Egypt has erupted into civil war. Its people are revolting against the Hosni Mubarak regime and are demanding a new government that represents the interests of the Egyptian people. Each modern day revolt mimics the countless uprising that has occurred during the times of Ancient Athens and Rome. The populace rises to overthrow their oppressors fighting for liberty, but is liberty, is democracy truly the solution? Democracy, by definition, is a government in which power is derived from its people. With democracy comes the ability for the masses to direct the government for the benefit of the common man; he who experiences the effects of its decisions directly. However, if these masses become destructive by any means, a democratic society will fail. There are many motives of democracy ranging from the attempt to simply alter some facets of democracy to striving to abolish its existence entirely. Behind each critique is a philosopher; one who asserts their views on how society should function. Two great minds in particular voiced conviction against the creation of democracy and subsequently provided solutions and alternatives to the government that they found faulty. Each presented teachings and writings which urged each complacent citizen to question their role in society and reconsider the conventions that were established under the fallacy they believed democracy to be. Although numerous philosophers criticized democracy, both Plato, through his argument to establish an Oligarchy, and Polybius, whose writings displayed a Roman constitution that split powers between three integral types of Governed, established some of most explicit alternatives to democratic rule. Above all, the Roman solution is the most relevant to the subse...
... middle of paper ...
...fficiently. While altering the individual feels more concordant with Plato’s philosophical thought, it still served to establish the qualities to which political leaders are judged today. Furthermore, Polybius, through his analysis of the Roman constitution, noted a solution to the pitfall into ochlocracy: a more intelligent populace. The Roman solution to this was somewhat simpler. Rather than altering the perceptions of the populace, it simply removed the power from their hands. It took qualities from each of the three integral types of government and created a system that is remarkably similar to our modern-day “checks and balances.” Through its constitution, Rome established a society that served as a model for all great empires. Rome had achieved the impossible by establishing such an expansive empire that it began to set precedent for all future societies.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
The Roman Republic was an extraordinary civilization with an exceptionally complex political system that still impact governments today. The Roman Republic comprised of three sections. The most astounding being the Consul that was made up of two male individuals who are chosen every year. Furthermore, there was the Senate made up of elder statesmen that exhorted the Consul and lastly there was the Assemblies where people voted by groups on issues. A couple of their strengths of the political system was its citizen association, in spite of the fact that plebeians really didn't have much power. Another strength of the political system was that it was administered and in view of well spelt out laws to maintain a strategic distance from cases of dictatorship.
If one were to make his way through the history of the world, he or she would learn about the many forms of government, and how they came to be. In the case of Rome, many historians would note it as having a period where it was a republic, and a period where it was an empire. When examined in detail, though, the Roman Republic fails to mirror a true republic. While it had republican qualities, it was ultimately set up to give the common people a false sense of security and power in the Roman government. The ancient city of Rome was never a true republic because its traits do not emulate the definition of a republic or the republics of other ancient societies, and because of its biased political system.
Plato defines Athens as a democratic society that “treats all men as equal, whether they are equal or not.” Therefore, believes that there are those that are born to rule and others that are born to be ruled. Plato presents the argument that democracy does not achieve the greatest good, giving four main objections to democracy. Firstly, he identifies that most of us are ruled by passions, pleasure, sentiment and impulse. Hence, th...
The Roman Republic is highly praised for its innovation, influence and expansion. In a period of expansion, there was a setting of constitutional precedent for the future late Republic and Roman Empire. The Roman Republic can also be viewed from the perspective of internal balances of power. That being said, although the Republic was not a full democracy, as stated by Polybius, it did provide some political power to the people. Although the Roman people played a significant role in politics and had some power, said power was limited through checks of the Senate and Consul, and most positions of power were very concentrated in the hands of Patricians and aristocrats. The powers that all citizens inherently possessed did however play a significant
The question of how to effectively govern an empire with a diverse population under its dominion has been the greatest question since antiquity when the Greeks first developed the polis. The Roman Empire is suffering from a conflict of differing ideologies: whether it is best to employ a centralized or decentralized government structure. Such a conflict is important to resolve, as an improper structure could eventually result in a catastrophic suffering if not dealt with immediately, and appropriately. As citizens of the Empire, we have to find a way to most effectively govern this nation and its subsidiaries while maintaining stability. In 44 BC Caesar was named dictator for life, and he posed several reforms, including a new constitution.
Throughout this paper I plan to compare and contrast the ideas and philosophies of two of the greatest political thinkers of all time. Thucydides and Aristotle have separate opinions of the idea of democracy, originally created by Plato. However, these two have a positive assessment of this idea of majority rule of the people. My paper will provide each of their points of view. At the end I will determine, in my opinion, which of these two philosophers give a better case in favor of a democratic form of government, and give the reasons as to how I came to that conclusion.
In his book, The Origins of Political Order, Fukuyama considers Liberal Democracy (Fukuyama, 2011) to be the most stable form for a state to adopt. To be considered a Liberal Democracy a state must balance the principle of popular consent, the need for limited government intervention and the protection of individual liberties. The model of separation of powers and a series of checks and balances ensures that no branch of government can dominate the political agenda. Similarly, the rule of law preserves the authority of law over all, protecting civil liberties and individual rights. The Constitution and the existence of an independent judiciary act as a restraint on government. In line with this free, frequent, and competitive election, promoting universal suffrage and political equality assures that government can be held to account; and thus the citizens remain sovereign. The classical depiction of liberty originated from the individual rights of ‘life, liberty and property’ (Wintrop, 1987, p.12), as states have developed, these rights have expanded countering the growing state, franchise and economy. In addition human nature and voter apathy remain as threats in preventing the fulfillment of the democratic process. The fundamental weakness of a Liberal Democracy
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?”
Although there are advantages and disadvantages to both a representative government and deliberative democracy the benefits are largely dependant on the context of policy making and whose interests are being considered. A representative democracy is one that is currently in place across Australia and, for the most part, the rest of the world whereby a group of representatives deliberate without unequal distributions to power on behalf of the nations citizens by denoting their beliefs, attitudes and perspectives. Recent and ongoing concerns regarding the self-interested, bureaucratic nature of government has lead to increased interest in a more classical deliberative form of democracy particularly at the idea of public participation (Heywood 2004) which “challenge[s] the dominant technocratic, empiricist models in policy analysis” (Fischer 2003). Deliberative democracy rests on the core notion of political inquiry that is concerned with improving collective decision-making under conditions contribute to reasoned reflection and refined public judgment. It highlights the opportunity for citizens who are subject to a collective decision to participate in consequential deliberation about that decision in the interest of a mutually acceptable solution. Although many democracies already have mechanisms in place for citizen participation, such as letters to local members of parliament or participation in public consultation, deliberative democracy is distinguished by the way in which deliberation takes place through rational argument in search of the common good (Torres 2006). This paper will highlight both the benefits and disadvantages of a representative and a deliberative democracy through careful examination of each type of governanc...
Human history is pock-marked with innumerable wars and revolutions. The cause for most of the revolutions has been the choice of freedom. The opportunity to live a life without physical, mental or emotional restrictions has been and still is of supreme importance to man. This has resulted in the most widely followed discipline of political governance: Democracy.
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
Is it important to you that your opinion matters? If so then democracy is the government for you. Democracy is a group of leader that is for the people by the people. It is not just one leader making all the rules, it splits up the power into different branches. This makes it almost impossible for someone to get to much power. When looking at democracy it is proven to be the best form of government when compared to monarchies and dictatorships. Most of the enlightenment thinkers did not believe in democracy such as Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes and many others. Over the years democracy has been proven to be the most efficient yet some places still don't find it necessary to switch their form of government. Even though democracy is great it has
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.
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.