Political Science Essay: Comparing Political Systems and Philosophers

This essay delves into key concepts in political science, beginning with a comparison of Plato's idealism and Aristotle's realism, exploring their differing views on reality and the implications of Aristotle's support for slavery and unequal rights for women. The essay then contrasts federal and unitary systems of government, highlighting the differences between a federation and a confederation, with examples from Canada and other nations. It examines the rise of executive leadership and the decline of the legislature in recent years, comparing the American and Canadian political systems. Finally, the essay discusses the role of judges, the question of executive power over the judiciary, and the political neutrality of the Canadian court system, especially since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The essay incorporates relevant references to support its arguments and analysis, providing a comprehensive overview of the selected political science topics.

Running head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1POLITICAL SCIENCE
Why are Plato called an idealist and Aristotle a realist? Explain. Why did
Aristotle support slavery and unequal rights for women?
Idealism is defined as that branch of philosophy which is where something mental (be
it the mind, spirit, reason or will) is either determined to be the source of reality or even
something that exists beyond what is deemed as reality1. In this regard, Plato is considered to
be an idealist because he divided reality into two forms: the experiential world (empirical
reality) is deemed as unreal and as a mere appearance, while the ultimate reality is constituted
by the abstract essence of things2. For example, all the individual chairs in this universe are
unreal, only the essence of a chair is real and permanent. On the other hand, Aristotle is
called a realist because according to him reality is the result of direct perceptions through our
sense organs3. This means that reality is everything what we perceive it to be.
On the question of slavery, Aristotle justifies it through by stating that a slave is
psychologically and intellectually inferior when compared to those who are deemed free4,
essentially terming slaves as being only able to comprehend and express themselves via
phonos (sound) while those who were free being able to comprehend and express themselves
through logos (words and human language); thereby postulating that since slaves are only
capable of producing phonos, it is justified for those who are able to express themselves using
logos to carry out the enslavement of the contemporary slave population. On the question on
meting out unequal treatment to women, Aristotle states that women have the power of the
logos when compared to the slave but they do not possess the authority to wield it as he
viewed women to be “incomplete” versions of men5. The implications of this is clear: women
1Guyer, Paul, and Rolf-Peter Horstmann. "Idealism." (2015).
2Nellickappilly, Sreekumar. 2019. Aspects of Western Philosophy. Ebook. Chennai. Accessed July 22.
3Westphal, Kenneth R., ed. Realism, science, and pragmatism. Routledge, 2014.
4Pellegrin, Pierre. "Natural slavery." The Cambridge companion to Aristotle’s politics (2013): 92-116.
5Fortenbaugh, William W. "Aristotle on Women: Politics i 13.1260 a13." Ancient Philosophy 35, no. 2 (2015):
395-404.

2POLITICAL SCIENCE
ought not to be in any position of power that could change the dynamics of power relations
that granted men the ability to be in command, by virtue of being completely rational and
wielding authority.
Compare and contrast between the federal and unitary systems of
government. How is a federation different from a confederation?
A federal system of government is a system where individual states come together
and combine to form a larger, sovereign state where authority and powers are divided
between the federal government and constituent states. The federal government oversees
matters who jurisdiction encompasses a national significance, while the state governments
have authority over issues that come under their regional or territorial jurisdiction. Usually,
there are distinct areas where the federal and constituent state governments could legislate
and neither could infringe upon the other’s legislative authority, save for in the case of a
national emergency where the federal government may assume paramount power; Canada
being a prime example of federalism6. On the other hand, a unitary government system is a
system where the central government devolves power to local governments in the form of
autonomy; the amount of autonomy granted to a local government can vary between one
unitary state and another. A typical example would be the wide-ranging autonomy that is
granted to Alend Islands by the Finnish central government7, where the Islands enjoy an
autonomous existence from the rest of the Finnish mainland.
Contrastingly, as opposed to the federal system where well-defined and established
sovereign or semi-sovereign states merge together to form a larger, sovereign entity with
devolution of powers between the governments of the nation and of the constituent states, a
6Hueglin, Thomas O., and Alan Fenna. Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry. University of Toronto
Press, 2015.
7 Hörnström, Lisa. "Strong regions within the unitary state: the Nordic experience of regionalization." Regional
& Federal Studies 23, no. 4 (2013): 427-443.

3POLITICAL SCIENCE
confederacy is a system where either a group of states or a group of larger collectives come
together and form a larger collective that offers relatively more autonomy and freedom to its
constituent members than usually given within a federal system. The Khamseh confederacy
consisting of nomads belonging to Southern Iran is a great example of how a confederacy
exists and functions even within the boundaries of a pre-established, sovereign entity8.
Why is there a rise of executive leadership and decline of legislature in
recent years? How is the American political system different from the
Canadian political system?
In recent years, there has been a preference for executive leadership at the expense of
the legislature. This is due to a wide number of factors, including the need for an efficient
government and quick decision-making in a time when domestic and international politics
have come to be dependent solely upon timely responses and efficient handling of crises. In a
political system like America, where the executive enjoys more political power than his
Commonwealth counterparts, there has come into vogue a phenomenon that can be termed as
executive federalism9, where the President and other Federal officials are able to bypass the
normal political process involving the Congress for solving urgent situations in an expedient
manner.
The main difference between the American and Canadian political systems lies in the
nature of division and separation of powers between the legislative and the executive10. In the
American system, there is a clear separation of powers between the executive and the
legislative; the President is able to introduce legislation in the Congress and he is able to veto
8 Barth, Frederik. Nomads of south Persia-The Basseri tribe of the Khamseh confederacy. Read Books Ltd, 2013
9 Bulman-Pozen, Jessica. "Executive federalism comes to America." Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 953.
10 Lipset, Seymour Martin. Continental divide: The values and institutions of the United States and Canada.
Routledge, 2013.

4POLITICAL SCIENCE
any law that is passed by the Congress. The President can make executive decisions without
consulting or courting approval from Congress, in order to swiftly deal with a situation that
has arisen on an urgent basis. On the other hand, following the Westminster system of
government, Canada has a Parliament that is vested with both executive and legislative
powers. The Prime Minister is the head of government, but he is kept in check by various
motions and resolutions that could be proposed and passed by the Members of Parliament.
Chiefly, the Prime Minister could be removed from his position if Parliament proposes and
passes a motion of no-confidence against him and his government. On the other hand,
Congress can do no such thing within the American system; the President can only be
impeached if he has explicitly violated his Constitutional obligations and duties.
What do the judges do? Should the executive have any power and control
over the judiciary? Is the Canadian Court politically neutral? Had it
changed fundamentally in this regard since the adoption of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms?
The function of the judges is to protect the constitutional order and uphold the notions
of natural justice in the case of any error of omission and commission committed either by
the legislative or executive11. In this regard, the judiciary often comes into conflict with
officials at the federal and state level, both elected and appointed. This conflict has been the
source of many a legal battle and it has shaped and re-shaped the constitutional landscape of
Canada over its constitutional history, ever since the various provinces of Canada federated.
This conflict ensures that the government runs smoothly and that no abuse of power is sought
by the legislative and executive branches of the government.
11 Jackson, Vicki C. "Pro-constitutional representation: comparing the role obligations of judges and elected
representatives in constitutional democracy." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (2015): 1717

5POLITICAL SCIENCE
Although there have been calls for more executive oversight over the functions of the
judiciary in order to streamline the implementation of government policies and directives, the
emergent role of the judiciary as a defender and protector of constitutional rights and as an
authority who can create precedents for the expansion of those rights, the notion of executive
supervision over the functions of the judiciary is a fiercely contested issue within the
Canadian context12. This is especially true when disputes over the denial or upholding of
fundamental rights of Canadian citizens come up, where the Court has played an important
role in defining various terms and concepts that secure the rights of citizens and vastly
improve and expand upon them.
However, it is felt by many that the Canadian Court system has lost its
constitutionally mandated political neutrality. Some sections of the Canadian citizenry,
especially those hailing from minority backgrounds, feels that the Canadian Court system has
become a politically biased institution13, which preserves the traditional rights of dominant
communities and groups at the expense of the dignity and protections which people from
minority backgrounds require to qualitatively develop as fully-fledged individuals who can
positively contribute to Canadian society and to the nation as a whole.
It would be somewhat wrong, however, to say that the Canadian judicial system has
failed to Canadians in the way it is supposed to. Ever since the adoption of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian judiciary has taken a positive and progressive
role in creating precedents and opportunities to create a more inclusive and tolerant society
for Canada14. With the scope of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, the judiciary
12 Malleson, Kate. The new judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism. Routledge, 2016.
13 Owusu-Bempah, Akwasi, and Scot Wortley. "Race, crime, and criminal justice in Canada." The Oxford
handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration (2014): 321-359.
14 Kelly, James B. Governing with the Charter: legislative and judicial activism and framers' intent. UBC Press,
2014.

6POLITICAL SCIENCE
is able to interpret the wordings of the Charter in a progressive manner, allowing individuals
from marginalized and oppressed backgrounds to gain access to justice that would have not
been possible before the adoption of the Charter. Therefore, some may comment on the
apparent loss of political neutrality by the Canadian judicial system, it could be said that the
judiciary is faithfully discharging its duties and protecting the rights of Canadian citizens
according to the provisions guaranteed by the passing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms as a basic tenet of Canadian constitutional law.

7POLITICAL SCIENCE
References
Barth, Frederik. Nomads of south Persia-The Basseri tribe of the Khamseh confederacy. Read
Books Ltd, 2013
Bulman-Pozen, Jessica. "Executive federalism comes to America." Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016):
953.
Fortenbaugh, William W. "Aristotle on Women: Politics i 13.1260 a13." Ancient Philosophy
35, no. 2 (2015): 395-404.
Guyer, Paul, and Rolf-Peter Horstmann. "Idealism." (2015).
Hörnström, Lisa. "Strong regions within the unitary state: the Nordic experience of
regionalization." Regional & Federal Studies 23, no. 4 (2013): 427-443.
Hueglin, Thomas O., and Alan Fenna. Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry.
University of Toronto Press, 2015.
Jackson, Vicki C. "Pro-constitutional representation: comparing the role obligations of judges
and elected representatives in constitutional democracy." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (2015):
1717
Kelly, James B. Governing with the Charter: legislative and judicial activism and framers'
intent. UBC Press, 2014.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. Continental divide: The values and institutions of the United States
and Canada. Routledge, 2013.
Malleson, Kate. The new judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism. Routledge, 2016.

8POLITICAL SCIENCE
Nellickappilly, Sreekumar. 2019. Aspects of Western Philosophy. Ebook. Chennai. Accessed
July 22
Owusu-Bempah, Akwasi, and Scot Wortley. "Race, crime, and criminal justice in Canada."
The Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration (2014): 321-359.
Pellegrin, Pierre. "Natural slavery." The Cambridge companion to Aristotle’s politics (2013):
92-116.
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed. Realism, science, and pragmatism. Routledge, 2014.