When individuals do not take responsibility in government actions, it can lead to an illiberal nation. Additionally, when governments do not reflect the interests of their citizens, they can risk forming into an illiberal nation, therefore, they should be removed from power. Illiberalism lacks the underlying commitment to core liberal ideas such as limited and accountable government, and the rule of law. It also lacks the rules, procedures, practices, and habits that make democracy come to life. Illiberal democracy is a form of democracy, in which leaders use the appearance of democracy to entrap and oppress their people, rather than liberate them. Instead of protecting popular liberties, illiberal regimes suppress human rights, use intimidation …show more content…
The War Measures Act prior to the 1988 amendments, was enforced during both World Wars and the 1970 October Crisis. The War Measures Acts was a piece of legislation suspended civil liberties and gave the prime minister and his cabinet immense powers for the duration of the war. During the World Wars, the act gave the state sweeping powers to essentially imprison anyone considered to be a security threat. However, this did not extend simply to individuals. The act allowed the state to imprison entire minority groups labelled as being potential spies or saboteurs working against the Allies. Censorship was imposed on the press and telegraph system while the free transportation of the people and goods ceased. The act allowed Canadians to be searched, arrested, and detained and their property seized without warrants, trials, or compensation. It also have the prime minister near dictatorial powers, allowing him to govern by a type of decree called an order in council, which was not subject to normal parliamentary oversight. Over the next four years, roughly eighty-thousand were arrested, paroled, and forced to register with the government on suspicion of enemy
The War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The War Powers Act is also known as the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the United States involved in hostilities.
Prime Minister Trudeau put into effect the War Measures Act for the first time in Canadian history during peace time. He did this without consulting parliament. However, parliament voted three days later to approve the use of the act. The civil liberties of the citizens of Canada were suspended while the act was in force. In a few cities, officials used the WMA to clean up the streets, picking up "undesirables" and throwing them into jail. More than 450 people were jailed in Quebec for suspected connections to the FLQ. Most were later released without any charges being laid. After the War Measures Act was put into effect, no other public figures in Canada were kidnapped. Eventually Pierre Laporte was murdered by his captors and Cross was released unharmed after his kidnappers were flown to exile in Cuba. But for many in Quebec, the question was raised : what might the federal government do if Quebec ever did decide to leave Canada... the use of the army in the streets and the loss of civil liberties left a bad taste in many people's mouths.
The War Measures Act, which had been created for the protection and benefit of Canadian...
The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the authority of the Congress in Article I Section 8 and the authority of the President in Article II Section 2. These fixed powers in the Constitution clearly state that one cannot act without permission or authorization of another. It is designed to that one cannot take action without consent of the other branch. This is prevalent in Article I Section 7 that states the process of how a law is passed. The fact that there are clear steps to the initiation of a law states the importance of separation of powers so that a single dominant branch does not arise.
History has known far more authoritarian regimes than any other form of government. Authoritarianism is a form of non-democratic rule defined by state power being centralized in a single person or a small group of people. Unlike democracies, these individuals in power are not dependent on the people for power. Thus, under authoritarianism, state leaders have little accountability to the public and there is little individual freedom. Additionally, authoritarian regimes are not bound by a constitution that might limit their power. Such democratic liberties such as the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are highly controlled or non-existent. State policies are designed to maintain the power status quo in favor of the ruling group and perceived threats are marginalized or, in some cases, extinguished.
War is what keeps a nation from dying, it is the backbone of a country. This is the shown throughout the course of World War I, also known as “the war to end all wars.” World War I started in the summer of 1914. Archduke Francis Ferdinand, from the Austro – Hungarian Empire was visiting Bosnia. He was shot, along with his wife, Sofia, by a young man from the Black Hand, Gavrillo Princip. What were the three main factors that started World War I? There were three main underlying causes that started World War I: greed, nationalism, and militarism.
Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act because the October Crisis ended shortly after the Act was invoked. However, this argument is invalid as justification; primarily because the War Measures Act was an extreme overreaction by Trudeau, as the threat of the FLQ was largely small-scale, and the demise of the FLQ was impending with the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. Furthermore, the Act may have inspired Quebecers who favoured separatism, as they saw the government desperately employ the most extreme measure to stop the FLQ. Finally, the War Measures Act suspended the civil rights of citizens within a democracy, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Britain, total war primarily showed its effects a week after war was declared. The British parliament at Westminster passed the Defence of the Realm Act. This act allowed the government to “use censorship, the authority to imprison without trial and the power to court martial and execute civilians” (Llewellyn et al.). Through this act, several liberties were limited in the interest of preventing further damages from the war. These include censorship of the press, a situation in which most of the time, only government employed journalists were allowed to report. In addition, what was allowed to be printed in the newspaper, and what was sent through mail, telegraph, and telephone were censored. Leisure activities such as lighting bonfires and flying kites, and consuming alcohol were interdicted. After 1915, in which, at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle, “the British Expeditionary Force struggled to accumulate enough shells for
What is a military tribunal? Has the U.S. used military tribunals in the past? Is the U.S. currently using military tribunals and, if so, what is their status?
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
The Thirty Years War was a series of conflicts, not-knowingly involving most European countries from 1618 to 1648. The war, which was fought mainly in Germany, was started when Bohemian Protestants furiously attacked the Holy Roman Emperor in terms to impose a restriction on their religious and civil liberties. By understanding the Thirty Years War, you will notice the notable religious, political and social changes. The changes paved the religious and political maps of Europe. Not only did this war affect the religious and political demographic, it caused populations to perish and lose large amounts of their goods. What was known as a religious battle, turned out to be a political feud in competition of which state has the greater power affecting men, women, soldiers and civilians. “[The bohemians] had no idea that their violent deed would set off a chain reaction of armed conflict that would last thirty years and later be called Europe’s “first world war” of the modern era.” When the war ended, the lands were defiled and over 5 million people were killed.
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.