Machiavelli's and Plato's Differences in Government Structure

At times the controversy between how free a society should be, or how strict, can escalate depending on the opinion in question. In this case Plato and Machiavelli, they have very different ideas of whether or not being a democratical society is correct or even dangerous. They in-turn represents the contrast of the ideals of a perfect society and order.

The way that Ancient Greeks and Romans ran their government was by utilizing three main styles of government: Monarchy, Democracy, and an Aristocracy. They did so in ways that the three styles balanced each other out. For the Ancient Greeks the wealthier citizens, known as the senate, would hold a stronger power of government. They did this to make sure that all of their eligible citizens could have a say in government. If you owned land than you can vote, that was all that was required. Even though they were divided into separate sections of government the elite would have the greatest power. This is since it was more focused on the idea of an oligarchy. They felt only land owning men should have a say in government and politics. Whereas the ancient Romans were more based on a monarchy, they felt that it was best to have a dominant central figure to rule the land. They too utilized the separated powers, yet it was focused around one divine individual. They felt that through the one leader they had the strength of certainty and it usually was due to some achievement of the individual. The senate would appoint the dictator or monarch. Then the people would look to them as the leader of the empire.

There were the original ideas of moving towards a Republican or Democratic government but made slight tweaks to the governing ideologies. The idea of a republic, or a republican ideology...

... middle of paper ...

...t accordingly of not will define their length of time in their role. This goes to show that an assorted government is much stronger and a greater sense of stability. It does not rely on an individual but rather a variety of them. It creates a greater chance that the government can function correctly. Also the fact is that the parts of government allow their people to change. This means you are not stuck with one person deciding for the country, but rather multiple. I also like the structure better. Since there are three sections of government being implemented it prevents one from becoming too powerful. This means that there is less anarchy; every branch of government has their response. This means that they are less likely to fall apart during a crisis, now that they have the ability can communicate to find which solution would take care of the situation the best.