Laissez Faire Analysis

1. Laissez-faire is a term of the French origin, which can be translated into English as “let them do”. This term refers to economic policy within the framework of a certain economic system in which the role of a government as a regulatory body, which monitors and controls economic processes, is minimized. In the economic system that is built on the basis of a laissez-faire principle a government has not right to regulate (or influence in any other way) economic and business transactions of private parties. In other words, any economic system based on a laissez-faire approach to economic relations must be free of any privileges, subsidies and regulations alike (Gordon 473). As a matter of fact the concept of laissez-faire is not about economic

1. The political system of the Russian Empire was characterized by autocracy, within the framework of which only one person in the country was responsible for the decision-making, namely the Czar or the Emperor. From the economic point of view Russian Empire was a backward nation with weak civil society and mainly illiterate population. Unlike Western Europe, the middle class in Russia was underdeveloped and failed to exert any influence on political processes. However, the nobility of the Russian Empire were well-educated people that got education abroad, mainly in the Western Europe, and were fully aware of the fact that their country needed substantial reforms to be taken. A painful defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War (1853-1856) exposed to light the weak side of the economic system of the country and made the ruling class of the Russian Empire start introducing reforms that changed the face of the country to a great extent. As a repercussion of the defeat in the aforementioned war slavery was abolished in Russia (almost 15 years later than in the Western Europe) in 1861, which boosted the economy of the country. The second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century became the period of a series of drastic changes in socio-economic, political and cultural spheres. There was a comprehensive overhaul in the sphere of local government, court, military, education and censorship policy. As a result of those reforms the transition to

The policy of Appeasement was a diplomatic strategy pursued by France and Britain in 1930s in order to prevent Europe from plunging into a big war. The aforementioned policy aimed at appeasing the revanchist Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, which was established in Germany in 1933. The epitome of the policy of Appeasement is considered to be the Munich Agreement signed by Nazi Germany, Britain, France and Italy in September, 1938. According to this agreement, which is also known as the Munich Pact, Britain, France and Italy granted Germany the right to annex the part of the territory of another independent European state, Czechoslovakia. Shortly after the Munich Agreement was signed the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared that it was a huge diplomatic success that allowed maintaining peace in Europe. However, the further development of the situation proved Chamberlain wrong because Nazi Germany violated the Munich Pact and occupied the whole territory of Czechoslovakia. The policy of Appeasement was a huge mistake that triggered the WWII; it was a bright illustration of the axiom, according to which the aggression cannot be appeased but should be nipped in the bud. The lesson of the policy of Appeasement helps to understand that the best way to deal the global menace of terrorism is to cut off terroristic forces in their prime. In my opinion, nowadays President Obama tends to repeat past mistakes by negotiating with potential enemies and trying appease