“Outline and critically assess the history and nature of democracy.” Abraham Lincoln, a former US president (1809-1865) defined democracy as “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Although over time it is debated how effective democracy really is. In my essay I will assess the history and nature of democracy to establish its effectiveness and benefits to the people. Through my research I have established a more modern informal definition to democracy. Democracy is a form of government where a constitution as written by the people outlines what basic, personal and political rights the people should be guaranteed. It also is in favour of fair and free elections and independent courts of law.
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.
These two prominent philosophers well explain what politics is and they may define the most appropriate definition of politics in the 21st century. Furthermore, it is likely that many people agree with their ideas. However, As Leach (2008) noted: “Defining politics turns out to be far from straight forward” (p. 7). Indeed, a definition of politics is largely based upon an individual’s culture and entirely subjective. An understanding of the history and origins of politics helps us to understand how there can be so many different definitions and understandings of politics around the globe.
Abraham Lincoln, a famous eloquent American president once quotes that “Those who deny freedom to others does not deserve it themselves” (L.Pierce) In perspective of this extremely truthful quote, I proceed to define the essential words in title as indicated by the Oxford English Dictionary that Democracy can be best define as the Government by the people that is, an arrangement of Government in which all the populace of the state or a country are involves in making decisions about its affairs ordinarily by voting to choose a representatives to a parliament assembly. In other words, it is a system where the choice and the mode of governance are dictated by individuals through a few set of persons elected by the individuals to speak or represent them. Incorporating this definition, the title which is a direct question can be revised as: Is Democracy the best form of Government? To begin with, in case I am to supply a direct response to the main Question, my honest answer would be insistent yes. This is not intended to sound true alone, but I would like to give fitting reasons why I think the correct answer to the Question is to the affirmative.
HIST 1421 The Life and Governmental Structures of the People of Athens and Sparta UoP Word Count: 1447 Abstract In this paper I will discuss how the people in Athens and Sparta obtain the right to participate in public life and make decisions affecting the community. I will also talk about who was able to hold public office and what kinds of rules governed the selection of public office holders. I will talk about how these two city-states (Athens and Sparta) were similar in governmental structures and also address how they differed and in what ways. The people of Athens and Sparta were different in many aspects of their political, government and society set up and this showed in the basic way that they conducted their everyday lives.
Rousseau's understanding of democracy is often described as the theory of identity in the sense of the continuing identity of sovereigns with sovereigns. However, it is precisely the skepticism of Rousseau that the sovereignty of these sovereigns and the institutional connection of the legislature and the executive are so connected. Finally, the external political and geopolitical conditions must be appropriate for democracy: for Rousseau, democracy is a form of state that fits the smaller and poorer states, but as a rule these states are connected to other great states in economic and military terms. Rousseau was a republican. His ideal state - historically, the Republic of Rome and authoritatively ruled Sparta, and in the meantime, in a small space, a morally perfect republic, in particular the Corsican, as a general ideal form of government for him as the "last classical utopian" It was a republic.
The argument of communism versus democracy has yet to end and with so many differences and few real similarities as the worlds turns and new leadership takes place the people are always at the helm of reform and reconstruction. As most incumbent leaders and rulers assure the people as they campaign. Democracy is a government by the people; especially: rule of the majority and a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections, whereas communism is a system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production, eliminating the right of private property. Democracy is the cornerstone of American politics, so living under a Democracy means freedom of choice and respect for individual rights with less government control. In a
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
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).
Is existing voting system reflect the will of public? To answer these questions, it is necessary to give the definition of democracy. According to the explanation given by Oxford dictionary, democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. To make it not so abstract and easier for further discussion, we quote the definition from Prof. Larry Diamond from Stanford University: A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. Hence, the characteristics of electoral system of a country can effectively reflect its degree of democracy.