Name: Anonymous 2005-02-13 8:27
What do you think about centralism as opposed to decentralized, federal models of state? Do you think centralism is more efficient? Will decentralized governments work better? Is decentralization fair to all citizens of a country who are meant to be equal?
First, some definitions on this matter:
Centralized state: More uniform and more depending on the central goverment. Provinces/departments have regional power for everything that concerns a region, but jurisdiction on matters like education, health, etc. is held by the central government and global to all provinces. Larger central government and smaller regional governments.
Decentralized state: Typically federal states; more autonomous regional government and less powerful central government; states, autonomous communities, or provinces regulate their own education, health, local security, etc. within a base of regulations of the central government. Smaller central government and larger regional governments.
Now, my take on centralism:
Centralism is, to put it simply, the fairest and most efficient government system, and History has proven it in the golden eras of the most successful empires ever Roman, English and Spanish.
IMO, modern, decentralized, sometimes federal systems of government are a bastardization of the concept of state, and promotes division, substraction, and competition between fellow provinces, instead of union, addition, and fellowship.
Citizens in a state are supposed to be equal. If so, why governing them differently? Why do they have to pay different taxes, have different laws, and even different welfare systems? Decentralization is simply illogical. In a decentralized health system, a health product that seems to be good in a province may be deemed negative and banned in its neighbor. How can you explain to citizens that something is bad for health, if they walk 10 steps crossing a boundary and it's recommended by local doctors?
And let's talk about efficiency. Decentralization may look so good to libertarian leftists, but their opinion would change if they realized their tax money is spent by their province to reinvent the adminsitration, systems, software, etc. other provinces had come up with. And when the government needs to acquire, say, urban furniture, instead of making a huge order and getting the cheapest prices to pay with the hard-earned money of its citizens, decentralized states make much smaller orders, wasting public money. Companies may have to reengineer their work, and selection processes are repeated over and over for every province.
In decentralized states, provinces also tend to get more or less money and/or attention from the central government depending on if the party in goverment in the province matches the one controlling the central government, and they tend to collaborate less with provinces governed by different parties. Why must citizens be subject to political drama like this, and why must efforts be divided and countered between parts of a single body? It's as silly as if you had your right hand arm-wrestling your left.
Decentralization promotes division between fellow citizens, and tribal feelings. Instead of thinking your country vs. others, low-IQed individuals think their province or region against others, wasting national strength while other countries are busy taking advantage of their loss.
For all these reasons, union being the most important one as it's the basic and key concept of state, and some others, I dislike decentralized models of government. Centralism is the only model that truly unites everyone and gives the most out of people's money and efforts. Only matters that are local to a particular region should be relied upon regional administrations.
The downside of centralism could be size. But the central government doesn't have to be that big and that hard to control as some think. A well structured hierarchy within the government will always be able to handle this. Heck, the Roman Emperor managed to be in control of a huge empire without electricity or engines. It'd be a shame if such a thing wouldn't be possible today. Finally, governments don't have to be huge and control everything in capitalist, liberal states. It's better to keep businesses going by staying out of them. That's, after all, what makes the population rich. And it's against reason to fund needless unprofitable organizations and bloat the state with people's money. Only basic welfare (like health and of course education) would be good to offer, and they should work like a separate, profitable company anyways, with global policies which help reducing costs and keeping them under control.
As for federations, unless they are born from a true union of different sovereign states that do not want to lose their sovereignty, they are an aberration and a disgrace for a nation.
First, some definitions on this matter:
Centralized state: More uniform and more depending on the central goverment. Provinces/departments have regional power for everything that concerns a region, but jurisdiction on matters like education, health, etc. is held by the central government and global to all provinces. Larger central government and smaller regional governments.
Decentralized state: Typically federal states; more autonomous regional government and less powerful central government; states, autonomous communities, or provinces regulate their own education, health, local security, etc. within a base of regulations of the central government. Smaller central government and larger regional governments.
Now, my take on centralism:
Centralism is, to put it simply, the fairest and most efficient government system, and History has proven it in the golden eras of the most successful empires ever Roman, English and Spanish.
IMO, modern, decentralized, sometimes federal systems of government are a bastardization of the concept of state, and promotes division, substraction, and competition between fellow provinces, instead of union, addition, and fellowship.
Citizens in a state are supposed to be equal. If so, why governing them differently? Why do they have to pay different taxes, have different laws, and even different welfare systems? Decentralization is simply illogical. In a decentralized health system, a health product that seems to be good in a province may be deemed negative and banned in its neighbor. How can you explain to citizens that something is bad for health, if they walk 10 steps crossing a boundary and it's recommended by local doctors?
And let's talk about efficiency. Decentralization may look so good to libertarian leftists, but their opinion would change if they realized their tax money is spent by their province to reinvent the adminsitration, systems, software, etc. other provinces had come up with. And when the government needs to acquire, say, urban furniture, instead of making a huge order and getting the cheapest prices to pay with the hard-earned money of its citizens, decentralized states make much smaller orders, wasting public money. Companies may have to reengineer their work, and selection processes are repeated over and over for every province.
In decentralized states, provinces also tend to get more or less money and/or attention from the central government depending on if the party in goverment in the province matches the one controlling the central government, and they tend to collaborate less with provinces governed by different parties. Why must citizens be subject to political drama like this, and why must efforts be divided and countered between parts of a single body? It's as silly as if you had your right hand arm-wrestling your left.
Decentralization promotes division between fellow citizens, and tribal feelings. Instead of thinking your country vs. others, low-IQed individuals think their province or region against others, wasting national strength while other countries are busy taking advantage of their loss.
For all these reasons, union being the most important one as it's the basic and key concept of state, and some others, I dislike decentralized models of government. Centralism is the only model that truly unites everyone and gives the most out of people's money and efforts. Only matters that are local to a particular region should be relied upon regional administrations.
The downside of centralism could be size. But the central government doesn't have to be that big and that hard to control as some think. A well structured hierarchy within the government will always be able to handle this. Heck, the Roman Emperor managed to be in control of a huge empire without electricity or engines. It'd be a shame if such a thing wouldn't be possible today. Finally, governments don't have to be huge and control everything in capitalist, liberal states. It's better to keep businesses going by staying out of them. That's, after all, what makes the population rich. And it's against reason to fund needless unprofitable organizations and bloat the state with people's money. Only basic welfare (like health and of course education) would be good to offer, and they should work like a separate, profitable company anyways, with global policies which help reducing costs and keeping them under control.
As for federations, unless they are born from a true union of different sovereign states that do not want to lose their sovereignty, they are an aberration and a disgrace for a nation.