235. Classification of modern states. Leacock classifies existing states in the following diagram :1 Parliamentary mentary mentary Nonparlia- Parlia- Nonparlia- Parlia- Nonparlia- Parlia- Nonparlia- 236. Modern democratic states. Burgess states the essential nature of modern democracies as follows: What we call the modern states are those based upon the principle of popular sovereignty; i.e. they are democracies. Not all of them appear to be such, but a close scrutiny of the facts will reveal the truth of the proposition that they are. The reason of the deceptive appearance in 1 By permission of Houghton Mifflin Company. 2 Since the treaty of November, 1905, Korea may be said to be under the suzerainty of Japan. 3 The case of China is peculiar. The emperor appoints his own successor. . . . 4 The recognition of the cabinet principle has been in Japan a disputed constitutional point. See Encyclopædia Britannica, supplementary volume, article, "Japan." 5 For the relation of executive and legislature in Norway and Sweden, see Wilson, "The State," §§ 813, 824. • Considered apart from the rest of the British Empire. 7 Hungary itself has cabinet government. 8 The Swiss executive offers a special case. See "Statesman's Year-Book." such cases will be found to be the fact that the state has but recently taken on its new form, and has not perfected its organization; while the old state form, remaining as government, is still clad in the habiliments of sovereignty, shabby and threadbare perhaps, but still recognizable. It will be highly instructive to consider, for a moment, the social conditions which precede, and make possible, the existence of the democratic state. They may be expressed in a single phrase, viz.: national harmony. There can be no democratic state unless the mass of the population of a given state shall have attained a consensus of opinion in reference to rights and wrongs, in reference to government and liberty. This implies, in the first place, that they shall understand each other; i.e. that they shall have a common language and a common psychologic standpoint and habit. It implies, in the second place, that they shall have a common interest, in greater or less degree, over against the populations of other states. It implies, finally, that they shall have risen, in their mental development, to the consciousness of the state, in its essence, means, and purposes; that is, the democratic state must be a national state, and the state whose population has become truly national will inevitably become democratic. There is a natural and an indissoluble connection between this condition of society and this form of state. 237. Modern national empires. Reinsch describes national imperialism, the ideal aimed at by states of the present day.1 We should here distinguish between the spirit of modern national imperialism and that which animated the Roman Empire. The cardinal difference between the two is that the ideal of the latter was the comprehension of all civilized nations under the sway of a world empire, while the former recognizes the separate existence of national states. Orbis terrarum and imperium were convertible terms to the Romans; there was only one empire, which embraced the world, or at least its desirable parts. Separate nationalism was not respected; in the words of Ihering, "The spiritual substance of Rome is an acid which, when brought in contact with the living organism of a nationality, acts as an irritant and dissolvent." National imperialism, on the other hand, takes as its basis a national state and is not inconsistent with respect for the political existence of other nationalities; it endeavors to increase the resources of the national state through the absorption or exploitation of undeveloped regions and inferior races, but does not attempt to impose political control upon highly civilized nations. Napoleon, indeed, strove to revive the Roman form of imperialism, but the rising spirit of nationalism 1 Copyright, 1900, by The Macmillan Company. was too strong for him; against the forces of historical development his genius was of no avail. The nineteenth century has been an age of nationalism. The twentieth is to be the age of national imperialism. 238. The government of the future. Burgess risks the following prophecy concerning the probable form of the state in the future. Toward what form the political world is tending is not so easy to discern. The drift away from monarchic, aristocratic, unlimited, hereditary forms would, I think, indicate a tendency, at least, toward republicanism. I do not believe it is utopian to predict that the republican form will live after all other forms have perished. The mysticism and credulity are being surely dispelled which make these forms necessary, useful or possible; and the popular intelligence and virtue are being developed which will make republicanism possible and, at last, necessary everywhere. Whether it will be centralized or federalized republicanism is a question more difficult to answer; and most difficult of all is the query as to whether presidential or parliamentary government will be the general form of the future. As I have said, the world manifests some dissatisfaction with both centralized and federalized government, and with both presidential and parliamentary government. In the existing centralized systems the tendency is manifest toward federalization in administration, while in the federalized systems, the tendency is manifest toward centralization in legislation. Again, in the presidential systems, the tendency seems toward some closer connection of the executive and the legislature in procedure, while in the parliamentary systems the tendency is, on the other hand, toward a greater independence of the executive. The form of the future will doubtless be the resultant of all of these tendencies and will satisfy them all. It is a hazardous venture to prophesy what the form of the future will be. It seems to me, however, that that form will be a republic, with centralized legislation and federalized administration. Its executive will be independent in tenure, and will exercise a veto power, a military power, and an ordinance power active enough and strong enough to defend his constitutional prerogatives and initiate and direct the measures of administration. But he will be bound to keep his cabinet of advisers in political accord with the lower house of the legislature. He will be bound to change them as that majority changes; either immediately, or after a dissolution of that body by his order, approved by the upper house of the legislature, and after the return of the same party majority by the electors. He will also be bound to approve the acts of the legislature which do not, in his judgment, trench upon his prerogative or contain unsound or disadvantageous measures of administration. Which of the great states of the world will arrive at this form first and win for itself the prestige of becoming the example for all the rest, in the development of the world's political civilization, is a question which the future must decide; but I do not think it chauvinistic.to say that the governmental system of the United States seems to me to be many stages in advance of all the rest in this line of progress. In spite of all the difficulties and the discouragements which surround us in our, in many respects, crude and undeveloped society, it seems to me evident that the destiny of history is clearly pointing to the United States as the great world organ for the modern solution of the problem of government as well as of liberty. CHAPTER XIV FEDERAL GOVERNMENT I. FORMS OF UNION 239. Classification of unions. Willoughby, following Jellinek 1 in the main, outlines the various forms of unions into which political organizations may enter.2 Jellinek, in his classification of unions, makes the first division into Unorganized and Organized Unions. These names serve to indicate the distinction that is made between the two classes. In the first class are included instances in which more or less permanent relations between States have been entered into for the regulation of certain mutual interests, but in which no central organization has been created. Such common action as is necessary in these unions is had through one or all of the governmental organs of the individual States. . . . Within this category fall such types as Alliances" for offense or defense, and for the guarantee of particular rights; as, for example, perpetual neutrality of particular territories, etc. Coming now to "Organized Unions" we find established in them, as their name imports, permanent central organs. They admit of segregation into four classes, as follows: (1) International Administrative Unions, (2) The Realunion, (3) The Staatenbund (Confederacy), (4) The Bundesstaat (Federal State). Examples of the first subclass are combinations of States for the common regulation of particular interests wherein permanent administrative authorities are created. By the term "Realunion" is indicated by German publicists that composite type of State life in which there is an intimate and lasting union entered into between two or more States, according to which there is a common ruler, but a preservation of the territorial divisions, and a recognition and protection of the constitutional rights of each of the uniting States. . . . A type very much resembling the Realunion, and often confused with it, is what is termed the Personalunion. There is, however, a clear 1 "Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen." 2 Copyright, 1896, by The Macmillan Company. |