The primary differences between the roles citizens play in government as it pertains to the federal, confederations and unitary systems are that although in all they can vote it is the choices that they are given to vote for. The choices they are given to vote for and the level of influence they have in governance vary. In federal systems, citizens engage at multiple levels of government, in confederations, they mostly engage with their regional governments, and in unitary systems, their involvement is often concentrated at the national level with limited local autonomy.
The division of power, as I understand it, is designed to ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful, and that each branch has the ability to check and balance the others. The system is based on the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches should have separate powers and responsibilities, but also that they must work together in a way that prevents any one branch from gaining total control.
In a well-functioning system of checks and balances, each branch has the ability to limit the powers of the others. For example, while the legislative branch (Congress) makes laws, the executive branch (the President) can veto those laws. At the same time, the judicial branch (the courts) can review laws and executive actions to ensure they are constitutional. This creates a system where power is shared and monitored, ensuring that no one branch dominates the government.
The purpose of this division is to protect democratic principles, as the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution intended. They wanted to avoid the rise of a tyrant or “king” by making sure that power was not concentrated in the hands of one person or group. Instead, the branches are meant to collaborate and act as checks on one another, ensuring a balance of power that preserves individual freedoms and upholds the rule of law.
The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments through what some view as bullying tactics. When states’ policies don’t align with those of the executive branch, the President may pressure the legislative branch to delay or deny funding. Examples include withholding fire aid from California and threatening Columbia University’s funding in NY over handling of protests. Recently, funding has been threatened regarding transgender athletes in sports. With Governor Hochul, federal intervention halted congestion pricing plans. Many observe that conservative-leaning states receive preferential treatment from the conservative Supreme Court on issues like gerrymandering, while similar requests from blue or purple states face delays.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, this dynamic was clearly visible. Federal executive orders created frameworks that New York had to operate within, including travel restrictions, emergency declarations, and healthcare mandates that significantly affected state officials’ response options. The Supreme Court and federal courts reviewed and sometimes overturned state-level COVID policies, including New York’s restrictions on religious gatherings, demonstrating another way federal authority can override state decisions. These judicial interventions highlighted the complex relationship between federal oversight and state autonomy during public health emergencies.
