When you think of government systems that have been prominent in historical societies and even now in modern day, two that have been developed and used very frequently are governments that have absolute control and ones that’s are under democratic rule. They are both very different from each other. “In the absolutist state, sovereignty is embodied in the person of the ruler. Absolute kings claimed to rule by divine right, meaning they were responsible to God alone.” (Mckay) Which basically says that in absolutism the monarch of the people has complete and absolute control over them. “…Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that …show more content…
The reason why is because all power is embodied into one ruler. Absolute kings even said that were to rule by divine right, that they got permission from God himself for them to rule. This gave them a reason to control their country with unlimited power. Absolute kings were anything but nice, to put it simply. They were feared, and could do anything they wanted. One example of this, can be recognized when you look at the Chinese Cultural Revolution. A man named Ying Ruocheng wrote about his experiences during this time. He explained that him and his wife were arrested by the new security forces and thrown into prison because they were suspects to be spies from a foreign power. He went on to explain how his family was broken apart, his house had been ransacked, and how he realized how destructive China’s true state of affairs was like. This story about Ying, shows that even though he was innocent and that never did anything to deserve what happened to him, he had to deal with it. When people have absolute control, they have no mercy on anyone but themselves and can be insanely destructive for the people under their rule. The people under absolute control do not have any say so or do any decision making regarding to the government. They have no basic rights, and it does not matter what they …show more content…
The ruler of a democracy is directly, freely, and fairly elected by the people. “The people can criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well. The people are sovereign—they are the highest authority—and government is based on the will of the people.” (Diamond) The people play a very big role on how their government works. Every citizen has certain basic rights that the government can’t take away from them. “The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare.” (Japanese Constitution) Everybody has the right to their own beliefs, including religious beliefs, and to write and say what they think. You have the right to associate yourself with other people, and form and join organizations and unions by their own will. You also have the right to protest the government’s actions and
During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the main theme is that all of their ideas criticized absolutism (except for Hobbes) and resulted in the gradual rejection of it.
In an absolute government, the people are not in a position to question the government on their decisions. Moreover the corruption in those governments can run a muck if not checked. In order to circumvent this Locke suggests creating separate powers to both pass and enforce the law. Locke was one of the first political philosophers to separate powers of the government, which was in direct difference from the absolute monarchies he was living under. According to John Locke the government should consist of a legislative branch and an executive branch (Locke 1681, 335-37). The former makes the laws while the later enforces it. He further gives prerogative power to the executive branch to make decisions must be made by the executive branch can be made by their own discretion as long as it is of the public good ((Locke 1681, 244). The separating the powers is effective because it allows for a type of checks and balances. It means that the ones passing the laws are not fully exempt from being punished by them if the need arises. Secondly because of the prerogative power of the executive branch, it theoretically can allow for the executive branch to step in and prevent any unjust laws from passing, if they choose not to enforce it. The downside of this is depended on the number of people in the community. If the community is too big, then it might be harder to
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
Under an absolutism based government, the people are ruled by a single dictator. A prime example of a government similar to that of absolutism would be the Soviet Union under control by Joseph Stalin. Another example would be Adolf Hitler when he dominated Nazi Germany. Constitutionalism on the other hand is a form of government where checks and balances come into play. There is not a single individual who is able to control the entire government. Sure there are people who have more control than others. However, these people are not able to make decisions that would shake the government to its core. Why? Other members of the government would veto the individual and ultimately, put a complete stop to the disastrous plans that he/she had in store for the government. Another belief of a constitutionalism-based government is that there is a constitution that has been written and put into play. The constitution is similar to that of a rulebook per say. An absolutism-based government would never carry such a thing or even think about it for that matter. As has been noted, absolutism and constitutionalism are completely different from one
In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis
One of the contemporary definitions of democracy today is as follows: “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives; Rule by the majority” (“Democracy” Def.1,4). Democracy, as a form of government, was a radical idea when it manifested; many governments in the early history of the world were totalitarian or tyrannical in nature, due to overarching beliefs that the strong ruled over the weak.
The Oxford Dictionary defines totalitarianism as ‘a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state’ . A totalitarian regime possesses power over affairs of the state and its inhabitants under one party and bears no opposition. A key attribute of a totalitarian government is that is looks to shape the mind and actions of society through determination, philosophy, and in general, force.
It should be understood that the people’s consent runs to the very core of a government being able to rule over them. Essentially, this is to show that no form government can be in power if the particular people haven’t agreed to it. The common exception however, is in the case of tyranny and dictatorial rule, where citizens are subdued to obey as commanded, which in most cases lead to revolutions. Evidently, democracy is the best way through which a people can be governed, owing to the fact that it gives them a chance and a voice in the larger government and undertakings of the country as a whole (Ndou, 2004, p 18). Historical data can attest to this fact, as there have been numerous rebellions against dictatorial heads, all in such for democracy.
What is democracy? Democracy a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them in a country, democracy guarantees free and fair elections, basic personal and political rights and independent court of law. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy or pure democracy is where there is direct participate of the people; people make decisions for them instead of letting them representative make decision for them. Indirect democracy the decisions are made by the representative on behalf of the people that voted for them. All over the world people are having different views with regard to democracy and how it operates. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” ~ Winston Churchill, some have said democracy is the worst government form of government which I also think it’s! Due to the how it operates.
Communism is an original system of society, quite different from Democracy in many ways. While total democracy is not widely spread, many forms of it are prosperous throughout the world today.
Imagine the next time you step into the voting booth your ballot only lists one candidate to choose from. Or perhaps your ballot lists four candidates, but they are all from the Liberal party. Dictatorships are one party political systems that are ruled by one leader or an elite group of people under the principle of authoritarianism. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. These individuals value order, nationalism, and authority. However, these systems often result in violence, repression of the public, and few provisions for changes to the system. Democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people. Most people that live in democracies have civil liberties1, and political rights2. Individuals who feel that multiparty systems are the best government value equality, accountability, and freedom. Nations that have multiparty political systems will meet the needs of the public better through the means of political equality, a higher standard of living3, and civil liberties.
People generally expect freedom and equality from their government. Democracy provides both of them while dictatorship does not. Democracy makes all the public engrossed in their country by giving them a voice in legislation. It gives them a feeling of importance and a sense of responsibility; hence, it yields a significance to their personality. Another advantage of democracy is that it is less prone to revolution than other forms of government. Since people themselves elect the members of government, the need for a revolution does not come up. In addition, a democratic system has room for changes and functions based on the ideas of many rather than completely ignoring or violently rejecting the fact that people have conflicting ideology. Democracy tries to make negotiations and allows for debates over topics and choices. The...
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.