In his article titled America in Decay: Sources of Political Dysfunction, Fukuyama, in his introduction, lays out some of the early successes of starting the U.S. Forest Service. He states that prior to the Pendleton Act of 1883, appointments to public offices were made by political parties according to patronage (Fukuyama). However, as the years passed, the US Forest Service and many other American institutions failed to meet the expectations that the American public expected of them. Likewise, glaring inefficiencies are emerging in the political realm of the United States. This is what Fukuyama calls institutional decay and political dysfunction. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Fukuyama's article outlines the detailed characteristics of how political institutions and enterprises have been inefficient in recent years. For example, he believes that American courts are not able to carry out their functions as efficiently as they should. He provides an example of the court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that legalized segregation. He mentions the shortcomings of parliament and cites the US Congress as incapable of being independent and easily subject to outside influence to enforce laws. The executive is also cited as being run by elites who control all official government perspectives. Overall, Fukuyama's article lists a lot of issues that logically qualify the notion of decay and dysfunction in all institutions and government structures in the United States. Fukuyama offers a quite realistic explanation of institutional decay by citing Samuel Huntington's definition of political decay. As such, he argues that the decay was caused by the political development that, ironically, was so sought after by traditional administrators. Fukuyama argues that institutions make decisions based on current circumstances. When success is realized, organizations maintain those decisions but when new circumstances emerge, it becomes a difficult challenge to try to come up with new decisions to combat the new circumstances (Fukuyama). When new circumstances arise, it becomes a challenge for those involved to change their mental adaptation to the demands of new decisions. Currently, as stated by Fukuyama, the US Forest Service is just one of many dysfunctional and decaying public institutions. Fukuyama believes that the cause of political dysfunction and decay in the United States is the state of the courts and parties. He argues that the United States, being a liberal democracy, has three major arms of government. The first is the executive which, as he claims, uses power to enforce laws and implement policies. The second and third arms of the American government are the judiciary and the legislative branch which, as he also claims, limit power and define its application for the public interest. In trying to maintain a balance between these three branches of government, a crisis of representation occurs. This crisis, as Fukuyama argues, stems from the popular understanding of American citizens that their democratic government functions not to fully satisfy their democratic needs but to satisfy the demands of the shadowy elites who control it. Then there is the notion of interest groups which Fukuyama argues control legislative processes because they significantly influence all laws initiated by the United States Congress. Arend Lijphart, another influential author on democracy and governance, argues onequite different view regarding interest groups. shortcomings of current democratic systems of governance. 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 these countries.manage government responsibility. Therefore, if he had written on this topic, Lijphart, unlike Fukuyama, could have focused more on the types of democracies, on the strengths and defects and not on the decay that Fukuyama associates with the changes and transition of institutions from their forms traditional to modern ones. governance contexts. Citing his book, it is clear that Lijphart is of the position that it is only through consensual democracy that all governmental evils can be avoided. In his book, Lijphart analyzes government systems in thirty-six countries. While they all claim to support democratic principles of governance, he points to differences in levels of political success across these countries. He argues that, while implementing democratic forms of government, there are clearly different interpretations of democratic principles, hence the differences in success between the nations he analyses. While some of the countries he analyzes rely on party popularity to initiate 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 that claim to implement democratic principles of governance. Clearly, if Lijphart had wanted to write the kind of article that Fukuyama wrote, he would have had to base his arguments about governance failures on these differences in the implementation of democratic principles. From his description of consensual democracy, Lijphart argues that effective governance should be initiated through popular commitments which will ensure effective policies which in turn lead to economic success (Lijphart). Therefore, if he were to write on the topic of Fukuyama, Lijphart would have no opinion on the influence of interest groups and shadowy elites who control how laws are implemented and how governments are run. Unlike Fukuyama, Lijphart will prefer to mention the different measures that must be taken to achieve macroeconomic success and avoid the violence caused by the conflicts that Fukuyama writes about in his article. If it were Lijphart writing on the subject of Fukuyama, he might be more interested in the misapplication and interpretation of democracy as causes of the decay of governmental systems. Lijphart will also have talked about parties in his article, a topic that Fukuyama merely mentions. . In his opinion, democracy should take place in a context in which parties compete. Therefore, 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. It is therefore automatic that he wrote on the subject of Fukuyama; he might have held that political parties contribute to the decay of political systems in any democracy. The current paper argues that democracies should be characterized by competing parties. The party marked as popular, which is determined through elections, forms the government. In his opinion, once a party forms the government, the government, in order not to cause the kind of decay that Fukuyama speaks of, should seek the consensus of all the parties with which it competes when making important decisions in governance. the above clearly highlights the evident differences that the two authors believecompared to the decay currently witnessed in governance systems. Clearly, Fukuyama is of the position that the political decay and dysfunction of democratic governments results from the failure to adapt to the necessary changes that should be made during the transition from traditional to modern institutions. Lijphart is of the opinion that political and governmental systems thrive when effective forms of democratic governance are initiated. He cites consensual democracy as the best form of government when aiming to avoid issues related to conflict associated with governance and macroeconomic success. Clearly, the two authors' arguments have a powerful insight into the challenges that political leaders and other types of administrators face in trying to develop the best forms of government. Therefore, it is crucial that their views are integrated in an effort to effectively eliminate the clearly visible decay that characterizes modern government structures. To incorporate the views of the two authors, it is crucial that the most pronounced themes are analyzed systematically. For example, Fukuyama's main theme concerns the institutional transition from traditional to modern forms in the face of the influence of external stakeholders. Lijphart has as his main theme the types of democracy that government structures implement by political leaders and administrators in an attempt to enforce their agenda. Clearly, if we want to avoid the decay of the political and governmental system, it is important that both thematic visions of the two authors are effectively understood and then implemented. This document is of the opinion that if the transition of institutions is to be positively implemented, consensus democracy should be incorporated. The result of this will be popular approval of all involved and perpetual governance conflicts will be effectively avoided. This paper appreciates that current US governance systems are marked by ineffectiveness and widespread citizen disapproval. In democratic practices, citizens give powers to government authorities. As such, it is a worrying precedent that those giving governance powers do not fully agree on how governance structures are set up. Given the dangers this case poses to the well-being of democratic practices in the United States, it is important that we seek immediate changes in how governance systems operate in the United States. These changes should be made in good faith and should be aimed at boosting public approval rates of US governance systems. The next section provides a summary of the changes that should be initiated to correct political and institutional decay in the United States. The external influence of political favoritism should be stopped. The current lack of popularity of Washington's policies is the result of outside influence determining how policies are made and interpreted in the United States. In order for political and institutional decay to be corrected, all institutions, especially Congress which is a major player in policy formulation, should live up to the concept of independence as explicitly spelled out and guaranteed in the supreme constitution of the United States. Therefore, interest groups should be regularized in such a way as to completely eliminate the current tendency to influence Congress on policies. To achieve this, the functions of interest groups should be limited outside the scope of decision-making structures and processes..