal moment in the history Germany nationalism was when it shifted indelibly from the idealists’ views to the pragmatic views of the industrialists within the country. 1866 can be seen as the turning point in the unification of Germany rather than a turning point in the nature of German nationalism. The failure of democracy in 1848 at a time when many other revolutions had succeeded left many Germans with the view that it would only be through violence and warfare â€Å"blood and iron† that their dreams would ever be realised.

Sniglet Definition and Examples