PS 131: Comparative Politics Short Paper #3 – Would the United States be better off with a Prime Minister? Recent public opinion surveys suggest that only about 14% of Americans approve of the job the US Congress is doing (and this is an improvement over the single-digit approval ratings when the government shut down in the fall of 2013). Though reasons for low approval ratings are multi- faceted, much of the dissatisfaction stems from the perception that Congress cannot get anything done. Using the material from this course, develop an argument on whether or not you believe a parliamentary system, as opposed to the presidential model of the United States, might solve some of these problems, and why you believe this to be the case. Your essay should demonstrate that you understand the key differences between the two types of government systems, and can assess the pros and cons of each type of executive institutions. Essays should be roughly 500 words in length (this is about two full pages of text, double-spaced, in a standard 12 point font and regular margins). Essays should follow the general writing rubric for the class. Running head: ORAL HISTORY 1 ORAL HISTORY 2 Oral History Name: Course: Instructor: Institution: Date of Submission: The colonial Masters Colonialism took part in several parts of the world from as early as the 17th century. It involved powerful countries taking control of inferior countries. Colonization in the western world took place much earlier with countries like the USA gaining their independence in the 1700s. In the western world just like I n Africa, colonization was characterized by masters oppressing the servants who were slaves. Discrimination was also part of the ruthless governing style of the colonialists. Natives were turned into slaves to provide labor for the colonial masters and any attempts to rebel would attract severe punishment and through whipping and deprival of basic needs. The family structure of the natives in most cases especially Africa was shattered as some key members of the families especially the energetic male were confined in locations far from their homes. Education was a preserve for the colonial masters and in areas where the natives got access to education; they had their own low standard schools. Natives during the colonial periods knew no luxury, even the basic needs were a mere privilege. Colonialism, despite being very abrasive, brought with it a great deal of goodies to the colonized states. The positive contribution of colonization in general included; establishment of education systems, establishment of informed methods of governance like, democratic governance, Establishment of institutions like the judiciary and legislative organizations, Establishment of modern infrastructure as well as modern systems of communication. Colonization may have caused slavery and discrimination of the colonized people but in some areas, for exam ...

1. PS 131: Comparative Politics
Short Paper #3 – Would the United States be better off with a
Prime Minister?
Recent public opinion surveys suggest that only about 14% of
Americans approve of the job the US
Congress is doing (and this is an improvement over the single-
digit approval ratings when the
government shut down in the fall of 2013). Though reasons for
low approval ratings are multi-
faceted, much of the dissatisfaction stems from the perception
that Congress cannot get anything
done. Using the material from this course, develop an argument
on whether or not you believe a
parliamentary system, as opposed to the presidential model of
the United States, might solve some
of these problems, and why you believe this to be the case.
Your essay should demonstrate that you
understand the key differences between the two types of
government systems, and can assess the
pros and cons of each type of executive institutions.
Essays should be roughly 500 words in length (this is about two
full pages of text, double-spaced, in
a standard 12 point font and regular margins). Essays should
follow the general writing rubric for
the class.

2. Running head: ORAL HISTORY 1
ORAL HISTORY 2
Oral History
Name:
Course:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date of Submission:
The colonial Masters
Colonialism took part in several parts of the world from as early
as the 17th century. It involved powerful countries taking
control of inferior countries. Colonization in the western world
took place much earlier with countries like the USA gaining

3. their independence in the 1700s. In the western world just like I
n Africa, colonization was characterized by masters oppressing
the servants who were slaves. Discrimination was also part of
the ruthless governing style of the colonialists. Natives were
turned into slaves to provide labor for the colonial masters and
any attempts to rebel would attract severe punishment and
through whipping and deprival of basic needs. The family
structure of the natives in most cases especially Africa was
shattered as some key members of the families especially the
energetic male were confined in locations far from their homes.
Education was a preserve for the colonial masters and in areas
where the natives got access to education; they had their own
low standard schools. Natives during the colonial periods knew
no luxury, even the basic needs were a mere privilege.
Colonialism, despite being very abrasive, brought with it a great
deal of goodies to the colonized states. The positive
contribution of colonization in general included; establishment
of education systems, establishment of informed methods of
governance like, democratic governance, Establishment of
institutions like the judiciary and legislative organizations,
Establishment of modern infrastructure as well as modern
systems of communication. Colonization may have caused
slavery and discrimination of the colonized people but in some
areas, for example Africa, people were discriminated within the
local communities before the colonialists came. Colonialism
also put an end to some primitive ways of life and exposed the
colonized, especially in Africa to the light of civilization-
western civilization.
In the early nineteenth century, colonization reached Africa
with the western control of African states and the establishment
of colonial rule. Colonial rule influenced by the need for raw
materials for the western countries’ industries that were at the
stage of development. The period was characterized by
industrial revolution in the western part of the world and
therefore each country wanted to get raw materials to maximize
their industrial outputs.

4. Colonialism in Africa began after missionaries had been in
Africa and had already established Christianity in different
parts of Africa. The presence of the missionaries enabled t he
colonialists to enter Africa and establish their rule. Some
countries collaborated with the western powers while others
resisted. In the countries where natives collaborated, the
western powers established their rule without any strife. In the
countries where there was resistance, the western powers had to
take control by force. They succeeded because they had superior
weapons and because their weapons were superior to the crude
weapons of the Africans.
The colonial story is rich and interesting as it explains how
western civilization was introduced in Africa. The African had
to learn a new way of life. They had to start going to school to
acquire western education. I developed interest for the story of
colonialism after sharing with Bernard Nderitu; an old man of
Kenyan origin who through a British friend came to Britain in
the 1960s, just after Kenya gained independence. When we met
with him, I had gone to Miami for a holiday vacation where he
had taken his family for a week out. We shared, and he gave me
a taste of his experience during the colonial times. The
following is our conversation.
Me: It is arguably true that colonialism story reminds you a
great deal of your country’s history. How old were you when
the British came to Kenya?
Bernard: The story of colonialism is truly fascinating and for
sure it reminds me the Kenyan history. When the British first
entered Kenya, I was not yet born but my birth came a twenty
years after the British had established their rule in Kenya.
Me: When did the British reach Kenya for the first time? Did
they come from another African country or directly from
Britain? When were you born?
Bernard: They first entered Kenya in 1895. They first took over
the interior of Kenya a place around Lake Naivasha. Lake
Naivasha is in The Rift valley area. Have you heard of the Rift
valley?

5. Me: Yes my Geography teacher talked about it when we were
studying Africa’ physical features. Is Naivasha area near Mount
Kenya?
Bernard: It is approximately 180 kilometers to the south-west of
Mount Kenya. That is a good trial; you must be very good in
Geography.
Me: Thank you, which part of Kenya did they occupy next after
Naivasha?
Bernard: By this time boundaries had not yet been drawn. The
British first set up the East Africa Protectorate in 1902; the East
Africa Protectorate was extended to Uganda. In 1920, the by
then larger East African Protectorate became a crown colony.
The crown colony was an area set aside for the settlement of the
British. The highland areas in turn became the enclaves of white
settlers. After settling on the highland areas, the white settlers
(British) began coffee farming getting labor from the Kikuyu
community. During the acquisition of this land, there was
resistance from the communities that were staying in the
highlands during that time. The British government established
direct rule in the east Africa protectorate on 1 July 1895, and
this is the time they occupied the highlands.
Me: Wow! You are narrating it like it was yesterday. How did
they access Uganda from the interior part of Kenya?
Bernard: They accessed Uganda through the Uganda Railway.
The British built the Uganda railway from 1895 to 1905. It was
built to enable movement with goods from the Mombasa Indian
Ocean to the interior. The imposition of direct rule in Kenya
was due to severe financial difficulties that faced the British
East African company (BEAC), the company that Sir William
Mackinnon used to establish the colonial rule in Kenya.
Me: What was the reception in other parts of Kenya? How did
the natives start adapting the western kind of life and how did
the British communicate with the Africans?
Bernard: The British colonialists had an advantage in entering
the East Africa because of the missionaries who had established
their mission stations in different parts of East Africa starting

6. from their points of entrance, the coastal region. The
missionaries had learned the local languages hence it as easy for
them to introduce the colonialists or better still translate to
them what the Africans said. At the time they took control of
the country, they had learnt the local languages and had lured
some of the leaders of the communities to collaborate with
them.
Me: How was the education? Did the British build schools
immediately and were the Africans absorbed in the schools?
Bernard: The first schools to be built were built by the
missionaries, and most of them were located at the missionary
stations. The missionaries began teaching Africans but when the
missionaries came, this stopped for some time as the best
schools were preserved for the whites. The Africans were
laborers in the white firms.
Me: What do you mean by white firms?
Bernard: White firms were the plantation farms owned by the
British colonialists. They were also called the white highlands.
Me: How about the labor? Were there rewards?
Bernard: There were no rewards. Those who did not co-operate
were whipped and forced to do the work. It was a serious
ordeal, with inadequate food and compulsory hard labor.
Me: Apart from coffee, which other crops did the British
introduce in Kenya?
Bernard: There were tea and sisal plantations besides the coffee
farms. Some of the farms till exist today. Those who
collaborated fully received little pay and were given food.
Me: When and why did the resistance start?
Bernard: Africans started resisting because of the unbearable
conditions they were exposed to. Their land had been acquired
forcefully, and they were subjected to forced labor. They had
been made subjects in their land. The whites who did not work
enjoyed the rewards from the forced labor.
Me: How did you struggle for independence? How did it begin?
Bernard: It reached a point when Africans felt that the hardship
they were forced in was enough and decided to rebel against the

7. colonialists. When the resistance began, the colonialists
threatened to kill those who resisted. Some were practically
killed while a great number that rebelled was detained. In
Kenyan, the struggle for freedom was led by "maumau", a group
of warriors who faced the colonialist's head on.
Me: That is a good narration, do you like history or did you
study history?
Bernard: Yes, I do like history. I studied history and political
science at Harvard University. I am a University professor.
Me: That is great you have a wealth of knowledge accumulated
over a long time.
Bernard: I am happy for young people like you who seek
knowledge.
Me: Thanks for your time. I enjoyed the conversation.
Bernard: Welcome, the pleasure is mine.
Running head: ORAL HISTORY
1
ORAL HISTORY
6
Oral History
Name
Institution
It is amazing how the society has changed over the years. A
look into the history reveals significant changes in the world
societies. The average American in the 1960s is very different
from the average American that is living in 2014. Some people
claim that people have got smarter than they were in the early
days. The notion is that the average American today is better in
every way. He/she has advanced in terms of technology,

8. exposure and tolerance towards foreign culture. It seems like
the old days had so many issues regarding tolerance. Back in
those days, the society was dealing with challenges like racism,
gay issues, cold war, drugs and influx of immigrants. The paper
takes time to look back and history. Has the society changed for
the better or not? Can Americans boldly say that the current
society has grown in every way?
History has demonstrated many times that change is a necessity
in all societies. Change is the one thing that nobody can escape.
The absence of changes implies the lack of growth for the whole
community. The society has dealt the rise of movements against
racism, the famous disco culture of the 1970s, financial
depression and the HIV epidemic. The political system has also
changed as evidenced by the election of the America’s first
black president. The 1960s was the first time that America had a
president who had been born in the 20th Century, John F.
Kennedy. The death of the John F. Kennedy was a defining
moment for many young people who had hope in him.
The best way to understand the changes that have affected the
society is by talking to someone who has experience. I took the
time to talk to a veteran by the name James McCarthy. I believe
I can have the opportunity get information from the horse’s
mouth about the state of the society years back. James has lived
through some of the greatest challenges that seem to have
rocked the very foundations of our nation. James is a 63-year-
old who was born in America. He comes from a family of first
generation Americans who trace back to early 19th century.
James spoke about the major differences in the way marriage
was viewed in the past. According to James, Marriage was
considered an important institution that allowed people to
consummate their love for each other. It was considered one of
the biggest steps that one could make in life. People did not
take divorce light at it is today. Recent statistics suggest that

9. people have got used to the idea of divorce. They are not
bothered with the fact that marriage is something divine. James
spoke with nostalgia when he was talking about how marriage
was based on true love.
According to James, homosexuality had gained popularity in the
American population as a vice. It came with strong
stigmatization, which made homosexuals to hide in straight
marriages or single lives. People were afraid to socialize with
gay people because of the view that had been created by the
society back then. Strong Christian and cultural values guided
it, which had branded homosexuality as a very big sin. It was a
time when the young generation was trying to break away from
the traditional beliefs imposed by their parents. As a result, it
was common to find secret societies of young homosexuals who
were wanted freedom to be themselves.
Interviewer: James I would like to express my gratitude for
giving me the privilege to interview you about the differences
between the society that was there when you were a boy and the
society that is around at present. First, it is obvious that so
many changes have been witnessed in the American. Would you
mind highlighting some of these changes based on your
experience?
James: I am an original American, who was born in California. I
was born in 1951, which means I was old enough to know to
understand politics when John F. Kennedy was elected
President. It is true that the society has indeed changed. First,
it is clear that the current American society is advanced in terms
of technology and wealth. People have become tolerant towards
social issues that were unacceptable when I was young. The
meaning of things like marriage and family is very different
from the way it was in those early days. In addition, the
meaning of religion has undergone a tremendous change.
Interviewer: It seems America was a different place in those

10. days. Would you mind explaining the state of the society when
you were a teenager?
James: In the 1960s, the American society was facing many
challenges. Riots were rampant because of political and social
issues like the murder of Martin Luther King and John F.
Kennedy. The young people had started to question the values
that they got from their parents, which explains why many
whites were supporting black rights movement. The young
people had redefined themselves. The society was made of
adults who had strong traditional beliefs and young people who
trying to find their identity in a dynamic world. However, some
things did not change people still considered homosexuality a
big sin. Homosexuals were seen as people suffering from a
malady that had comprised their perception of the opposite sex.
Interviewer: Can you please explain more about the way society
viewed homosexuality?
James: Well, my son the fact is that it would be impossible to
see gay people get married like today. Even scientists believed
homosexuals were suffering from chronic psychological
disorder that comprised their sexual orientation. Since
homosexuals were labelled sick people, it was very hard for
them to demand rights and cultural representation. The negative
view towards homosexuality can be attributed to the strong
religious values that existed in the American society. Americans
were diligent Christians, and one of the definite values was that
homosexuality is going against the will of God. Children were
brought up under strict conventional rules, which were guided
by the notion that sparing the rod would mean spoiling the
child. All these values contributed to the negative treatment that
homosexuals were receiving from the society.
Interviewer: What was your personal stand on the issue of
homosexuality? Has it changed?

11. James: I was a young man brought up in a strict Christian
family. Therefore, it is clear that my view of sexuality was the
same as the view held by Christians of that time. I know that I
did not like socializing with homosexuals. I feared the
stigmatization that came with it. However, my view on the issue
has changed. I would not say that I am an ardent fan of
homosexuality. I can say that, over the years, I have learnt that
not everything is black and white. I believe every soul can find
his or her identity. No one should be stigmatized because he/she
is different.
Interviewer: What about the perspective on marriage? Do you
believe the value of the marriage union has dropped compared
to the old days?
James: Of course, marriage was a huge deal back in the days.
People would get married for love; it was not strange to hear
stories of young couples eloping just to get married for love. It
was a sacred union. People believed if you married for love then
you are likely to stay together until death. The strong religious
background had made people believe that the divorce should be
considered if all other methods changed. The society was
skeptical of people who were quick to exit marriage without
trying to find an alternative solution. Nowadays, I hear of
young men and women getting married today and divorcing the
next month. It was not the case when I was a young lad.
Interviewer: What do you think the current society can learn
from the American society in the 1960s? What can you say
about the present society?
James: It is a fact that the current American society is more
developed and educated than the past societies. It is made of
people who have learnt from the past injustices like racism and
stigmatization of homosexuals. At the same time, the current
American society is faced with so many problems, which can be
traced to the loss of some essential traditional values. I believe
young people should learn from the old people about the value

12. of religion, marriage and family. The lack of strong of social
values has led to insane acts committed by young people.
People have taken marriage for granted, which is seen from the
high rates of divorce. Finally, it is paramount for the society to
review their religious beliefs.
Interviewer: Well, James thank you for the talk. I have learnt so
much today and I am grateful. I think this time is a defining
moment just like the 1960s. The society is still changing.