A Cogent Government

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.

In this passage, Madison advocates for a division of power within the federal government.  He believes there should be varying departments which specialize in different principles that the government, with sagacity, exists to uphold and preserve.  The division of different branches works in the American government because it provides the famous system of “checks and balances” which ensures that no branch has supreme or overarching power.  Madison acknowledges that the system cannot be seamless because it would require that no branch has communication with another, but believes that the main focus is to guarantee that the authority still remains with the people.  In today's government we employ a similar system and vote on some members of each department to protect the authority of the people.  When Madison writes, “each department should have a will of its own,” he is essentially saying that each department or branch of government should be able to make its own decisions without the influence from auxiliary sources.  Madison goes on to say that in order to enforce this, the members of the department should have little say in the appointment of other members; this protects a branch of government from being composed of like-minded individuals.  If a single branch has too many members who are of the same political party or believe in the same values, there would be no one to oppose their decisions; Madison suggests that there should always be different perspectives within the departments to ensure that each decision is thoroughly thought out.  

The division of power entails that each department is composed of various opinions, principles, and people which sets the foundation for a strong and pervasive government.

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

The belief that the government exists to preserve the rights of the people is directly represented by Madison in this passage.  He acknowledges the willingness of America’s population to surrender their authority to the government in order to attain order and justice and lauds the country’s willingness to work together.  When Madison states, “the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments” he expresses that there shall be no chicanery or intrusions in the transfer of power from the people to the administration of government.  It is lucid that Madison understands the reason for a government; its sole purpose is to protect the rights of citizens.  Having multiple branches of government establishes that although one branch may not be in synergy with the others, the population's rights are still safeguarded by the other branches: “a double security arises to the rights of the people.”  However, Madison also argues in other parts of his work that the distinct branches of government should be as separate as possible-how can the government work to preserve our rights if they are discouraged from working together?

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.  

Here, Madison proposes that the idea of political factions cannot be eliminated because it contradicts with the rights that the government was conceived to preserve.  That it is necessary to destroy “the liberty which is essential to its existence” in order to remove factions is impractical; why would the citizens want to abdicate their right to freedom of speech?  Madison uses this passage to show the irony that follows the removal of political factions.  When he says, “by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests” he means that in order to have just one coherent political faction it would be necessary for all citizens to hold the same values; this contradicts with the idea that the government needs different perspectives in order to perform effectively.  Undoubtedly Madison uses these examples to show how implausible it would be to have no political factions.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

The idea of factions comes from the gathering of like-minded individuals who share the same goals and desires.  In order for the government to appease citizens, it has to understand what each faction wants; a problem that arises in this mentality is that sometimes factions have opposing viewpoints and it is impossible to please them both.  This “animosity” restricts them from co-operating “for their common good.”  Madison, however, regards factions as barriers, limiting citizens from realizing what they need and working together; I believe that political factions are essential voicing different opinions.  The system works well because the final say is decided by the government who has heard and acknowledged multiple sides of an argument; although one faction may not be happy, the government focuses on what is beneficial for its citizens.