Consolidation of power is the process of dissolving or disbanding legislative, judicial, and executive bodies in order to concentrate power in one or two offices. The term “consolidation” refers to the process of integrating or merging persons or things.
Numerous historical instances exist, ranging from monarchy to elected governments to individual dictatorships. Typically, when we think of hostile regimes, we believe that power was gained violently or by sheer force. However, steady consolidation of power has resulted in some of the most cruel dictatorships in history, from Nazi Germany to the Khmer Rouge.
Dictators gain power with the power of elites who are also capable of deposing them. If autocrats successfully traverse this vital phase, they increase their chances of remaining in power in the long run. Nonetheless, their continued tenure in government does not indicate how they have survived. Sustaining power requires two separate configurations. In one, power is distributed evenly between the leader and the elite.
Whereas in the other, leaders can marginalize their supporting elites, allowing them to centralise power. To ascertain whether power is shared or concentrated, we must examine dictators’ conduct more closely: their interactions with individuals and institutions that have the potential to tip the balance of power between themselves and elites.
Consider the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia as an illustration of how power may be consolidated. It formed (not the Soviet Union, as many believe), but the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). Consolidating power is not an overnight process, but it is one that may occur behind the scenes, allowing one or two politicians to gradually gain effective control of a whole government, usually without anyone else seeing until it is too late.
While many point to that event as the beginning of Socialism and the Soviet Union, the actual consolidation and formation of the Soviet Union took DECADES as first Lenin, then Stalin, then Krushchev, then Brezhnev gradually disbanded other political organisations or shifted actual power away from them, relegating them to the status of figureheads, until eventually
Within the parliament, conflicts between parties made it hard to agree on how to consolidate power and what to do with it once it was consolidated. Despite this, Cromwell’s Protectorate was doing an admirable job of reconciling the factions, but Cromwell died before the process could be finished.
The parliament that oversaw Charles in 1649 was known as the Rump Parliament, as the majority of MPs had been’secluded’ by Pride’s Purge. The majority of MPs were conservative Presbyterians who want to strike a compromise with Charles despite his obvious ill faith. ‘Secluded’ refers to the fact that they retained their MP status but lost their right to sit and vote. The Independents and related organisations persisted, as did a minority of radical Presbyterians who joined with the Independents. The Independents were a minority in Parliament and throughout the country, but were so dedicated to the good old cause that they dominated the Army at all levels.
On the one hand, it was self-evident to everyone that the Rump was not a long-term fix. However, how is it to be replaced? At first, everyone considered a freshly elected legislature. However, any new parliament, like the old one, was almost certain to have a conservative Presbyterian majority, not least because all royalist districts, unable to return open royalists, would elect Presbyterian crypto-royalists instead, as had occurred in the numerous recruiter elections (by-elections) to replace disqualified royalist MPs since 1646.
Perhaps if he had lived a few more years, these compromises could have been developed further and given sufficient time to take effect, and the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland could have developed into a constitutional semi-monarchy, akin to the Netherlands with its somewhat king-like Stadtholders.
However, Cromwell died within a few months, no one else had the personal power or political judgement to fill his shoes, the Protectorate swiftly disintegrated, and no one had any better ideas for establishing a lasting Commonwealth. It continued to stagger along for another 18 months or more, aided by periodic interventions by successive army leaders. A conservative Presbyterian parliament, regardless of whether it reinstalled the King, would almost certainly move toward punishing the Independents, a betrayal of everything for which the Army fought.
Each of the three parts of government can constrain the authority of the others through checks and balances. This manner, no branch becomes excessively dominant. Each branch “checks” the powers of the others to ensure that power is distributed evenly among them. The primary checks that each branch possesses are given below.
By failing to pass a law that the president desires
By overriding the president’s veto of a bill
Through the use of impeachment to remove the president from office
By vetoing a presidential appointment (Senate only)
By declining to approve a treaty signed by the president (Senate only)
By altering the size and scope of the subordinate courts
Through the use of impeachment to remove a judge from office
By declining to confirm a judicial nominee (Senate only)
Can exercise control over Congress by vetoing a measure that it has approved
Can rein in the federal courts through the nomination of justices
Can use veto power over Congress by declaring a legislation unlawful.
Can rein in the president by declaring his or her acts unlawful or not permitted by law
Congress wanted to enhance the government’s capacity to hunt out and prevent prospective terrorists before they started attacks on the United States. As a result, several government officials voiced worry that the security authorities would be unable to properly anticipate future threats due to a lack of legal authority.
Many of the modifications brought about by the Patriot Act were just expansions of existing government powers to monitor terrorist suspects. These enhancements were considered essential to help the authorities monitor terrorists across the globe. According to the Patriot Act, the government may now conduct roving surveillance of a person’s phone activity, which can be done anywhere. Previously, roving surveillance was only used for domestic law enforcement purposes. It’s changed. The Patriot Act gave the government the same power abroad as it had at home.
Other provisions of the act aimed to enhance the government’s ability to monitor and trace suspected terrorists who were increasingly expressing their intentions through computers and the Internet. The new legislation allows for the surveillance of both the source and destination of e-mail and Internet activities, which authorities believe would greatly assist efforts to track out terrorists.
Previously, law enforcement could only instal pen registers, which record phone numbers dialled from a suspect’s phone, and trap-and-trace devices, which track the source of incoming phone calls. The Patriot Act authorises the use of such devices to monitor a suspect’s Internet activity. It also extended government access to information from cable companies, which are rapidly offering services equivalent to those of telephone and Internet service providers, via subpoenas and search warrants.
In recent decades, the worldwide beer business has seen tremendous changes. Two significant trends are consolidation as a consequence of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the expansion of the largest businesses into new regions. While beer was formerly a very regional product, these developments have resulted in nearly half of worldwide sales being controlled by only four companies: AB InBev, SABMiller, Heineken, and Carlsberg. Notably, all four of the top-ranked firms are based in Western Europe. The major businesses’ principal products are pale lagers, with ales and a variety of other possible beer kinds produced in considerably lesser numbers, if at all.
Numerous other sectors, notably soft drinks, have seen a few corporations attain worldwide dominance prior to the beer industry. Recent regulatory and technical advances, on the other hand, have reduced several barriers to beer businesses consolidating and expanding geographically. They have facilitated the expansion of the greatest corporations’ political and economic power, bringing them closer to the endgame of global monopoly.
These tendencies, however, are not inevitable; they are being resisted by the emergence of specialty brewers and their significantly more diversified variety of beer types, as well as cultural hurdles to beer branding and marketing on a worldwide scale.
I’ll tell you the solution from the Legislative Branch (it’s the branch that I’ve studied the most).
|No.||How they solidify their positions|
|1)||Be receptive to your constituents’ concerns. This is critical. Any issue, any issue, if your office assists them, it is a future vote. This should be the cornerstone of every political office, yet in the Senate (for California Senators), Feinstein’s office was always responsive (which explains why the State GOP never fielded a strong candidate against her), whereas Boxer’s office was indifferent.|
|2)||Collaborate effectively with your coworkers. Within the party, they have your back. Stand out for your community’s concerns; be firm in your convictions but engage with your leadership to explain why you cannot vote with them on an issue; and speak up for your teammates. What goes around returns to the source.|
|3)||Interact positively with the opposing team. (In this case, there will be just one branch) Some members of your state will be from the other party and will collaborate on statewide problems. As long as you maintain your local concerns and ideas, you may garner some more votes from other quarters while forming alliances. Never disregard another person’s position on an issue (This should be a Quora thing too, but nevermind). Don’t point the finger at a television station, a lobbying group, or anybody else. Individuals deal with their problems in their own way. That is obscured by the din (here on Quora as well).|
|4)||Assist your district, city, state, country, and constituents. This is the way former Speaker Tip O’Neill phrased it in his book “All politics is Local.” It worked for him. Now begins the re-election campaign. With everyone praising you, the journey back to your workplace is effortless. Then you continue to do these things as your position of power increases. (And never cease to perform them).|
Ancient empires such as Rome rose to power through armed conquest. Their military was often more sophisticated and disciplined than the others, which enabled them to defeat rivals and empires. They established power by enforcing their rules and taxing conquered peoples.
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Democratic consolidation is the process by which a newly established democracy matures to the point where it is unlikely to revert to authoritarianism in the absence of an external shock and is recognised as the only viable form of governance within a country.
A merger occurs when two or more businesses come together and combine their efforts, with the acquiring firm remaining the current entity. Consolidation, on the other hand, occurs when many businesses join together and form a single new endeavour.
The general norm mandates consolidation of financial accounts when one firm owns a majority of the voting power in a corporation – that is, when it owns more than 50% of the voting shares.
Syria, Somalia, Myanmar, Chad, Iraq, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sudan, and South Sudan are just a few examples. Predation by the state (corrupt or crony corralling of resources at the expense of other groups).
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Democratic consolidation is the process by which a newly established democracy matures to the point where it is unlikely to revert to authoritarianism in the absence of an external shock and is considered as the only viable form of government within a country.
Consolidation of Democracy. the process through which democratic values, practices, and ideas become institutionalized across all political actors: democracy becomes the “only game in town.”
Substantive democracy is a type of democracy in which election results are representational of the electorate. A substantive democracy is the polar opposite of a procedural democracy, which exists but is not administered democratically.
Liberal democracy places a premium on power separation, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative parts of government. Legitimate government authority can be exercised only in line with written, publicly acknowledged laws that are adopted and implemented in compliance with established procedures.
Procedural democracy is a word that refers to the specific mechanisms, such as regular universal suffrage elections, that result in an electorally legitimated administration.
The majority of nations in Latin America and Southern Europe have made the transition from authoritarianism to consolidation of power during the previous decade, paving the path for the development of a peaceful civil society and efficient liberal institutions. Scholars and democratic leaders alike are interested in finding the tactics, institutions, and players that will bolster democracy and avert a return to authoritarianism.
A century has passed: the task has been completed; the society has exceeded the shell that sheltered it during its infancy. America in the modern era, like England, is controlled by a consolidation of power that adapts discreetly to the changing desires of the populace. Even if it were desirable, it would be difficult to bind the country to unchanging rules more than a century old. It makes little difference whether the meaning of our magnificent charter is gradually eroded away through the cleverness of lawyers or is violently snatched away: its fate is sealed; it must yield where it disrupts.