Reyes, Antonio Jose T. A53 11538406 Sir. Anthony Borja
AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRACY
How does one rule a country? Politics has been the basis of power for more than a thousand years now. Traces of political movements have been discovered in different parts of the world; from the birth place of civilization found in the Middle East; the Mesopotamian, from the Western region of the world; England and even South America, and from the Dynasties of China and lands of Japan, politics was already in play during these times. As time passed by, politics evolved from Monarchies to Democracies, and power has been openly up for grabs during the development of politics. Everyone wants power and everyone would do almost anything to get it, and everyone
Governments should be afraid of their people.”3( Quoted by Alan Moore, V for Vendetta) .In contrasts to the definition of authoritarianism, power is no longer in the hands of one ruler; but it now rests in the hands of the citizens of the state. According to Robert Dahl; “democratic theory is concerned with processes by which ordinary citizens exert a relatively high degree of control over leaders;”4 ( Quoted by Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition). Dahl expressed that citizens are a definite factor for this political system to further define the system of democracy in a state. In one of Dahl’s work; “On Democracy”, he made a criteria on how Democracy works. In this criterion he expressed that this system does not give you what you want but gives you the chance to fight for what you want. The citizens are highly active in this system, because they get to address the needs of the community as a whole and not as individuals, and if it represents the majority, then the leader will grant this request for the citizens. The beauty of this system is that it represents all types of non-violent movements without absolute freedom. It even highlights the term “Public Servants” to the state. It bonds the representatives and constituents. When it comes to weighing in the cons, I believe that the only downfall for this system is that, because it is somewhat transparent, citizens can figure out the leader’s next move and they can easily take advantage of this. With that being said, people might think they have absolute freedom, and instead of asking for what they need, they might just start asking for what they
In McDougal Littell & Co.’s textbook “Arizona McDougal Littell literature” 2008 version, they provide many text documents that can be referenced to resolve the question, “Who has the right to rule?”. The right to rule is decided by a victory, the right to maintain rule is judged upon by one’s peers. How do leaders come to power; might it be through war, Coup d’etats, or politics? How come some leaders are rejected from power; can it be through popular uprisings or is power to blame? To possess the right to rule, one must first acquire it. After attaining it, the right to rule must be nurtured by a virtuous supervisor who doesn't abuse one’s power. These qualities are determined by the people to be as fair and just as they see fit.
Democracy has been a topic discussed for hundreds of years and a general idea of the topic would be the “governing of people by the people”. Many people have attempted “to sketch characteristics, or outcomes or preconditions, because democracy itself” (4) has been seen to be a difficult concept to define. In John L Anderson’s ‘What is Democracy?’ (2004) he takes an alternative approach to understanding democracy. Anderson explains that there is no “tidy set of ideas”, but rather “an indirect approach to defining democracy” (4) in order to understand and teach the concept of democracy. He states that there are four notion to achieve this: seeking the public interest helps us develop a morality based upon concern for others; governing others
Totalitarian regimes take over control of every aspect of an individual's life in which the state holds total authority. The only thing Totalitarian regimes do for its community is cause the basic rights of humans to be destroyed by brutality and terror. The Totalitarian society of any regime is constantly moving toward some end goal, even though the totalitarian state never reaches it. It instead creates the illusion of doing so. As soon as one goal was reached, it was replaced by another and such was the case in Stalin's Russia.
The Consequences of a Totalitarian Society Americans today tend to believe that one of the world’s biggest fears is totalitarianism. The thought of a government that has complete and utter control continues to bring fear to people today. According to an article titled “Totalitarianism,” the author states, “Totalitarian governments use propaganda to spread ideas in order to control every aspect of life, including economic, social, political, and intellectual. This control was meant to serve a purpose; to unite the people in the achievement of common goals.” In other words, the author believes that individuals are not allowed any freedoms unless the leader of the state allowed it.
George Orwell’s 1984 is a novel that explores the effects of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is one political power ruling over all aspects of daily life. Orwell’s totalitarian government uses Big Brother, the Thought Police, the telescreen and Two-Minutes of Hate to show the control over the people of Oceania and their lack of independence.
When we hear of the word democracy we think of a system of government where the people are in control or have most of the power. Most system of government tend to use the democratic way of leadership today around the world because of how popular it became in America. There are many influences that lead to this change in democracy that helps to shape it in the way it is used today. many social movements and interest groups has influenced and impacted a positive change in this new and reformed way of leadership. I will further elaborate and discuss what has led to this new democracy in the U.S.
One basis of political democracy during this time period was the debate about property requirements to be able to vote. After the Revolution, no new state required property ownership to be able to vote. Also, constitutional conventions during the 1820s and 1830s got rid of property requirements within older states, mostly because the expanding amount of wage earners who did not have much property insisted on the right to vote. However, by 1860, in the South, where large slave owners controlled politics and did not trust mass democracy, property requisites were extinguished gradually and went away later than the rest of the nation. The personal independence necessary to the citizen was now found in owning one’s self, instead of owning property.
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
How can someone fully understand a tragedy such as the Holocaust? Many say the event ineffable to anyone who wasn’t there to begin with, but people are still striving to achieve complete or near complete comprehension. In order to do this people have used multiple media like books and recordings but the one that gives “the greatest illusion of authenticity” is movies. The purpose of Holocaust-filmmaking is to help people get a grasp on what it felt like to be in the middle of such a horrific thing as the Holocaust. If this isn’t done, then the true emotions won’t influence the audience who won’t find a way to preserve the history of the Holocaust and memories that took place in those awful times will be lost forever. Many films of the Holocaust
Is a Democracy Really What You Think It Is? What is considered an ideal democracy? Would it be where the people rule directly or where there are representatives who organize the government?
A memorable expression said by President Abraham Lincoln reads, “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Democracy, is a derived from the Greek term "demos" which means people. It is a successful, system of government that vests power to the public or majority. Adopted by the United States in 1776, a democratic government has six basic characteristics: (i) established/elected sovereignty (where power and civic responsibility are exercised either directly by the public or their freely agreed elected representative(s)), (ii) majority rule(vs minority), (iii) (protects one’s own and reside with) human rights, (iv) regular free and fair elections to citizens (upon a certain age), (v) responsibility of
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
From Greek polis to French absolutism to Italian fascism, political system has varied across both spatial domain and temporal range. The dynamism with which the zeitgeist sways from one political system to other raises an essential question: Is there a final form of government? The dynamism, which has propagated other forms of governance in the past, now seems to favour liberal democracy, and many have posited the argument that liberal democracy is the final form of government. However, to establish such a case, three conditions need to be met. This essay will discuss what the three conditions are, how the three conditions are not met, or in cases they are met, the reasons for their insufficiency for the end of history with liberal democracy, and other shortcomings within the current political framework that suggest otherwise.
In American history, the elements of the American liberal democratic tradition that were most relevant in the society were individual freedom, economic freedom, equality, and democracy. Liberal democracy refers to the people being the rulers with guarantees of individual freedom and equality and that it focuses on individual liberty as an essential to protecting that liberty. The two biggest challenges that liberal democracy faces are one balancing equality and liberty and the other is balancing the government’s needs for individual freedom and legitimacy. Liberal democracy plays a major role in our society to limit government power in interfering with liberty while as it ensures that the government protects liberties. The elements of