In his article America in Decline: Sources of Political Dysfunction, Fukuyama, in his introduction, outlines some of the early successes achieved through the creation of the U.S. Forest Service. He states that before the Pendleton Act of 1883, appointments to public office were made by political parties on the basis of patronage (Fukuyama). However, over the years, the United States Forest Service and many other American institutions have failed to live up to the expectations the American public expected of them. Likewise, obvious inefficiencies are contemplated in the political domain of the United States. This is what Fukuyama calls institutional decadence and political dysfunction. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"?Get the original essayFukuyama's article describes in detail the characteristics of the ineffectiveness of political institutions and enterprises in recent years. For example, he cites American courts as being unable to carry out their duties as effectively as they should. He gives an example of the court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson which legalized segregation. He discusses the failures of the legislature and cites the U.S. Congress as incapable of being independent and easily influenced by outsiders to enforce laws. The executive branch is also cited as being run by elites who control all official perspectives of government. Overall, Fukuyama's article lists a large number of problems that logically nuance the notion of decadence and dysfunction throughout the institutions and governmental structures of the United States. Fukuyama offers a fairly realistic explanation of institutional decadence by citing Samuel Huntington's definition of political decadence. As such, he argues that the decadence was caused by a political development which, ironically, was so sought after by traditional administrators. Fukuyama argues that institutions make decisions based on current circumstances. When success is achieved, organizations maintain these decisions, but when new circumstances arise, it becomes difficult to try to develop new decisions to combat the new circumstances (Fukuyama). When new circumstances arise, it becomes difficult for those involved to change their mental adaptation to the demands of new decisions. Currently, as Fukuyama said, the United States Forest Service is just one of many dysfunctional and declining public institutions. Fukuyama sees the cause of political dysfunction and decline in the United States as the state of the courts and parties. He argues that the United States, as a liberal democracy, has three main arms of governance. The first is the executive which, as he argues, uses power to enforce laws and implement policies. The second and third branches of the American government are the judicial branch and the legislative branch, which, as he also argues, limit the power and define its application in the public interest. In the search to maintain a balance between these three branches of government, a crisis of representation arises. This crisis, as Fukuyama argues, arises from American citizens' popular understanding that their democratic government is working not to fully meet their democratic needs but to meet the demands of the shadowy elites who control it. Then there is the notionof interest groups which, according to Fukuyama, control the legislative processes because they significantly influence all legislation initiated by the US Congress. Arend Lijphart, another influential author on democracy and governance, has an entirely different view on the issue. weaknesses of current democratic governance systems. According to his opinion in the book Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, it is not the institutions that cause the failure of government systems, but rather the type of democracy applied by them. of governance. Thus, if he was writing on this subject, Lijphart, unlike Fukuyama, could have focused more on the types of democracies, their strengths and weaknesses, and not on the decline that Fukuyama associates with the changes and transition of institutions from their traditional forms to modern forms. governance contexts. Citing his book, it is clear that Lijphart is of the opinion that only through consensus democracy can all governmental evils be avoided. In his book, Lijphart analyzes the governance systems of thirty-six countries. Although they all claim to harbor democratic principles of governance, he notes differences in the levels of political success in all these countries. He argues that even if democratic forms of governance are implemented, there are clearly different interpretations of democratic principles, hence the differences in success between the nations he analyzes. While some of the countries he analyzes rely on party popularity to launch governance systems, others rely on consensus on governance issues. Lijphart argues that these different views on governance are responsible for the levels of success in all countries claiming to implement democratic principles of governance. Clearly, if Lijphart were to write the kind of article that Fukuyama wrote, he would have to base his arguments about governance failures on these differences in the implementation of democratic principles. From his description of consensus democracy, Lijphart argues that effective governance should be initiated through popular commitments that will ensure effective policies which, in turn, will bring economic success (Lijphart). Therefore, if he were to write on the subject of Fukuyama, Lijphart would have no opinion on the influence of interest groups and shadowy elites who control how legislations are implemented and how governments are directed. Unlike Fukuyama, Lijphart will make a point of mentioning the various measures that must be taken to achieve macroeconomic success and avoid the conflict-induced violence that Fukuyama discusses in his article. If Lijphart wrote on the subject of Fukuyama, he might focus more on the poor forms of application and interpretation of democracy as causes of the decline of governmental systems. Lijphart also reportedly talked about parties in his article, a subject that Fukuyama only mentions. . According to him, democracy should be played out in a framework where parties are in competition. As such, any effective democracy should have two or more parties. In his book, Lijphart analyzes both the strengths and weaknesses of democracies with two or more political parties. This is why it is automatic to have written on the subject of Fukuyama; he might have thought that political parties contribute to the breakdown of political systems in any democracy. The current paper argues that democracies should be marked by competing parties. The popular party, determined by elections,forms the government. According to him, once a party forms the government, the government, in order not to cause the kind of decline that Fukuyama speaks of, it should seek the consensus of all the parties with which it competes when making important decisions in matters of governance. The above clearly highlights the obvious differences between the two authors regarding the degradation we are currently witnessing in governance systems. Obviously, Fukuyama is of the opinion that political decline and dysfunction of democratic governments arise from the inability to adapt to the necessary changes that should be made in the transition from traditional to modern institutions. Lijphart believes that political and governmental systems thrive when effective forms of democratic governance are initiated. He cites consensus democracy as the best form of governance when it comes to avoiding conflict-related problems associated with governance and macroeconomic success. Clearly, both authors' arguments provide effective insight into the challenges facing political leaders and other types of administrators in the quest for the best forms of government. It is therefore essential that their views are taken into account in the attempt to effectively eliminate the clearly visible decadence that characterizes modern government structures. To integrate the perspectives of both authors, it is essential that the most pronounced themes are systematically analyzed. For example, Fukuyama's major theme concerns the institutional transition from traditional to modern forms in the face of the influence of external stakeholders. Lijphart's main theme is the types of democracy that government structures put in place by political leaders and administrators in order to strengthen their agenda. Clearly, if the decline of political and governmental systems is to be avoided, it is important that these two thematic visions of the two authors are effectively understood and then implemented. The current document is of the opinion that for the transition of institutions to be implemented in a positive manner, a democracy of consensus must be integrated. The result of this will be popular approval of all involved and perpetual governance conflicts will be effectively avoided. This article appreciates that current American systems of governance are marked by ineffectiveness and widespread disapproval by citizens. In democratic practices, it is citizens who give powers to governing authorities. As such, it sets a worrying precedent that those ceding governance powers do not fully approve of how governance structures are set up. Given the dangers this situation poses to the well-being of democratic practices in the United States, it is important that immediate changes be sought in the way systems of governance operate in the United States. These changes must be made in good faith and aimed at increasing public approval of America's systems of governance. The following section provides a summary of the changes that should be initiated in order to address political and institutional decadence in the United States. The external influence of political patronage should be stopped. The current low popularity of Washington's policies is the result of outside influence dictating how policies are made and interpreted in the United States. So that political and institutional decadence is..