Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The rhetoric of every Agonistans party contains the implications of popular sovereignty. Thus, the Majoritarians suggest that the equal rights of all the nations are recognized. Although they suggest that their guarantee is to be provided with the help of a strong national executive. Meanwhile, this party does not mention the constitutional support to the equal rights of every nation of Agonistan. On the whole, their rhetoric is less democratic than the appeal of the other parties.
The Minoritarians, in their turn, announce the need for the protection of the sovereign rights of every nation. However, the major problem is that this party neglects the interests of the Enclavians and the Dispersians as they presume that Agonistan is a bi-national country. Therefore, one might suppose that, according to their point of view, even if the constitution guarantees the rights of every nation that will be the rights of the Majoritarians and the Minoritarians only.
The Enclavians and the Dispersians express a relatively equal extent of the implications of popular sovereignty. The general rhetoric of both the parties is rather democratic. Thus, they speak in favor of the power sharing in parliament and support the idea that the rights of every nation are recognized. As a consequence, one can assume that the implications of popular sovereignty vary in different parties; yet, they constitute favorable prerequisites for the potential development of democracy in Agonistan.
One suggests that confederalism is the desirable territorial structure of Agonistan. Thus, Majoritaria, Minoritaria, Enclavia, and Dispersia will represent partially self-governing units basing on the support of the central government. The following structure has been selected in an attempt to find a compromise that will fit the requirements of all the parties. On the one hand, it provides looser governmental regulation than federalism that will appeal to the Majoritarians and the Minoritarians, the representatives of which make 75% of Agonistans population. On the other hand, the confederalism structure does not necessarily imply the assignment of decentralization powers to regions. This set of things is likely to meet the interests of the Enclavians and the Dispersians who reject both the unitary states structure and the recognition of the particular regions nationhood.
Moreover, the experience shows that the following territorial structure has proved its efficacy when applied in the cases of critical issues. Therefore, this type of structure seems to be the most appropriate, mainly due to the relative freedom it provides for the regulation of the relationships between the states. One should, furthermore, point out that the following structure has already been employed in such countries as Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland, the territorial structures of which have adopted the characteristics of confederalism to one extent or another.
It is recommended that Canada should support parliamentary system of government as the most appropriate for the promotion of popular sovereignty. The parliamentary regime is supported by the Minoritarians, the Enclavians, and the Dispersians that make 55% of Agonistans population. As well as the Minoritarians, one presumes that power-sharing should not be adopted at the central level of decision-making. The Head of Government will also be the Head of State and will be elected by the legislature and answerable to it. The legislatures, in their turn, will be publicly elected. One might also suggest the adoption of a bicameral system that has already proved to be effective in a series of countries and is considered to be particularly appropriate in federal and confederal territorial structures. Moreover, this system is supported by the Enclavians. One presumes that the described governmental system is likely to provide the effective and democratic policy.
One believes that the key target is performing the Constitutional changes according to the mentioned transformations. Thus, one is to entrench the sovereign rights of all the nations that make the Agonistans population. One suggests that the Dispersians offer to assign a modest form of territorial autonomy for the Minoritarians and the Enclavians should be accepted. Meanwhile, it is highly important to preserve the unity of Agonistan and to prevent the possible recurrence of the civil conflict of a similar character. Therefore, it is recommended that the Constitution does not make any provision for secession.
On the contrary, it should state the impossibility for the regions to secede. This point is likely to be supported by the Majoritarians, the Enclavians and the Dispersians that make 70% of Agonistans population. Although the Minoritarians initial requirement to secede and to receive international recognition will not be satisfied, the autonomy provided by the confederative structure is likely to match their interests. One also assumes that the laws compliance should be ensured by the Constitution; thus, the individuals rights will be protected by the Constitutional Court as the Majoritarians suggest.
As far as the issue of the Constitutional law is not of primarily importance neither for the Enclavians nor the Dispersians, one might expect these parties to express their agreement on the following point. A separate Constitutional law has proved its efficacy in such countries as Belgium, France, and Germany; hence, one might presume that it will contribute to the popular sovereigntys development. In Agonistan
One presumes that Canada should support the introduction of the judicial review. Basing on the examples of such countries as Italy, Turkey, and Austria, one suggests that a Constitutional review is employed in Agonistan. The review will be consequently performed by the Constitutional Court. The application of the following measure is likely to be supported by all the parties except for the Minoritarians that initially reject the idea of the Constitutional Court.
Moreover, it is important that the Constitution assures the protection of the minority nations rights. In order to do that, the constitution is to provide a precise definition of the following concept. Furthermore, the Constitution is to guarantee the freedom of the minority nations, the preservation of their culture and language and exclude the possibility of their rights discrimination. One considers the introduction of the following law to be a substantial support of the principle of equality and popular sovereignty.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.