Political Science

In all democracies, political parties are vehicles that are used by like-minded politicians to access power, thereby getting the opportunity to advance their various policies. Political parties, therefore, provide a forum for politicians who share interests and ideologies, to coalesce and rally the electorate to give them the mandate to run the government.

Schmidt, Shelly and Bardes (1999, p 275) define a political party can be formally defined as a group of political activists who organize to win elections, operate the government and to determine the public policy. This definition explains the difference between a political party and an interest group. Interest groups do not want to operate government and therefore do not put forth presidential candidates. On the other hand political parties differ from factions, which are smaller groups or blocs in a legislature or political party acting together in pursuit of some special interest.

This discourse basically focuses on the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan, exploring the extent to which LDP can be considered a political party, particularly in reference to the international standards of such parties. In that line, it is imperative that we at first underscore the universally acceptable standards of political parties in any democracy.

Often, political parties have been viewed from two contrasting perspectives, with the somewhat idealistic position holding that political parties should be internally democratic as they perform a wide range of critical functions, whereas the more realistic approach viewing political parties as self-interested bodies whose primary goal is to win elections. But whatever the view point, the western model of political parties lays emphasis on features such as party ideology, party organization, leadership, representative mechanism and party conferences or conventions. WMD (2008)
In a bid to determine whether LDP is indeed a political party, we are therefore imputed to consider if the organization, structure and overall running of the LDP reflects some or most of the aforementioned features.
 
Ideology
Crespo (1995, p 201) points outs the fact that unlike the leftist parties, the LDP does not espouse a well defined ideology or political philosophy. Its members held a variety of positions that could be broadly defined as being to the right of the opposition parties, yet more moderate than those of Japans numerous rightist splinter groups.

On this account, LDP stands alienated from the model political parties in established Western democracies, which have clear cut ideological pursuits that unite the politicians within it. On the contrary, given that it is basically a conglomerate of factions, each pursing their self-interests, the LDPs tenets are far removed from what a democratic political party is formed on.

The Organization Liberal Democratic Party
As explored in the Peoples Daily Online (PDO), at the top level of the LDPs organization is the President, who can serve for two terms, with each term lasting for three years each. While the party maintained the parliamentary majority, LDPs president automatically became the Premier of Japan. The choice of the partys president was formally that of the partys convention composed of Diet members and local LDP figures, even though in most cases they were merely approved by the most powerful party leaders.

In a bid to make the system more democratic, the former Premier Takeo Fukuda had introduced a primary system in 1978, which eventually opened the balloting to approximately one and half million LDP members. But the process proved to be so costly and acrimonious that it was subsequently abandoned in favor of the old smoke-filled room method. After the LDPs president, the other most important officials are the Secretary-General and the Chairperson of the LDP Executive Council and the members of the Policy Affairs Research Council. PDO (2009)

This organizational leadership structure gives the LDP the semblance of a political party, particularly with the LDPs convention being the body deciding the president of the party. This is a function of the partys constitution, which is a strong feature in a model political party.

The Structure of the Liberal Democratic Party
Scheiner (n.d.) notes that for over a century that the LDP party had ruled Japan, it had eventually presided over economic collapse and political corruption, which in turn had resulted into its unpopularity with voters. Despite all this, the LDP had remained in power, largely due to the fact that there lacked a strong opposition to oust it from power. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.rieti.go.jp httpwww.rieti.go.jp)

For having stayed for that long in power, the LDP had become a de facto leadership instrument in Japan, the only channel through which the country could be run. The presence of other parties and their contribution in democratizing Japan had if any, quite minimal impact. But the internal structure that had once held the LDP together, denying other parties the muscle to rise to power, eventually worked against the party itself.

A report in The Christian Monitor (2009), penned by Ford predicted that LDP would have a hard time holding onto power, regardless of how long it had been a key player in Japans politics. This is because the party was adversely weakened by the collapse of the system that had sustained it for more that half of a century. Indeed, the dominance of LDP in Japans politics had rested almost entirely on its alliance with a range of powerful interest groups such as the farm lobbyists, the construction industry, the Japan Medical Association and a national network of influential local postmasters.

If anything, factions and zoku politicians were amongst the most important components of the LDPs traditional politics. The zoku politicians consist of senior and middle-level LDP parliamentarians whose specialty was particular areas of policy making. Due to their extensive networks, they had substantial influence over policy making. They operated through an LDP organ called the Policy Research Council and were seen as an obstacle to economic reform since they served special interests. During his regime, Koizumi successfully contained zoku powers by promoting market-oriented economic policy, but this changed immediately he got out of power, reverting to the old retrogressive trend. (Mishima, 2006)

Another integral component of LDP is the bureaucracy, which it touted to be a creation of foreign powers who once occupied Japan during the Second World War. Whatever political reforms propounded by these former foreign occupiers, they have never brought any substantial changes on the bureaucracy. Subsequently, these powers used the bureaucracy to indirectly rule Japan even though the LDP leadership subtly encouraged it. As time passed by with LDP in power, the bureaucracy retained, even consolidated its traditional strength. It is important to note that the LDP had to a large extent not regarded the bureaucracy as a rival but a partner in running the government. (Mishima, 2006)

Since the bureaucracy was renowned for its organizational excellence, the LDP found it advantageous to respect its independence. Besides, the LDP politicians, especially the zoku politicians, were also in pursuit of their own special interest. This meant that the bureaucracy could secure considerable influence in policy area and have less to do with special interests, for instance in areas diplomacy, the environment and macroeconomic policy. (Mishima, 2006)

According to Crespo (1995, p 201) the bureaucracy had strong links to the parliamentary faction of this erstwhile dominant party, and consulted it in regards to the formulation of public policy. There were different policies that were devised within the bureaucracy, and the Diet passed them, rejected them or more commonly in accordance to the criteria of the make up of its different committees. In fact, as Blechinger (2000,p ) puts it, the loyalty of the members of the diet was more in the factions in which they belonged than with LDP as a whole. Worth noting is that these factions were closely related to the bureaucracy, in essence serving as the political arms of the bureaucracy.

 Crespo (1995, p 201)  points out that in this sense, the bureaucracy has a certain considerable degree of autonomy, much of it stemming from its specialized knowledge, similar to what Weber described in his classical studies.

Crespo (1995, p 201) further notes that this autonomy enjoyed by the bureaucracy also projected from the fact that, in contract to whatever happens in other countries, the process of recruiting and promoting public officials is not intimately linked to the dominant party, as was the case in Japan when LDP was still in government.

The Liberal Democratic Party, therefore, stayed on power by responding to crises in public confidence shifting leadership amongst the partys fiercely competitive factions and by taking steps to redistribute the stimulus packages or social welfare policies co-opted from the hapless socialist and left-of-center opposition parties, as underscored by  Green (2010, p5). Unlike other model political parties, LDP doesnt directly appeal to voters to elect it but uses intermediaries in the name of factions to get the mandate from the electorate. In this case, while in office LDP doesnt endeavor to fulfill any pledges to the electorate as it is the case with other model political parties. It rather aims to honor its pledges with the various factions within it, which orchestrated its election victory.

LDP a Coalition not a Political Party
The increasing dependence of LDP on its coalition partners to survive the competition from other smaller opposition parties, questions the allusion that LDP is indeed a political party. The model political parties are by no mean a collection of smaller parties which have ganged up against other parties, to gain access to power they are instead a collection of like-minded politicians, pursuing particular ideologies and pressing for the enactment of certain policies. The need to incorporate various parties within its ranks denied the LDP a definite ideological pursuit and rather reduced into a mere power-accessing machine.

As Manyin and Chanlett-Avery (2008, p 4) observe, for more that a decade, the LDP was not able to secure independent majorities in both Diet Chambers and had therefore to come up coalitions with smaller parties. For instance, since 1999 the LDP formed a governing coalition with the New Komeito party, a fascist-leaning party with strong ties to the Buddist Soka Gakkai religious group.
The Komeitos clout in the coalition, Manyin and Chanlett-Avery (2008, p 4) add, did eventually increase and this was for two reasons first, the LDP was reliant upon the Komeito to obtain the 23 majority in the Lower House to override the DPJ led vetoes in the Upper House. Secondly, the LDP candidates in many electoral districts had become reliant upon the support from Soka Gakkai followers. Even though, traditionally, the LDP had dominated the coalition, during the summer of 2008, New Komeito became more assertive they for instance resisted Fukudas push to renew the authorization to provide fuel to coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The Partys Mechanism
Reed (2001, p 4) is of the view that in the democratic theory, the contrast between impersonal mechanism and personal networks involves the difference between elections based on party platforms and elections based on pork barrel projects, constituency service, and personal favors. A democracy based on candidates competing to build a personal base of support by doing favors for individual constituents and acquiring the centrally subsidized construction projects for their own electoral districts is quite different from a democracy based on political parties competing for votes by presenting coherent policy packages.

Even though personal vote strategy is important in most democratic systems, including the United States and Britain, many studies have pointed to the fact that personal vote is particularly prominent in Japan. Certainly, most of the recent scandals, from the Lockheed Scandal in 1974 through the most recent Recruit and Sagawa Kyubin Scandals, have involved LDP politicians renowned for the ability of their political machines to both gather the vote and to get pork barrel projects for their districts Reed (2001, p. 4). This is a feature that somewhat gives the LDP some semblance with other model political parties.

Internal Democracy
Some of the major policies propounded by the LDP hinted to the fact that this was a party struggling to stay afloat amidst shifting sands. They were indeed a pointer to the partys deficiencies. For one, LDP aimed for party reforms headed by the National Vision Project Committee of the National Strategy Headquarters, launched a party reform project and drafted a proposal under the name of Political System on 13 March 2002.  These reforms were aimed at regaining public confidence through a new election system and convert the bureaucratic-dominated decision system into politics dominated decision system. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.masayogoto.com httpwww.masayogoto.com)
These reforms, however, did not seek to address the lack of democracy within the party, a trend that is highly encouraged in model political parties in Western democracies.  Earlier on, there had been a glaring example of the lack of democracy within the LDP was during the reign of Koizumi when he failing to push to push through with the postal privatization bill, Koizumi took a political gamble by dissolving the Lower House in early August 2001, paving way for a snap election to seek a new mandate to reform programs. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.moneyandpolitics.net httpwww.moneyandpolitics.net)

After calling the election, Koizumis leadership excluded from the list of official candidates, the 37 Lower House LDP members who had voted against the bill. And Koizumi went even further instructing the party leadership to field LDP candidates against all dissenters. Subsequently, Koizumis political gamble paid off with LDP capturing 296 seats in the 480 member Lower House.  ( HYPERLINK httpwww.moneyandpolitics.net httpwww.moneyandpolitics.net)

When his government resubmitted the postal bill it was swiftly passed and, as he set out to cleanse the party, the LDP expelled the former agriculture minister Hosei Norata and told 27 others, including the former telecommunications minister, Seiko Noda, to leave the party because he had voted against the postal bill in the Diet. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.moneandpolitics.net httpwww.moneyandpolitics.net)

The measure of the maturity of democracy in any democratic state is gauged by the practice of the same within the political parties in that very state. Its arguably true that a party that cannot practice democracy in its internal operations can hardly be trusted to do the same on a national level. Party democracy is one of the salient features of a true political party because it is from that level that democratic ideals are exhibited when the party competes at the national level.

Election Campaigns
Blechinger (2000, p 5) argues that the key function of political parties in modern democracies include the mobilization of voters in support of political agendas the selection of candidates for public office and the organization of election campaigns. In order for a party to win a majority of seats and therefore have control of the government, it must with other parties for votes.  Until the mid 90s LDP had a monopoly in Japans politics, wining a succession of elections against small parties which were evidently disadvantaged by the conglomerate that was LDP. This invariably made the Japan elections to be a contest between small parties against a coalition, with the LDP emerging the victor time after time.

However, apart from the advantage of the numbers of parties it had within its umbrella, the LDP could not have won those elections without also having another advantage of funding over their rivals.  This question of campaign funding puts the LDP on the same pedestal with other model political parties in the West.  Blechinger (2000, p 5) notes that election campaigns are costly. Both parties and candidates need money to print posters, brochures and leaflets, or to pay TV and radio advertisements in order to make their message known to voters. They also have to pay staffers and equipment to organize and run campaigns and to finance campaign-related travels of candidates and party leaders.

Therefore, campaign finance is an important issue in political competition and, in their struggle to win, parties and individual candidates often try to outspend each other, and under financial pressure, both candidates and party leaders might be willing to accept payoffs or illegal donations offered by wealthy donors in exchange for promises of future favors. In developed and developing countries alike, politicians are therefore tempted to spend as much money as possible on their campaigns, often in excess of official campaign spending limits. Blechinger (2000, p 5)

 In Japan, for example, election laws prescribe a limit for the amount of money candidates can spend during the campaign period. The spending limit depends on the number of registered votes per seat and the total voter population of the electoral district. In the 1980s and early 1990s, candidates of the long-term ruling Liberal Democratic Party exceeded the legal limit by at least six times and as much as thirteen times. Most of these funds come from corporate donations.  Blechinger (2000, p 5)

The tactics used by LDP during election campaigns is another feature that makes the party compare with other model political parties in the Western democracies. When surveys showed that the Democratic Party of Japan was leading in the run-up to the 2009 August election, the LDP adopted negative campaign in an attempt to win back the conservative voters.

In one example, the then ruling party ran an animated cartoon on its website portraying Democratic leader Yukio Hatoyama as a smooth-talking suitor wooing a woman with fuzzy promises. Over a candlelit dinner, a wavy-haired man resembling opposition Hatoyama offers the woman a life without worry about costs for child care, highway tolls and post-retirement nursing services. The LDP had imported this trick from the partys in Western democracies, which they use to discourage voters against voting their rivals. In Japan, this was a totally novel phenomenon. China Daily (2009, p 11)

Having taken all that into consideration it is safe to conclude that the Liberal Democratic Party has got both the futures of a model party and in other instances it fails to fit into that description. While the structure of LDP and its attendant lack of a definite ideological pursuit demeans it its place among other known political parties the manner in which the LDP runs its affairs,  for instance the passing its policies and conducting election campaigns is quite similar to the way other model political parties carrying out their business.

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) heard the case of Herring v. United States in 2009.  The background of the case is as follows.  On July 7, 2004, Bennie Dean Herring was arrested for a failure to appear (FTA) warrant from a neighboring county.  Earlier that day, Investigator Anderson heard that Herring had gone to the impound lot to get some of his personal effects from his truck.  Anderson had the county warrant clerk run Herrings name to see if there were any outstanding warrants.  No warrants were returned.  On a hunch, he asked the clerk to contact the neighboring county and run Herrings name for any outstanding warrants.  One warrant was returned on a felony FTA.  Anderson asked to have the warrant faxed over right away.  Anderson then left and took a deputy with him.  Anderson pulled Herring over, arrested him, and searched him.  Anderson found a gun and drugs on Herrings person.  At all this was taking place, the neighboring countys clerk had called the local county clerk to inform her that the warrant had been pulled five months earlier and was no longer valid.  The local clerk called Anderson and informed him of the news, but it was too late.  The warrant had already been executed.
   
Herring was indicted for gun possession and drug violations.  He moved to have the evidence suppressed, but the motion was denied.  The matter was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court and that court affirmed the decision of the lower court.  Herring appealed to the United States Supreme Court (USSC). The USSC was left with the decision of whether or not the exclusionary ruled was applicable to this particular case.
   
The majority of the USSC ruled to affirm the decision of the lower court.  The majority ruled that the exclusionary rule was not applicable in this case, but that there was a direct violation of
Herrings Fourth Amendment rights.  The majority also ruled that the use of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct and to save money.
   
Justice Ginsburg dissented that the failure to bring records up to date was negligent on the part of the clerk.  He also stated that the arrest did violate Herrings Fourth Amendment rights.  Ginsburg did not agree with the majority to affirm the ruling of the lower court.  Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent that he agreed with the opinion and dissent of Ginsburg (United States Supreme Court, 2009).  He affirmed that the exclusionary rule was meant to deter police misconduct, and stated further that there was no evidence to prove that the clerks actions were intentional for not updating the warrant database.
   
The USSC made the right decision.  Yes, there absolutely was a violation of Herrings Fourth Amendment rights under the US Constitution, but the exclusionary rule does not apply.  The officers were acting in good faith, although Andersons conduct is questionable.  Andersons actions towards Herring seemed to be overbearing, obsessive, and aggressive.  He had no reason to run a warrant check on Herring other than he held a personal grudge against him for spreading a rumor.  Officers of the law are sworn by an oath to serve and protect the community, not to harass and abuse its citizens    
Government searches cross the line when they are able to ascertain what or who is in our homes without our knowing.  They cross the lines when they listen in on our telephone conversations without our knowing.  Unless they have a warrant to do so, they should be prohibited from violating the rights of US citizens in such a gross fashion.  The government is turning into a dictatorship.  There is too much censorship and provisionary rules that all contradict themselves.  The government is turning socialist, and in a matter of a few years it will be a communist rule.  Just wait and see.

The 21st Century is a duration that is faced with an increasing desire to have new and renewable energy sources all over the world.  This is due to the increase in global economic and technological development.  The main problem at hand is how to obtain cheap energy sources that are easy to replenish, easy to use, that are locally available at the different regions, that which can ensure national and international security in terms of global fuel crises resolution and the environmental concerns that are now a main concern.
 
Following this kind of desire, there are options that are under exploration beside the commonly used petroleum fuels, forest energy sources is more emphasis on the safe generation and use of nuclear energy with global environmental degradation prevention in the minds of the researchers. Several global and national agreements have been on going in response to the power needs. The Indo-U.S agreement is an example of such. The Indo- US nuclear agreement is a deal that involves that agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of India which gives an accord toward the management and the reduction of nuclear weapon use aimed at the development of global security, the promotion of peace in the region.  They agreed to disconnect the civil and military conflicts through the facilitation of the IAEA agreement of July 18th, 2005. The agreement was signed between the former president George Bush of the United States of America and Singh, the prime minister of the republic of India.  The declaration took about three years to become effective as from 8th October, 2008.  The declaration has made India well known for its synthesis of nuclear weapons that is non partisan to the non proliferation treaty (NPT) and legally accepted to practice nuclear weapon trade with the world round.

The 123 agreement had clearly stated that the corporation was only between India and U.S. That is, the only two countries only which are in possession of advanced nuclear technology where each of the parties enjoy similar advantages and benefits, and that both are devoted to the deterrence of WMD proliferation.  The second section of the commitment clauses stated that the affirmation of the two states to uphold to the IAEA objectives as well as its safeguards mechanisms as stipulated in the U.S and India, plus the protection of international corporation interest to deterring the proliferation of nuclear explosives and weapon with the aim of safe use of nuclear energy ensuring peaceful deals ass defined within the agreement.  The third declaration under the agreement is that the two States would be heedful of collective commitment to avert the production of mass destruction armaments. One major mistake made while designing and drafting the 123 agreement was that there was no definition of the term proliferation in the context of the agreement thus provoking constant disapproval of the agreement which would otherwise have been acceptable not only to the region but also to world round.

A series of debates and confrontation took place before the signing of the treaty by the U.S. president. It involved thorough consultations and legal proceedings that gave reasons as to why the nation would be allowed to deal with the nuclear power weapons.  Disputes against it were common because it was felt that regional peace and security would be compromised. Immediately after this treaty was signed France found its way to gain access to the Indian trade agreement.  Although the Indo-U.S agreement was met with frustrations and indifferences by various political parties in the India, it was supported by the bureaucrats, scientists and number of scholars who wrote letters of acceptance to the parliament in support. Despite the opposition, the Indian parliament kept to its agreement but promise to guard the national and regional peace and security.  The U.S also declared that it was not their heartfelt intention to finance of support the republic of India in the design of any nuclear weapons.  It was further agreed that if the Republic of India tested their weapons without care, the treaty world be broken and they would be responsible for the damages.

In his speech the Prime Minister, Singh assured the world that with the common goal of deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapon, the union agreement was geared towards the universal disarmament and that they would not encourage proliferation of any kind.  He assured the world of security since he stated that there would be the formation of the India EU security Dialogue forum that will carry out consisted discussions and consultations the safeguard regional peace as well as global peace encouraging disarmament and non proliferation policies within the corporation.

It was firmly believed that India would compromise her stand in ensuring her own security for fuel requirements and would lead to increased dependency on the U.S thus they would only be manipulated by the U.S. the communist communities were all against the signing of the agreement for fear of their regional security.  Many organizations felt that the allowance of India to the exploitation of nuclear power would impact negatively in that it would encourage India to embark on the generation of more bombs rather than other production processes they had worked on before. This was said to be triggered by other nations in the region who were most likely to place more orders for the nuclear weapons from India.  This would endanger regional peace to a great extend.  Experts felt that even though the agreement with the U.S did not allow India to exploit the nuclear power for domestic weapon generation, India is likely to be forced to import nuclear fuel form other states and use it for the generation of their domestic weapon leading to more destruction of regional peace.  It was further argued that India could not be fully inspected to measure the standards by which they was using the nuclear energy for thus at any given moment they would not own up to regional security although they had initially stated that  until 1974 they had used the energy for civilian energy programs.

It was further argued that despite the signing of the agreement, there were unnecessary flaws that resulted form the rushing of the program initiations and discussions had a lot of omissions that provided for an increase in proliferation.  Since there was no enough preparation time, for experts to review the agreement then it would negatively impact regional security.  This suggested that there was need for a more critical review of the agreement before its implementation.

Another shortcoming to these agreement is when it is not clearly defined to what extend India should exploit the nuclear energy.  It was questionable that India shall not regulate their nuclear energy exploitation while all super power States like the U.S, Russia, Britain, and France were already limiting their generation in order to comply to the global policy on non proliferation of nuclear power equipment.  Furthermore the number of weapons that were to be produced by India was not to be restricted something that posed more danger to the global and regional peace and security.   The agreement was not only going to endanger regional security but more specifically the state of security in the U.S was more at risk.

The global concern on environmental conservation and energy crises as well as the urgent need for extra energy supply towards the industrialization and fast growing economies in the world round led to meet and deliberate on the nuclear energy and threaten associated to nuclear proliferation.
More threats to the global energy crises and proliferation of nuclear power is attributed to the implications that North Korea and China are more than willing in the proliferation of missiles and their components than the developing countries.  This raises concern to the US and other developed nations on their safety in the near future.  Iran and Pakistan are also allegedly suspected of using the proliferated nuclear weapons. Beijing has been suspected of assisting in the design of Iranians missiles that can penetrate war ships of various categories.  

Argentina and Brazil are also strongly declining to be registered or support the formation of the nuclear free zones.  The Germany in reported as rather undecided in joining this kind of forums at whatever cost despite the pressurized persuasion from the UN, GNEP and other organizations concerned with global environmental degradation from nuclear effect and related war like situations.  Canada and Australia already joined hands in the fight against nuclear proliferation after a pressurizing debate and negotiations were posed to them frequently. The Asian continent has currently a number of nations that have signed towards the non-nuclear proliferation treaty called Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (CANWFZ) which was ratified in December 2008 and enforced in 2009 March.  Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajik, and the Uzbekistan are the five leading nations of central Asia that have signed to the treaty of the free nuclear weapon zone since its campaigns in 2006 to date.  The presidents have signed the declaration statements towards the agreement and express interest in the freedom of such weapons because they feel that this could promote world peace if not the regional peace that is being campaigned for.

The Caribbean State, the Latin America, the South Pacific and the South East Asia are also other examples of nations that are in support of the nuclear proliferation free zones.  Efforts are now directed towards the African continent.  This will raise the assurance of progressive development towards a nuclear weapon free world although more fight is required to mobilize those rivaling nations to regard the efforts of ratification a nuclear free zone.  The attempt by the central Asia nations to sign the free zone creation is important although it threatens the peace of those nations since they are surrounded by the warring nations who are fully committed to the proliferation of the nuclear weapons. Central Asia is surrounded by Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and Chinese that are well formed nuclear weapon zones as well as the military bases of the U.S.
 
It is rather contradicting that the Central Asia region has signed the current agreement on the nonproliferation zone. Contradiction arises when theoretically its former agreements face a breach because the nations had earlier agreed with the Russian that they would be supplying weapons and nuclear equipment to the region.  The contradiction provokes a state of unrest within the region although the UN assures the region of protection through negotiations and further resignation assistance towards the former agreements. Central Asia is further criticized for not being cautious over the modest of signing into these treaties that compromise individual national security and economic development within the region. It is feared that regional security is compromised in such attempt of proliferation of the nuclear weapons by the implicated nations.  This is a threat that impacts negatively on the control of arms and defense activity.  This leads to the development of imbalance and instability among the regional military thus the concerned security bodies are found to be fully suspicious of any conflict hence rival-like atmosphere is generated.

For instance, all are witnesses to the Pakistan- Indian missile race ravage as if the activity is capable of compromising and contracting the management of crisis, in case there was growing conflict.  Good examples are the Kasmir and Kargil which are two well known nations that have carried test on their missiles and are said to progress in the induction of nuclear warheads to their menacing systems of weapon set.   In the real sense, the situation is compromising the regional security and is a matter of concern to the world at large.  Moreover, the proliferation of missiles creates a spirit of competition on arms and the deliberate attacks of nations to others just to test their powerfully believed weapons.  Some examples of tension created environment is in the Japans reaction towards the launch of missiles by the North Korea in 1998. This provoked the lack of financial release by the Japan government.   More threats to Japan forced the signing of a joined agreement with the US towards the funding of TMD theatre missile defense system, in 2002, which Japan was reluctant to signing at first.  The truth is that a frustrating environment to global peace is prevailing despite other economic constrains.

Despite the frequent warnings issued over the proliferation of arms and nuclear power development, it is rather alarming that china, Beijing, and North Korea have recently bee reported to test their high power missiles of various categories and varied destructive effects.   It is speculated that chinas involvement would be the worst and could provoke regional security by far because it has signed more treaties with America and Pakistan among others.  The Indo- Pakistan agreement would be compromised as well as the Sino- America one.

Generally, the Indo-U.S treaty is currently faced by rather strong challenges than it is presupposed is.  It works at cross roads. The more challenge comes from the regions that are active in the supply of nuclear weapons like China in the NSG, nuclear supply groups which are likely to negatively and strongly object to the smooth progress of the Indo-U.S deals.  The compromising situation that faces India through the Indo-U.S agreement that pressurizes the nation to state a numerical figure of her nuclear weapon and provide a legal record to show how long the process is likely to take in the proliferation process, is likely to challenge the congress a great deal resulting in failure to achieve the desired effects towards a nuclear free nation. Finally, the agreement forced India to become a signatory of the IAEA safeguards to nuclear power generation and nonproliferation policy (February 2008). It was also agreed that the nuclear supply groups were mandated to regulate the nuclear technology spread.  There was also the need for regulation of nuclear trade material by the congress in the U.S. passed under the U.S Atomic Energy Act.  

Perhaps Federalist No.10 is the most important political document of the 18th century primarily because it attempts to define the power relations between the majority and the minority. No.10 addresses the question of how to guard against factions in the state. A faction is a group of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of other individuals or the interests of the state. Madison argued that a strong, well founded republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics. As Madison argued

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it (Federalist No. 10).

To factions, liberty is the source of political action. It is the ingredient which cures the cure rather than the disease. Factions use liberty as an excuse for their conduct  for their perverted political views. In a democracy, according to Madison, liberty functions as the breathe of law. If liberty is misused, then it becomes the seed of destruction (of the state).

Now, it is impossible and unwise to truly abolish factions within the state. As long as man continues to be fallible, as Madison noted, he is always at liberty to exercise it. Madison continued

As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties (Federalist No. 10).

The best solution is to minimize the creation of factions within the state by promoting pluralism. Interests though would continue to be differentiated.

There are differences between a democracy and a republic. First, the delegation of power in republics is both direct and immediate. Second, more people are subjected to political authority under a republic than under a democracy. The second difference is significant because in a republic, the state can control the appetites of its citizens at a larger scale. In short, it can minimize the creation of factions.

Do various states partner more frequently with the stronger or the weaker states during a clash Generally in the phraseology of international relation theories many states have the likelihood of balancing alongside or bandwagoning with a growing state to form an alliance. The response to this issue is crucial to the restructuring of grand alliance and the redefining of fundamental policy interests. If the various states defy the achievements of their neighboring states by combining efforts to level out the balancing among them, then invasion does not really pay and interferences to secure far-flung obligations are not only superfluous, but frequently unproductive in making weak states to come together against the interfering superpower and its responsibility. Contrary, if states settle to growing power, subsequently bandwagons will spin dominoes will literary collapse, and superpowers will see it intelligent, even if the decision will cost treasure and blood, to defend local areas of minute or no inherent worth to their state interests.

In this study, I will put efforts to critique the books notion and dimensions which have erroneously taken in the assumption that balancing and bandwagoning are just but conflicting behaviors provoked by the same ambition to realize higher and elaborate security mechanism. Accordingly, the notion of bandwagoning has been severally defined shallowly-as compliance to threats-as if it was just the reverse of balancing of power. In reality, on the other hand, various states have different motives when choosing either balancing or bandwagoning. The objective of balancing is mainly self-defense and the guard of ideas already realized In contrast, the purpose of bandwagoning is typically self-extension simply to attain values desired. In simple terms, the drive in balancing is the longing to shun losses while that of bandwagoning is the prospect for achievement. The existence of a considerable external threat, is a requisite for effectual and efficient balancing, but is not so for states to begin bandwagoning.

This essay commences by demarcation of the various positions in the debate of bandwagoning versus balancing. After which, I present a critique of balance-of-threat theory that is mainly on Walts view on bandwagoning and the restraints of this theory as a definition of coalitions. Next, I scrutinize the consistence and whether Walts empirical evidence is strong enough to sustain his way of thinking. Finally, I propose an alternative school of thought on police restructuring.

Summary
Balance of threat theory is a key leader in international relations realist (neo) theory. Basically, it restates that states balance alongside the rise of power because it develops an imperative predicament for their safety. Given that states exist in anarchical world they ought to balance against the growing state(s). It is in this line that Walts in his book, The Origins of Alliances argues against this theory (Walt, p.14). Walt criticizes the theory of balancing power by disputing that states not only balances against apparent powers but also against threats. He measures the theory relative to the alliances which took place between 1995 and 1979 in Middle East. In his argument he considers eight six different multilateral and bilateral alliances. He also takes into account another eighty six decisions of national interest. It is after keen look at the structures of these alliances that he asserts that balancing of threat thesis gives much better grip on alliance creation than variables of foreign aid, ideology, and political penetration. However, he holds that offensive capabilities, geographic proximity, and perceived intentions are also significant building blocks in political alliances (Walt, p.30-36).

Walt also says that cumulative power which consist of population, military and individual capabilities, geographic proximity, offensive power, technical prowess, and collective intentions all do have influence on the threat level. In addition, he says that balancing is more familiar than bandwagon behavior in relation to the alliances in the Middle East in the period mentioned above. He also says that there is a high probability of bandwagon from weak states than from strong states at the expense of balancing against emanating powers. Generally, Walts book on The Origins of Alliances is a significant study in illustrating the role played by perceptions in political alliances. It also plays a vital role in basic international relations and more so when power structures and material capabilities are to be considered (Walt, p.42).

In this book Walt views the balance of threat theory as a product of balance of power theory with the intention of explaining alliances between various states. States do form partnership not only to balance threats but also power. Though the allotment of power is an enormously essential aspect, the intensity of threat may also be influenced by unpleasant capability, geographic closeness, and hostile aims and or objectives. Therefore the other states power can either be an asset or liability though this depends more on the relative location, the states ability and most important how the power is used (Walt, p.47).

Walt proposes two ways of responding to threats. First, through balancing, in which states join efforts and act as one in dealing with the prevailing threat and second through bandwagoning or forming collaboration with states from which the danger is originating. According to Walt, balancing is more preferred by strong states than in states which are considerably weak. After performing a survey on political history of the Middle East as from the year 1955 to 1979, he discovered that the rule of balancing is commonly employed compared to bandwagoning (Walt, p.49).. He also observed from the survey that in the instances in which bandwagoning happened, only weaker states were involved.

Walt attributes this to the fact that these states are more susceptible to pressure and also due to the resources in these states which in most cases are insignificant the latter usually happens when ally states are not available and also in a situation where the political leaders have a believe that they can successfully appease threatening states. As well, Walt summarizes that similarities in ideas and state-sponsored machineries of escalating alliance dedication, like foreign military and economic assistance, are in many a time inferior to state security in forming of these alliances (Walt, p.50).

According to Walt, various origins of threat may assist in explaining why United States and other superpowers are not for regional alliances the superpowers are instead possible allies due to the truth that there are security threats from other states (Walt, p.52). To differentiate the various forms of alliances, Walt uses Israel and Egypt to answer the question why Israel and Egypt have often been the targets of alliance balancing (p.250). He says it is because they are extremely powerful regional giants. Walt says that they also have all-embracing enormous power support and enjoy substantial offensive capabilities. Both Israel and Egypt have been alleged as looking for ways of expanding at the expense of states (Walt, p.253)

Whether states bandwagon or go for balance of alliances to face threat  and whether policy and ideology machineries can influence coalition preferences  is vital since it resolves whether states are in general protected or not. In a situation where balancing is often frequent than bandwagoning, the states are viewed to be more safe, since the prevailing threat will definitely face a collective opposition. On the other hand, if bandwagoning is more widespread, the states tend to be more insecure, since opponents will catch the attention of more allies and this increases their authority while tumbling that of their aggressors (Walt, p.25). Walt views this disparity as central in the evaluation of the hopes for continued United States security during and after the Cold War (Walt, p.32). Below is a summary of the theory and its central arguments.

Hypotheses on Balancing and Bandwagoning
Hypothesis on Balancing
In general, the states encountering an external threat will often join with other states to resist the states bringing the threat. The greater the aggressive states combined power, the greater the propensity for other states to line up against it (Walt, p.35). The closer an authoritative state is, the larger the affinity for those in close proximity to ally against it. Therefore, close states are rarely likely to be friends than states which are divided by not less than one other authoritative state. The greater the violent states combined power, the greater the inclination for other states to array against it. As a result, states with abusively oriented military abilities have high probability of provoking other states to build up defensive alliances. The more violent a states professed aims, the more probable that other states are to line up against that specific state. Alliances developed during times of war will split up when the enemy is conquered.

Hypothesis on Bandwagoning
The General form of bandwagoning is that states encountering an externally imposed threat will tend to form coalition with the primary threatening authority. The larger a states combined abilities, the bigger the propensity for other states to line up with it. The closer a powerful state is geographically, the higher the likelihood for those in close proximity to line up with it. The larger a states combined abilities, the bigger the propensity for other states to line up with it. The more violent a states apparent aims, the lower the probability that the other states are to line up against it. Coalitions developed to go up against a certain threat will fall apart if the threat tends to become unmanageable.
Hypotheses on Conditions Favoring Balancing over Bandwagoning
The conditions in favor of balancing than bandwagoning include
Balancing idea is more widespread compared to bandwagoning.

The more authoritative the state is, the larger its likelihood to balance. Conversely, weak states will tend to balance against states of the same status. However may resolve to bandwagon if threatened by states of great authority.

The larger the likelihood of coalition support, the larger the likelihood to balance, if sufficient allied shore up is sure, but, the propensity for buck-passing or joy-riding raises.

The more obstinately violent a state is professed to be, the higher the likelihood for other states to balance in opposition to it.

In times of war, the nearer one side is to conquest, the greater the propensity for other states to bandwagon with that state

Hypotheses on Ideology and Alliance Formation
The General form according to Walt is that, the more alike the internal ideology of at least two states is, the more the likelihood that they are to combine effort. The more hierarchical and centralized a movement approved by the ideology is, the more fragile and conflictive any resultant coalition will be. Consequently, Leninist movements are likely to find steady alliances harder to uphold compared to either democracies or monarchies. The more safe a state sees itself to be, the bigger the influence of ideologies on coalition choices (Walt, p.37).

 As a result, alignments of ideologies are more probable in a bipolar world and so, the larger the benefit to the defense in times of war, the greater the effect of the ideologies on alliance preferences. States missing domestic or internal legitimacy will have a high likelihood to seek ideological coalitions to amplify both domestic and foreign support. The effect of the ideology on the selection of coalition partners will be overstated statesmen are likely to overestimate the measure of agreement on the ideologies among their adversaries and allies (Walt, p.40).

Hypotheses on Foreign Aid and Alliance Formation
The general form according to Walt is that the more foreign aid is provided to a given state by another single state, the higher the possibility that the two states will form an alliance. The more assistance provided, the larger the control of the recipient state by the donating state. Foreign aid is a special form of balancing behavior. For that reason, the larger the peripheral threat encountering the recipient state is, the larger the outcome of assistance on alignment. Greater monopoly of the aid provided by the donor implies greater leverage over the recipient state. The higher the unevenness of reliance favoring the donor state is, the higher its leverage over the beneficiary state. The higher the unevenness of incentive in favor of the donor state is, the higher its leverage will be over the beneficiary state. Since the beneficiarys refuge is more often than not more uncertain, on the other hand, unevenness of incentive will typically be in favor of the beneficiary. Weaker apparatus of internal political decision-making of the donor state will imply it can only impose lower leverage on the beneficiary (Walt, p. 46).

Hypotheses on Penetration and Alliance Formation
According to Walt, the higher a states right of entry to the political structure of another state is, the higher the propensity for the two states to form an alliance. Penetration is more successful against societies which are more open. Penetration is also more efficient if the objects are limited. As a result, the more invasive the idea of penetration is, the higher the prospect that it will end up having a negative impact on the actual alignment. Conversely, penetration is more effectual if only the other states contribution enhance the alliance (Walt, p. 49).

Balance-of-Threat Theory and Its Critics
In Walts book on The Origins of Alliances, he presents a more refined meaning of balance-of-power theory, by introducing balance-of-threat theory. Like the theory of structural balance-of-power, Walt summarizes that various states regularly balance and seldom bandwagon contrasting them, on the other hand, he claims that various nations do not line up exclusively or even mostly when responding to the allocation of abilities. Alliance of States selections are instead driven, Walt also has the claim that, by disparity of threat, when a single state or alliance is chiefly and equally dangerous (Walt, p.12).The intensity of threat that a given state is able to issue to other states is as a result of its internal combined power, offensive capability, geographic proximity, and also the perceived violence of its objectives (Walt, p.50).

Walt also asserts that his theory is an improvement of the theory of balancing of power by presenting deeper and self-explanatory supremacy with identical thriftiness (Walt, p.14). Since combined power is just one of various structures composing a threat, the theory of Walts elaborates on the constituents, the creation of overlarge successful state alliances in World War I and war II, and potential of such alliances are more or less the same in power. Under such prevailing conditions a state will only alliance with the least dangerous side (Walt, p.52).

His theory is a convincing and an impressive adjustment of conventional theory of balancing power. Walt assembles on the already existing theory but in a constructive and critical manner, and he manages to present a comprehensive and persuasive set of thoughts supported by a unique survey of coalition development in numerous regional and worldwide cases. Despite the fact that the available evidence seems to support his central argument, conversely, Walts theory has not been able to escape criticism. In spite of these endeavors to disgrace the implication of alliance formation in balance-of-threat theory, he has been in a position to respond successfully for a number of reasons (Walt, p.60)...
One, Walts theory foresees nearly all the instances of bandwagoning that the reviewers attribute to internal origins. In line with the determinants of power illustrated by Walt, states with leaders who are not legitimate, government institutions which are weak and with insufficient ability to rally economic sources are feeble states that are in most cases likely to experience bandwagoning. According to Snyder (1990), states are likely to bandwagon and are not likely to balance as efficiently as the predictions presented in balance-of-threat theory, persuasively Walts manages to disprove this squabble by highlighting  that the vagueness of the intentions of Hitler preceding to Munich and the dynamic autonomous reaction after March 1939 (Snyder, 1990)

Two,  he alleges that flimsy leaders frequently bandwagon with minor adversaries to oppose their prime internal threats is steady with the overall argument of Walt that democratic balance in opposition to the major threat to secure their survival (Verosta, 1971). Three, Walt enjoys a wide chance in the argument since there is no other person who has been able to undertake an extensive survey of state alliance in the Southwest Asia and Middle East, both of which are Third World nations. This challenge, alleges his critics, is that the realist theory is not in a position to elaborate and is somehow silent in relation to Third World coalitions. As for resource-provision role of coalitions aroused by Barnett and Levy, he in fact tries the suggestion that nations select coalition associates in so as to acquire side gains of material things, for example economic or even military donation and finds insufficient back up for it. Lastly, the critics have not been able to present an alternative theory to dispute theory of balancing-of-threat. As a result Walts theory holds up comparatively well as a way of explaining choices of coalitions (Fedder, 1968).

In conclusion, the balance of threat theory gives an outstanding clarification for the prior theory of balancing of power in democratic world. Walt has managed to win the debate since his critics, except Barnett and Levy, have long sided up with his idea that choices of alliance are best illustrated as a way of responding to threat, despite the fact that some have extrapolated the center of attention to comprise of both internally and externally emanating forms of threats (Levy, 1991). Accordingly, the internal critics have not been able to question Walts way of definition of bandwagoning as surrendering to the most damaging threat.

In the United States as in most of the other countries, policy-making is largely a political process whose output takes the shape of orders, agreements, laws, or Supreme Court decisions.  It is therefore worthy noting that a policy is not necessarily a law. The process of policy-making brings together the contributions of politicians, pressure or interest groups, and the media.

The formation of public policy and the identification of problems is not necessarily the responsibility of any one institution. Individuals or institutions (interest groups, the media, and political parties) are expected to identify problems affecting their members and bring them up for policy discussion in order to develop solutions. For instance, labor unions push for higher minimum wages and better employment terms if members of such unions complain of poor terms. It is common for groups to bring together experts and leaders to identify and discuss problems to explore the different policy solutions available for the identified problems. The media plays the important roles of scrutinizing existing public policy, identifying problems with the policy, informing and educating the public on the problems and influencing the policy-makers and the policy-making process (Barker, 2005).

Just like problem identification, the process of determining solutions to existing problems is the responsibility of all parties involved in policy-making. Labor unions are most likely to have more information on labor terms and relations, while other interest groups are most competent on policy matters pertaining to their chief interest (PTA, 2009 U.S. Department of State, 2008). The different groups therefore need to come together and discuss problems and pertinent issues in order to develop solutions in participatory policy-making processes. Although one group may be more competent on the issue under discussion, no one group should be allowed to dominate the public policy-making process as such may lead to the formulation of policies which favor one or a few groups, while hurting others, thereby creating another problem.

On March of 1992, Alfonso Lopez, a 12th grade student from Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas was charged with the violation of the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1900 upon admitting to have carried a loaded .38 caliber revolver within the school zone.

The District Court found him guilty of the charge and dismissed Lopezs argument that the Congress has no power in his case wherein they cited that the Congress is responsible for regulating activities that may affect commercial areas or the commerce itself (i.e., Lopezs possession of a gun). However, the case was moved to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and later on, the decision was reversed in favor of Lopez (Cornell University Law School, 2005).

The significance of this case lies not on the possession of a gun within a school zone but rather on the power and jurisdiction of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. If asked whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act that forbids citizen from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone is unconstitutional because it is beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the answer is yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity (United States v. Lopez, 1995).

If the use of Commerce Clause in favor of the Congress is to be allowed to win the case of Lopez, it will imply that the Congress will have the power for every crime or for every possible crime. Take for example the carrying of guns due to its impact to the local area or local commerce. Following this, the policing power of different agencies therefore should be nationalized since all crimes have a possible economic impact. This will negate the power of local governments in their areas of jurisdictions.