Can government function without political parties?

It cant because it just cant i dont know why but it cant

after the civil war, and with the termination of slavery, the south was faced with a big problem; what was supposed to happen and how they were supposed to deal with the freedom and the rights that black people and freed slaves had gained as a result of the north defeating the south and forcing the end of slavery. first, most, if not all, of the workforce of the south came from slaves and they did not have an option to replace the loss of said workforce. second, particularly in the south, people were convinced that black people were lesser, less intelligent, less capable and less smart than whites. this posed a huge problem for them. also, southerners were faced with another issue; freed slaves now had a say in how their lives would be lived and the right to politically choose the way they would be governed. people in the south did not want to accept this, none of this and this opposition and the conflicts that arose from it, not to mention the afereffects of the war, forced the congress of the time to enact and enforce the reconstruction plans that had been proposed by president andrew johnson.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is