Madisons Dilemma is a very complex and controversial topic among American

politics. At the basic level it is the struggle to find a good balance between freedoms for
individual citizens, while also trying to do what is best for the state itself. This issue
directly impacts the core of what makes the United States, the United States. On one hand
the U.S. holds individual liberties and freedoms as unalienable rights for everyone. But
when a government allows its citizens to pursue their own desires, one can only assume
that citizens will choose lives, public policies, careers, etc. that benefits them selves most
or satisfy their personal priorities. For example, people who care about the environment
will pursue policies that help the environment, sometimes ignoring the affects it would
have on the economy or how it would restrict peoples activities. The same can be said on
the other side. Large companies that only are concerned with making money and
reducing costs will more often than not ignore environmental protections. This problem is
addresses in authoritarian regimes in which citizens are not involved in the political
process and varying degrees of their daily lives are controlled for them. Benefits of
countries like this is that with little to no opposition, legislation is passed rather easily and
as long as the country is stable, things run rather smoothly. Trying to find a middle
ground between the two opposites in which a country can operate smoothly, without
impeding on its citizens freedoms, is something that is very difficult to achieve.
In order to address this dilemma, countries have options while forming their
constitution that affect the levels of government control and how their system operates.
One choice to decide between in weather of not a country will have a unitarism or
federalism state. The definition of unitarism from the textbook by David J Samuels is that
The constitution grants the central government exclusive and final authority over
policymaking across the entire national territory(Samuels 67). Under this kind of
constitution, local governments have no power to make policies, and everything is in the
hands of the politician or party that is in power. On the other hand, a federalist state is
described as the constitution grants two or more governments overlapping political
authority over the same group of people and same piece of territory (Samuels 67). More
specifically the constitution grants governments at local, state/provincial level sole
control over at least a single policy area and the central government cannot veto
legislation that local or state level.
The next option while forming a government is to have either separation or
combining powers when executives and legislatures are in office. In separation of powers
the country is usually under a presidential system that employs both separation of origin
and survival. Countries with a fusion of powers are usually a parliamentary system with
neither separation of survival or origin. But there are hybrid forms that combine aspects
from both, that some countries choose to employ.
The next contrasting viewpoints are judicial review versus parliamentary
supremacy. Judicial review as defined by Samuels is the ability of a particular nations

high court to deny or void laws the legislature approved by declaring that they go against
the constitution. One the other hand parliamentary supremacy is a situation when a
principle states that the decisions of a judge and below the decisions of the legislative
majority.
The final of the four dilemmas is that of majoritarian or proportional electoral
systems. An electoral system is that rules by which the citizens of a state elect their
leaders. Under majority rule, according to Samuels, a candidate must obtain at least 50
percent +1 of votes in order to be considered the winner. If he or she does not there is a
second round of elections to determine a winner using the top two candidates. Rather in
countries with proportional electoral systems, legislatures seats are distributed
proportionally according to the vote each party received during the election.
In Portugal all of these dilemmas have been addressed. Portugal has a unitary
system (Samuels 68), so the central government has authority for all policymaking across
the whole country. Unitarism works well in Portugal because Portugal has a mostly
homogenous society. Meaning that there arent really regions where there are minority
groups of ethnicities, religions or languages that need special representation in the
government. Portugal also follows a Semi-Presidential Hybrid system of authority
(Samuels 71), meaning that there is some separation of powers because the people elect
their president, and also their legislatures who then elect the prime minister. The president
and prime minister then work together as the executive branch, and the parliament is the
legislative branch. Portugal also chose to have judicial review instead of parliamentary
supremacy in their government. There is a Supreme Court with thirteen justices as well as
a Constitutional Court with twelve justices who are all nominated by the president and
appointed by the assembly (CIA World Factbook). This way Portugal has a body that
overseas that the constitution is being adhered to as to further disperses political power
away from the legislative and executive branches. This then ensures a lower likelihood of
a political takeover and fair representation for minorities. The final issue Portugal has
addressed is that of majoritarian versus proportional systems for elections. When electing
representatives Portugal utilizes the proportional electoral system, so for whatever
amount of votes the particular party obtained proportionally that is how many seats are
awarded to that party. Using this system, there are more than two parties in the Assembly
of the Republic ensuring representation for multiple issues and groups.
Canada being such a large and diverse country decided it was best in order to use
the federalist system so that provinces had special representation in the government. As
noted in the Samuels textbook this kind of government set up is beneficial for Canadas
French speaking population. Having the federalist system ensures that the English
speaking majority cannot under mine the cultural heritage of the francophone provinces.
The federalist system helps to preserve Canadas diversity and spread power over such a
large landscape. In addition to federalism, Canada also has Parliamentary system of
government. This means that, according to the Samuels textbook, that the branches of

government have no separation of powers because with parliamentary systems, there is

neither separation of origin or of survival. So in the case of Canada the people choose
their legislators and they in turn choose the prime minister. This system ensures that the
country runs smoothly because the PM and most of the legislature are the same party, but
should the people elect new legislatures the PM will be replaced after a no-confidence
vote (Samuels 70). This kind of system maintains the security of the democracy by
making the PM and representatives work together in order to stay in office, but when the
people take to the polls and decide to elect new representatives the current government is
replaced with a new one, so no one party or PM can have too much power. Canada like
Portugal has a Supreme Court instead of allowing parliamentary supremacy. The
Supreme Court interprets the constitution when addressing problems of national or
provincial legislature. This ensures that political power is spread through out the
government and not concentrated too much with one person or group. It is another way to
keep the balance with Madisons dilemma. Finally, for elections of legislatures Canada
uses a plurality rule, in which The candidate who receives the largest share of the votes
in the district wins, even if that share is less than a majority of 50 percent +1 of the votes
(Samuels 80). This kind of system helps to ensure effective government by usually giving
one party majority rule over the House of Commons. This affects Madisons dilemma
promoting larger government, because one party will usually have control and there fore
be able to make changes easier, but at the cost of the country running smother.
Like Canada, Brazils cultural, and ethnic diversity requires it to have a federal
system in order to ensure that its citizens have equal representation. In the issue of
Madisons Dilemma is lowers effective government, but also spreads out power more so
it would be more difficult for one party of person to gain control. In addition to this,
Brazil uses a Presidential system, in which there is separation of origin and of survival.
This allows for less effective government because it easily can lead to a divided
government, but in terms of Madisons dilemma the people have more power because
they are choosing their representatives as well as the executive leader. Brazil like Canada
and Portugal also has judicial review that is overseen by their highest court, in this case
the Supreme Federal Court. And while this court does have its hand in limiting effective
government, in terms of Madisons Dilemma it does make lives better for its citizens by
dispersing power and keeping unconstitutional or oppressive legislation from being
enacted. Which is very important considering Brazils high level of multiculturalism and
conflicts because of it. In the final choice in Madisons Dilemma, Brazil chose to execute
its elections using the proportional method. When there is an election how many votes
received will be proportionate to the number of seats won for a party in the legislature.
This system is great for representing the great multiculturalism in Brazil and helps
Madisons Dilemma from the point of view of the citizens. It achieves this by spreading
out political power because even if there is a majority it will not be by much. Especially
since according to the CIA Factbook Brazil has 30 political parties. This system does
decrease overall effective government because we all know that separate political parties

dont get along easily, but the sacrifice is important in order to maintain the integrity of
Brazils citizens.
Finally, in my own opinion I think Portugal is the best country at addressing
Madisons Dilemma. Firstly, unitarianism is a very effective way for Portugal to run its
country because the same laws will apply throughout the state, meaning there is no
fraction within it that can cause confusion. However I do not think that unitarianism is the
best situation in every case over federalism, but rather that with the special context of
Portugal being so small and homogenous it works the best over the other two countries.
Secondly, I think that Portugals Semi-Presidential system works the best by combining
the positives from the other two countries. With Portugals system there is separation of
origin with the citizens electing their representatives and president, as well as separation
of survival, which I think provides the most flexibility for citizens to choose from. I think
this because it means that the survival of the legislatures and executives are not reliant on
one another, allowing for some diversity in the government. In addition to these
arguments Portugal also provides judicial review, which even though lowers effective
government, I think it is important that it advocates for the rights of the citizens and the
integrity of the constitution. And fourth, Portugal uses proportional elections which I
think is important to citizens because it allows for a broad political diversity, and forces
concern for more issues in the government than if there were simply two parties.
In addition to this I think Canadas government was the least adept to handle
Madisons dilemma simply because Canada uses a plurality rule system instead of
proportional system. I think that proportional systems are important for bringing more
issues into the government, and preventing phenomenon like groupthink among
representatives. It does lower government effectiveness, but I think that is an important
enough sacrifice to make.
Words: 1955

Works Cited
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2013. Print.
"The World Factbook- Brazil." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency,
n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-worldfactbook/geos/br.html>.

Bibliography
"The World Factbook-Portugal." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence
Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/theworld-factbook/geos/po.html>.
"The World Factbook- Canada." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence
Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/theworld-factbook/geos/ca.html>.
"IPU PARLINE Database: PORTUGAL (Assembleia Da Republica), General
Information." IPU PARLINE Database: PORTUGAL (Assembleia Da Republica),
General Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ipu.org/parlinee/reports/2257_A.htm>.
"IPU PARLINE Database: CANADA (House of Commons), General Information." IPU
PARLINE Database: CANADA (House of Commons), General Information. N.p., n.d.
Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2055_A.htm>.
"IPU PARLINE Database: BRAZIL (Cmara Dos Deputados), General
Information." IPU PARLINE Database: BRAZIL (Cmara Dos Deputados), General
Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ipu.org/parlinee/reports/2043_A.htm>.