TED Talk with the Prime Minister of Bhutan

    I watched the TED Talk with the Prime Minister of Bhutan because its subject matter pertained to how the country is carbon neutral. I really enjoyed the talk and how he described how a country as small as theirs could have all its ducks in a row when it comes to global warming. 

    One of the key terms from the reading that came to mind when I watched the TED talk was modernization. Bhutan is a very small country with only about 700,000 citizens, and the Prime Minister called it underdeveloped. The people living in Bhutan are very humble and seem to work hard to make their lives happy. The government has done a lot to modernize the small country and to keep it carbon neutral. The Prime Minister stated that free electricity is provided to rural farmers so that they can modernize their farms and don’t need to burn wood to cook their meals. The government also makes sure that all lights are switched to LEDs and cars are electric. The government is also completely paperless in its dealings and is planting more trees. All these things let me know that the country of Bhutan is modernizing and keeping up with the rest of the world.

    The second key term from the reading that came to mind is International Development Assistance. This assistance would be provided to underdeveloped countries that would need a loan to bring them relief of sorts. When I think about Bhutan and how the country is run so efficiently, I don’t think they would need any assistance that is out there. The way the government has set things up, the country can sustain itself forever. The Prime Minister, in his talk, exclaimed that Bhutan is not carbon neutral but carbon negative. Because of the protected forests in their country and all that they are doing to lower their footprint, they create more energy than they need and can help others out with it. As an underdeveloped country, they can help other countries out with their energy needs.

    The third key term is mental maps. The reading explains that mental maps are maps created by those people who live in the country and know the ins and outs of it all. The Prime Minister, in his talk, showed a map of Bhutan with a 72% forest cover. Because of the knowledge of the land, the people there were able to connect the forests together to create ways that all the animals in Bhutan are free to roam in those protected areas. With the knowledge of their own country and the need to protect the land and animals, they were able to create new maps to show which areas are protected. It would be amazing if we could somehow link all our national parks together in a way to protect them all better as well.

    I love TED Talks as they are usually so powerful, and that is why I picked this one to watch. I was amazed to see that a small country like Bhutan can be such an inspirational leader to the rest of the world what it means to be mindful of the environment. Their ideas and implementations are a good blueprint that other countries could follow to also get closer to becoming carbon neutral. I love the idea that the Prime Minister ends with calling Earth for Life, where we all need to come together to protect our planet forever, so we can keep our resources.

Link to TED Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc_dlVrg5M  

[Written for GEOG 130G class UVU Spring 2022]
aB . All Right Reserved . 2025

Can the United States Learn From The United Kingdom and Japan (or They From Us)?

    The great thing about politics is that there are so many ways of doing it right and doing it wrong. There is no one answer to how one should govern a state, how involved citizens should be, or what rules you should have for these citizens. Because of the different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds all over the world, we cannot have just one way to run a state. Comparing other countries this semester has been wonderful as I have learned that there are many ways to run a successful state, and many ways not to. In the United States, we can learn from other countries and their systems currently in place, just like others could learn a thing or two from us. I presented an oral presentation in class about the United Kingdom and its political regime. I will point out some of the differences between us, the United Kingdom, and Japan, and how, possibly by combining the two systems, we can get closer to a more perfect model.

    “Legitimacy is a value whereby an institution is accepted by the public as right and proper, thus giving it authority and power.” (O’Neil, p.44) The United Kingdom has a very liberal democracy that has evolved over time. The people see the government as legitimate and thus follow its rules and regulations. Changes have been, and continue to be made to the way the United Kingdom rules its citizens. Japan also has a liberal democracy, but unlike the US, Japan has both socialist and communist parties as well as other parties, making it more diverse in that sense. The differences between the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Japan are apparent and interesting to study. The institutions have rules and regulations that others can learn from or benefit from. The UK follows traditional legitimacy, which is “the legitimacy that accepts aspects of politics because they have been institutionalized over a long period of time.” (O’Neil, p.44) Traditional legitimacy is highly institutionalized, meaning change becomes very difficult to imagine, as this is the only way people know it has been for a long time. The US has rational-legal legitimacy, which is “based not on history or rituals or on the force of ideas and those who present them but rather on a system of laws and procedures that are presumed to be neutral or rational. (O’Neil, p.45) Rational-legal legitimacy is also highly institutionalized, and once leaders leave office, the public no longer sees them as someone able to make or uphold laws. The citizens of both the UK and the US agree that legitimacy is important, and because of that, the government can run smoothly after each election. Citizenship and patriotism play a large role in a legitimate government, as the citizens have more pride and belief in their country. As time has gone by, we can see legitimacy possibly fading in the US as more people are not happy with the way the government is run today. Maybe some small changes are in order.

    The UK and Japan both have a parliamentary system in place, which is very different from the Presidential system in the US when it comes to the executive branch. The executive branch of the government carries out the laws and policies of the state. Both these systems are very similar in how they work in a democracy, but there are some differences worth mentioning. The President of the US is both the head of state AND the head of the government, while the Prime Minister in the UK and Japan is only the head of government and not both. Having two separate authorities in the UK and Japan spreads the power a little more evenly if most people think the head of state (the Queen/Emperor) is only a figurehead and not important when it comes to big decisions. The Emperor in Japan is now only seen as the symbol of the state and the unity of the people, instead of the “embodiment of all sovereign authority” he once was. I was surprised to learn that a lot of countries use the parliamentary system that the UK and Japan have in place, instead of the Presidential system we have here in the US. Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand are just some examples of countries that have a parliamentary system. In Europe alone, 32 out of the 50 sovereign states have a parliamentary system. 19 of the 22 sovereign states in the Americas have the Presidential system that the US has. According to Britannica, the office of the President is the most powerful elected official in the world. A title like that could go to someone's head as they see themselves as more than just a politician working for their people. We can see that history does not like to change very much, as most countries in Europe once had a monarch as their main ruler, and so, keeping with traditional legitimacy, they have not strayed far from what the people are used to by switching to a parliamentary system. The idea of spreading the power over two separate jobs seems to be a better way to ensure checks and balances.

    The Prime Minister is more involved with the legislature in a parliamentary system. They are chosen by their peers (in their cabinet) as the ones to best represent them while formulating and executing domestic policies alongside the rest of the legislature. Being involved with the legislature as it is being talked about and created gives the Prime Minister a better grip on what is going on in the state, and thus, to me, seems like a better place for the leader of a country to spend their time being part of. This part of the executive branch seems to be better for the state and its citizens in the UK and Japan. There are two major drawbacks to the parliamentary system when it comes to the office of the Prime Minister. There are no term limits on a Prime Minister like there are on a President. The Prime Minister is also elected by the cabinet and not directly by the people. Combining the best of both worlds would involve a term limit for a Prime Minister and an election held by the people so that they personally can be involved in electing the Prime Minister who will run their state for the next few years.

    The position of Prime Minister and President is what fascinated me the most when it came to researching and learning about the political systems in the UK, Japan, and the US. There are so many more differences and similarities that they would take up many more pages. As I mentioned in the beginning, we couldn’t possibly make a perfect government that could be implemented in every country because of ethnic, religious, and cultural differences, but we could make some changes to how we do things here in the US. Dividing the President's duties into two and running the US with a semi-parliamentary system could put the President (or then called head of government) closer to the action in formulating and executing policies instead of directing affairs from an office far removed from the everyday politicians. Giving the citizens the power to choose this elected official will make all the difference, as they will keep their legitimacy intact, as well as instill more patriotism in their citizens with this civic duty.

References:

Jansen, M. B., Watanabe, A., & The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2025, October 6). Japan – Government and society. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan/Government-and-society

O’Neil, P. H. (2022). Essentials of comparative politics (7th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

O’Neil, P. H., Fields, K., & Share, D. (2022). Cases in comparative politics (7th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Presidency of the United States of America. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/presidency-of-the-United-States-of-America

[Paper written for POLS 2200 class UVU Spring 2022]
aB . All Right Reserved . 2025