0
What else can I help you with?
What is powersharing in Northern Ireland?
Due to the community division in Northern Ireland that caused many troubles there, a form of government called power sharing came into place. The idea is that both sides would always have some representation in government. So they are basically sharing power together, rather than one side taking the majority and ruling alone. With representation at the highest level from both sides, cross-community support has been earned and neither side has felt totally left out.
Who ran against Robert Mugabe in the latest election?
President Robert Gabriel Mugabe [b. February 21, 1924] was the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front [ZANU-PF] candidate in the presidential elections of March 29, 2008. Dr. Simbarashe Herbert Stanley, ka Simba, Makoni [b. March 22, 1950] was an independent candidate. And Morgan Richard Tsvangirai [b. March 10, 1952] was the Movement for Democratic Change [MDC] candidate. Results, which were released on May 2, 2008, showed presidential candidates Makoni and Tsvangirai with about 8% and about 47% of the vote, respectively; and President Mugabe with about 43%. If no candidate received 50% of the total vote, plus one vote, there needed to be a runoff. But Tsvangirai withdrew his participation in a second round, on June 22, 2008. On July 22, 2008, Mugabe and Tsvangirai met publicly, to begin work on a powersharing agreement, which was signed on September 15, 2008. As a result, on February 11, 2009, Mugabe was sworn in as President, Tsvangirai as Prime Minister, and Professor Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara [b. May 25, 1966] as Deputy Prime Minister.
How power is shared in community?
. Powersharing is where you can share and receive positive, informative, and inspirational content, earn from activities, and make a difference in the world. The term community comes from the Latin root for "common" or "shared". The most general meaning of However, there is no agreement on precisely which common features create community, and the key features of even an established However, there is no agreement on precisely which common features create community, and the key features of even an established Community is a group of people united by their common features. Power sharing is a valid mechanism for redressing communal conflicts and the years of political marginalization Power is usually shared in community between the various corporations and agencies. It can also be shared through families, community procedures and some peer organizational frameworks 1 Replace the metaphors of war with metaphors of life. 2.2 Build coalitions and women's circles as bases of power. 2.3 Educate professionals and all others in the areas of mediation and negotiation in order that contentious litigation be minimized. 2.4 Have NGOs and community-based organizations define the political agenda for all communities. 2.5 Communities should invite and expect every institution to enter into proactive dialogue and develop power-sharing mechanisms. 2.6 Implement gender equality in planning and policies in all community organizations
Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution. What would happenin the absence of such a demarcation?
Constitutions are often subverted, not by the people, but by small groups, who wish to enhance their own power. To support this line I want to take example of Nepal. Since 1948, Nepal has had five constitutions, but all the constitution was granted by the king of Nepal,there were not any demarcation of powersharing between the organisation of government, in all respect king is all in all so king misuses the power there. From so many years the people of Nepal struggle for democracy, but in the year of 2004 they achieved success. This example gives us proofs that a well crafted constitutions fragment power in society intelligently so that no single power can subvert the constitution. If we design our constitution in a proper way then it will be able to make a right balance between certain values, norms and procedures as authoritative, and at the same time allow enough flexibility in its operations to adopt to challenging needs and circumstances. sobha rajak
When was Britain at war with Ireland?
The war between Britain (England to be more precise) and Ireland began when an English King sent his army to invade Ireland to expand His empire for His own greed. This was about 500 years ago. The invasion was met with resistance and detest as Celtic Irish people were forced to abandon their traditions, such as religious beliefs. The native Irish were bansihed from their land and replaced with Protestants, this was known as the plantations. Oliver Cromwell in particular forced the Celtic natives to either move to the West of the island where the land was less fertile because of the salts blowing from the harsh sea. This is where the phrase "to hell or to Connaught (Ireland's most westerly province)" came from. The English also introduced something called the penal laws, which favoured Protestants over Catholics. Although the laws were revoked, Catholics were still discriminated against as recently as 40 years ago. This led to civil rights marches. One notable occassion in County Derry is known as Bloody-Sunday. It is called Bloody Sunday because the British army opened fire on peaceful protestors. A report on that incident will be published soon, probably after the upcoming UK election. This was actually the second Bloody Sunday. On the first Bloody Sunday, the British army entered a sports stadium known as Croke Park in Dublin. They opened fire on innocent spectators. Hence why there was debate over whether the English Rugby team should have been allowed to play in Croke Park about two years ago. They were allowed to play and spectators from both sides clapped as they ran onto the pitch from the tunnels. Britain and Ireland have a long and complex history. Recently bitterness and ill feelings between the two nations have started to fade due to the hard-work of the British Labour government, notably the previous Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as the Irish government, notably An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. However, the biggest success came from the work of the DUP (notably Rev. Ian Paisley) and Sinn Féin (Gerry Adams/Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness). Rev. Ian Paisley was particularly a hard-line outspoken critic of powersharing with Sinn Féin and initially resisted attempts by the government in Dublin to have a say in Northern politics. Eventually his attitude changed and his relationship with the Government in Dublin changed. On one memorable occassion, the then First Minister shook hands with his counterpart, An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Rev. Paisely is probably now one of the most respected Unionist politicians on both sides of the border. His successor Peter Robinson has continued in building bridges with Nationalists and is also a respected politician on both sides. Although this is a long answer, it is more truthful than pretending that the war was the result of spontaneous action by the IRA. Although most people in the Republic now believe that continued military action by the IRA is no longer necessary and is more terrorism than a fight for freedom, they were supportive of the armed campaign in 1916, which eventually lead to the formation of the Irish Free State, which later became Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland). Also, raw feelings are usually between the Irish and English. The Welsh are usually considered neutral in the matter and the Scottish are from the same Celtic bloodline as the Irish.
What role does horizontal form of power sharing play in strengthen the Indian government?
Power-sharing and the Vertical Layering of Authority: A Review of Current Practices Stefan Wolff I. The Context of Self-determination Conflicts and Power-sharing Self-determination conflicts are, at one level, also conflicts between competing views of how decision-making powers should be allocated to different layers of authority within a state, and thus how the state as a whole should be constructed. Traditionally, powers have been, and still are, distributed between different vertical layers of authority, for example, between central and local governments in unitary states, or between federal and federated governments in federations and federacies. In addition to such vertical layering of authority, the resolution of self-determination conflicts often requires additional mechanisms of powersharing that are horizontal, i.e., where power is (mandatorily) shared between different parties at one-and-the-same level. While the level of such horizontal power-sharing can be the region and/or the central government, the precise mechanisms and rules of such horizontal powersharing differ from case to case, and can be rigidly consociational, as in Northern Ireland, or voluntary, as in Macedonia, where they are facilitated by the ethnic demography, the structure of the country's party system and the rules of the electoral system. Depending on the complexity of a given power-sharing system, it comprises one or more of the following mechanisms: co-decision making (e.g., executive power-sharing), split decision-making (e.g., territorial arrangements, such as federacy or federalism; or corporate arrangements, such as cultural autonomy), and a range of pre-determined decisions (e.g., proportionality rules for representation for different communities in legislatures and the civil service) or pre-determined procedures (e.g., qualified majority voting or parallel consent regulations in legislatures). Within systems of power-sharing the vertical layering of authority acquires extra importance, often necessitating specific new institutional structures, thus adding to the overall complexity of the process and outcome of state construction. However, the vertical layering of authority also provides opportunities for instituting formal and informal mechanisms of power-sharing at different levels of the political process - from the central government level down to that of local communities. Yet, it can only accomplish this if two conditions are fulfilled: the institutions and institutional structures created must be internally viable and externally recognisable. That is, they must be capable in a technical sense of delivering the outcomes they are set up to achieve (e.g., effectiveness and representativeness of the political process) and the institutions and outcomes must be recognised by the agents participating in Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved. No reprint without permission.2 them as, if not desirable, at least preferable over continued violent conflict. Under these conditions, vertically layered power-sharing institutions and the individual agents operating in and through them will be capable of establishing a political process that is predictable and stable. This in turn will facilitate, and over time be facilitated by, an increasing belief in the authority of the institutions and institutional structures thus created. *** With these preliminary considerations in mind, this chapter analyses state construction in complex power-sharing systems from the perspective of how authority is distributed at and between vertical layers of authority. The empirical basis for this analysis is provided by eight recent cases of self-determination conflicts where attempts have been made to resolve them by establishing complex power-sharing institutions. Examining the vertical layering of authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bougainville, Gagauzia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Mindanao, Northern Ireland and South Ossetia, I initially evaluate the particular vertical structures of state construction in each case and contextualise them briefly in the nature and dynamics of each individual self-determination conflict. The sequence of case studies is determined by the complexity of the institutional structures. I begin with Bosnia and Herzegovina, where power-sharing exists at regional and central levels, and is complemented by elements of devolution of powers to cantonal and municipal levels. At the next level of complexity, regional consociations exist in Bougainville, Mindanao and Northern Ireland. Here two traditional conflict resolution techniques combine - territorial autonomy and consociational power-sharing. Although similar in this particular aspect, the three cases can be further distinguished according to their institutional structures. The arrangements for Bougainville include limited power-sharing (co-decision making) between the regional and central authorities; in Northern Ireland, extensive arrangements for cross-border cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as well as between these two entities and a range of others within the British Isles form part of the 1998 Agreement; and in Mindanao, the co-optation of regional officials to corresponding central institutions again provides for limited co-decision making. The remaining four cases are examples of territorial autonomy (Gagauzia), enhanced local self-administration (Macedonia and, pending the resolution of its final status, Kosovo), and a quasi-sovereign parallel entity (South Ossetia). Following this description of the empirical basis of this chapter, I then assess the relevance of the vertical layering of authority within complex power-sharing systems by comparing and contrasting all eight cases from the perspective of the types of institutional structures; the combination of vertical and horizontal power-sharing mechanisms; the distribution of powers at and between different vertical layers of authority; the types of coordination between different vertical layers of authority; the constitutional and legal entrenchment of the Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved. No reprint without permission.3 institutions created; and territory and population as boundaries of authority. Following this thematic comparison, I examine three common and potentially problematic issues relating to the vertical layering of public authority in complex power-sharing systems: the relationship between vertical and horizontal layers of power-sharing, the coordination of government activities at and between these different layers, and the overall political institutional settlement within which vertically and horizontally structured institutions have to operate. Synthesising this discussion, I conclude by outlining the role that the vertical layering of authority can play as part of a power-sharing 'toolkit' by examining the main types of institutional structures and mechanisms of policy coordination and by assessing their contextdependence. II. Multiple Layers of Authority in Practice: A Brief Review of Eight Case Studies of Complex Powersharing In order to assess similarities and differences and their significance in the vertical construction of state institutions, empirical data are required. Given the focus of this chapter, the following case studies do not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of each conflict and its settlement, but rather concentrate on how executive, legislative and judicial institutions are constructed in the state overall and at multiple levels of authority.1 A. Bosnia and Herzegovina The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of a wider regional conflict - the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Over three-and-a-half years, between 1992 and 1995, three main conflict parties - Serbs in Bosnia (and their supporters in Serbia), Croats in Bosnia (and their supporters in Croatia) and Bosnian Muslims - fought each other in shifting alliances with different aims. Serbs sought secession and unification with Serbia, as they felt threatened in a state potentially dominated by a Muslim or Muslim/Croat majority hostile to them. To some extent, Croats shared this goal of secession and unification (with Croatia), while Muslims fought to prevent the disintegration of what they perceived as their ancestral homeland. The intensity of the conflict prompted the UN to declare six safe areas for Muslims and to despatch a peacekeeping force for their protection. Following the breakdown of a four-month ceasefire between Muslims and Serbs, the latter launched an intensive campaign against Muslim safe areas between May and August 1994 in which large numbers of civilians were deliberately targeted and killed. In response, NATO intensified its air strikes against the (regular and irregular) armed forces of the Bosnian Serbs and eventually forced all three conflict parties to the negotiating table in Dayton, Ohio in September 1994. 1 For detailed background on the eight case studies of self-determination conflicts, refer to Vol. 1 ** CROSS-REF Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved. No reprint without permission.4 The Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 provides the legal foundation upon which the postwar Bosnian state has been constructed. It establishes several layers of authority: principally, the state level, the entity level and the local level. Within the Bosnian-Croat Federation, cantons provide a further layer of authority. All four layers of authority have their competences clearly laid out in the Dayton Peace Agreement, its various annexes and followon documents, as well as various subsequent amendments. A significant change to this structure was made in 1997 when the so-called Peace Implementation Council, uniting almost sixty states and governmental and non-governmental organisations involved in the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, decided to endow the Office of the High Representative with the authority to dismiss elected and unelected officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina if they were deemed to obstruct the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and to make legally binding decisions (i.e., to pass laws) in any area in which the state or entity parliaments were unable or unwilling to legislate. This establishes the High Representative not only as the ultimate arbiter in any cases of difficulties in implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement and in coordinating policy between the institutions it established, but endows the office, similar to that of the Special Representative of the UN SecretaryGeneral in Kosovo, with significant legislative and executive powers. This is comparable only to the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, through subsequent amendment to the original Agreement, is able to suspend Northern Ireland's power-sharing institutions and assume their executive and most of their legislative powers. What is striking about the construction of the Bosnian state is the almost excess
