In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of governance.
Dahl was a well-known American political theorist who established the pluralist theory of democracy. “A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956)”, “Democracy and its Critics (1989)”, and “On Democracy (1998)” were the example of Dahl’s influential books in political science. The last book he wrote was “On political Equality (2006)”. In the book of “On political Equality”, Dahl claimed that political equality is the fundamental assumption of democracy politics, but not freedom. The meaning of political equality, the relationship between political equality and democracy, as well as how political equality affect the resources allocation in the society were still not clearly understood.
It also is in favour of fair and free elections and independent courts of law. The word democracy itself comes from the Greek term containing two words, demos meaning the citizens within a city state, and katos meaning the power of rule. Many modern political theorists look back positively on the Greek city states. They believed that Greece provided a model of democracy in which modern liberal democracy’s fall short off. Direct democracy was made possible as women slaves and foreigners did all the work so other citizens could partake in democracy and politics.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.
The necessary condition for her democracy is thoughtful action, so does this mean that people who do not participate, or those that are incapable of participating in the political sphere would be taken away their rights in this democracy? It seems as if this creates some sort of a paradox, since citizens are divided into two categories, two classes, and only those who deliberate are allowed to participate in this democracy, and it can be questioned whether it can still be called a democracy. Reading political philosophers from Plato to Hannah Arendt reveals that for any state to function properly, certain conditions must be fulfilled. For Plato it is the fact that philosophers – those with the highest mental capacities, the lovers of knowledge – are rulers, and all the rest of the citizens perform the roles they were meant for, and for Arendt it is the fact that deliberation is obligatory. Both of these two theories separate the thinkers from the rest of the citizens, and both of these theories seemingly create an aristocracy, since even though Arendt defends democracy, it seems that those without the capacity or will to deliberate are the class with less rights.
(Brand, n.d.)” meaning the ruling of a few. Sparta, with its two kings and the power being passed down through the descendants, leaves little room for change politically. Athens, will always be the starting point of the democratic society, because of this, you will forever see these two stand in stark contrast of each other. Even though, Athens was a “Athens was a class based society" (Brand, n.d.) The Aristocrats, masses and generals were all part of the government, according to
The Democratic thought/Democracy will be understood if we dissect the contrasting views of Modern thinkers (Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Keynes, and Hayek) and the Social Contract thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). Also history will tell that after a long monarchial or authoritarian rule, people revolted and seek for freedom then move towards democracy. Origins of Democratic thought will be traced on how government and human’s rationality would evolve. According to Hobbes (1651) human beings are by nature made equal; they possess equal skills and strength. State of Nature is a state of war.
Democracy signifies participation of the people in the execution of their regime (Beramendi 2008). A democratic government is run by the people and its aim is public interest. Similarly, Backer and Raveloson (2008) explain democracy as a government which comes into power through general public, is practiced by the public and is there to work for the best interest of the public. Democracy can also be understood in opposition of other government systems; dictatorships, monarchies and aristocracies. In government systems, other than democracy, mostly, people have no or minute control over who will rule their state; contrarily, in democracy, people themself decide who will govern them or how their country will be run (Zimmermann 2012).
For Montesquieu the classification of Aristotle’s was not correct. He defines three perfect forms of government, monarchy where one person governs by specific laws, despotism where one person governs by his own will, and at last the republic that can be a democracy or aristocracy dependent on where the power is centralized in the body or specific number of people. He believed that in order to exist a republic government, democracy or aristocracy, the people that they govern must be driven from the public goof and acting for the public interest, “public virtue”. He mentions that without strong feeling of the public virtual a republic is easy to be destroyed by the factions, that they act for the own
So, in order to clarify what was said before, it will be taken into consideration: (1) the definition of democracy according to three important authors, (2) the principal characteristics of a democracy and the two main types of democracy: (3) direct and (4) representative. First of all, it is important to know the definition of democracy and its aspects. According to Peter Joyce (2005), the democratic government was initiated in the Greek city state of Athens in the fifth century B.C., so as a consequence, the word ‘democracy’ derived from two Greek words, demos (meaning ‘people’) and kratos (meaning ‘power’) , which means ‘government by the people’. Secondly, Giovanni Sartori (1997), a Political Science Researcher states that ‘democracy’ is an abbreviation that means Liberal Democracy. He distinguishes three aspects: democracy as a principle of legitimacy (power not derives