ion. Both Mexico and France have bicameral systems that work well for their countries. When we compare the two we see that we cannot come to a valid conclusion on the basis of which one is better because of the different situations within each country. Mexico enjoys the benefits of a federal government. The federal government allows Mexico to have both a central and local government to provide a prosperous country for the people. Yes, the president enjoys a vast amount of government power when compared to the legislative and judicial branches, but France shares the same problems within their unitary system. Both also share the mix of single member districts and proportional representation as the means of electing public official. If I was to choose the government that I felt was doing a better job, I would most definitely chose Mexico. Reason being that Mexico has two levels of governments, which results in the people of the country being better represented by the local government. Not to say that the government of France is inefficient, but I feel the representation of the people is very important in any society. I also must say I do not totally agree with all that the Mexican government abides by. The extreme governmental power of the president is ludicrous, but no government is perfect. They can only work towards it. From the government policies that I have presented and the intense studies that I have done, I conclude that neither the federal or unitary system have a comparable advantage. Only when the government of a nation exercises and uses the power vested within that political ideology efficiently, will one be able to say that a federal system is better then a unitary system. Until each system is used through absolute efficiency, we have no basis to compare the two unless each system achieves maximum benefits for the people....
