FactionalismFactionalismPartisanship is a natural phenomenon for Human beings; we seek out, long for, and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through these people, we polish our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our viewpoint. Factions give breadth, depth, and volume to our individual voice. James Madison, the author of the Federalist #10 underlined the causes of factions, the dangers factions can pose, and solutions to the problem.
. Factions can be present in many different settings in society. They can be a passion for different opinions on religions, government, or war. Madison claims that “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever been formed distinct interests in society.” The modern government includes factions as necessary operations, and the regulation of these interest groups form the foremost assignment of legislation.
The dangers of faction can somewhat outweigh the good. The framers of the American Constitution feared the power that could possibly come about by organized interest groups. Madison wrote “The public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival factions…citizens…who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” However, the framers believed that interest groups thrived because of freedom, the same privilege that Americans utilize to express their views. Madison saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy to protect individual liberty, and the general public from the effects of such inequality in society. Madison says “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief’s of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority…Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Madison proposes that there are two methods in which the mischiefs of faction can be cured, one by removing the causes of factions, or the other by controlling its effects. By removing the causes of factions, the liberty that is essential to its existence is destroyed. Madison states that “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” Therefore, it is somewhat foolish to abolish liberty considering it is essential to political life.
The second method in which factions can be controlled is by altering its effects. It is unfeasible to explore this option merely because its efforts would be ineffective. Madison wrote that “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” The protection of the privileges of men, in which the rights of property originated, is the first purpose of government. The ownership of diverse levels of property instantly results, and divides society into different interests and parties.
According to Madison the solution to the problem of factions could possibly be solved by the republican principle. This enables the majority to overcome its ominous views by standard vote. “It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution…popular government…enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens” Claims Madison. However this state is only obtainable if “the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority…must be rendered by their number…”Although it is unfortunate this approach could prove to be ineffective merely because if an individual opportunity happens to coincide with one’s desire, internal principles cannot be relied on as a sufficient control.
The War in Iraq although it is not readily acknowledged by many people in our country, is a war greatly affected by factions. In the Iraq war, the most dominant faction is what we know as the Iraqi Government, even though it is not much of a government at all. At the physical level the Iraqi government is undoubtedly the strongest faction in Iraq, it has more money and more troops than any other group, and it also has the U.S military supporting it. In contrast, at the moral level the Iraqi Government is probably the weakest of all factions in Iraq. This is because the Iraqi government was created by and serves as a puppet to America. The Iraqi government is simply a regime formed and stabilized by a despised invader. Although the physical power of the Iraqi government overshadows the moral aspect, the physical power
is the main motive of the Iraqi government, or the main means by which the government could survive. Because of political problems and economic problems, the Iraqi people are very vulnerable to attack.
There are several problems, particularly the unemployment problem, with what will happen with the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. First, the United States and some of its allies in Iraq have no hope of bringing Iraq under control of their own or their own interests. Some believe that the war will bring Iraq to independence or that there is no real military solution at this point but they all agree the Iraqi people will fight hard to do it. It is hard for American forces to fight those who refuse to agree to the terms and conditions in which America would seek to do so. I suspect the American government would be forced to come to such a concession. Second, the problems of the “Great War” began with the failure for the United States to do a much better job of defending Iraq against a rising threat from Russia, and continued through a series of political crises including the Syrian Civil War. I think this was also the reason why American troops were able to withdraw from the Persian Gulf in 2003, and the failure of the United States to take all military actions necessary to defend the country in Iraq resulted from U.S. policies which are inconsistent with those that are consistent with those of the United States. Third, a number of popular support for the Iraqi government comes from the fact that it has a highly charismatic leader, with impeccable morals, a well organized defense party, the Iraqi parliament, and a well-funded private security and intelligence company. While the majority of Iraqis are not against the United States, those who support Iraq believe that the U.S. government is too incompetent and weak, and it is time to shift to a policy of political involvement.
In order to defeat these problems it is necessary to change the strategy of the U.S. and the other major donors in Iraq. They will have made an effort by the end of March to build alliances with some of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world that are focused on getting Iraqi weapons down as quickly as possible. If the U.S. and other major arms producers want to do that, then in order to achieve it, they will have to do so through a program of arms sales and agreements.
If the U.S. and those countries will also want to buy weapons of mass destruction that are not designed for mass destruction, then a series of policy changes should be made that can provide a permanent boost in U.S. military capabilities. These include the elimination of the requirement that Iraq is subjected to a nuclear attack after being attacked by other countries. Furthermore, I believe at that point the Iraqi government would agree to the terms given to the United States by President Obama.[p>
The U.S. and its allies have stated over the past few months that they hope to reach a political settlement to the conflict in Iraq. For that, the United States and its allies must continue to pursue the same set of policies which will ensure that Iraq’s long-term stability begins to pay dividends.
The United States and its allies in Iraq are working hard against