Developing Democracies Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was strong debate, between common people and leaders, as to which is the most effective form of government. Citizens from European countries disagreed with their own governments on whether a democracy or absolutism was the most effective form of government. Even to this day, it is clear that a democracy is respected as the most effective form of government, proven as even current societies have democracies, while few countries maintain an absolute monarchy. Unlike absolutism, democracies grant citizen’s rights that monarchies don’t allow for. These privileges include freedom of speech, religion, press, and the right to act against a government that disregards …show more content…
There were very few rules on what a monarch could or could not do. For example, monarchs would often spend all the citizen’s money on their own individual desires and when they ran out they would simply raise taxes, sending citizens into a deeper debt. However, in a democracy, this was almost impossible, as the branches of government were separated. “There can be no liberty where the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are united in one person or body of persons, because such concentration is bound to result in arbitrary deposition” (6). A separation of the three branches of government safeguarded that one person could not have so much control in governance. Particularly, as too much power in the wrong hands can be detrimental, and separating the branches of government, guarantees that no one branch becomes too powerful, because one of the other two branches have the ability to over-ride another branch. This is crucial in a government, as the potential for freedom of the citizenry to be eroded is high, if one person held all the power. Likewise, the rights and freedoms of a country’s citizens are imperative within a government. In early monarchies, such as those in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, monarchs cared very little about the people’s rights. They often treated the country very poorly, but residents were forced to live with it
This religious aspect to these absolute monarchs caused the people to have respect for their rulers. People thought “Fear God, Honor the King.” (Document 5) It meant that people should have faith in their Kings and fear the course that God has set for them. They believed that monarchs were sent to do the good deeds of god and that using their power for evil was a horrible sin.
The separation of powers help by having the legislative, executive, and judicial branch separated. Separation of power guarded against tyranny by separating them so the don’t join forces and gain to much power and change america. A third protection against tyranny was checks and balances which means to stop one branch from becoming too powerful. Checks and balances helped guard against tyranny by having them check each other and help each other if something goes wrong like how the executive can veto the law that the legislative makes.
In the early 1200’s, King John of England spent most of his time trying to expand his territory. In doing so, he outstretched his expenses, and forced his people to keep trying to pay impeccably high taxes he imposed on them. After his many military failures, the kings’ nobles forced John to write a document stating his powers as King for his people. This could be a problem because King John could have threatened people who didn’t agree to his terms with their family’s’ lives, or their social status as nobles. Then as recipients of the letter, his people might not expect too much out of it because the king can change the document as easily as he can create it.
In a pure democracy, the power lies in the people as well, but is exercised directly by the citizens rather than by their elected representatives. After breaking free from British rule, America’s founders sought to stray away from government that did not value the voices of the people it governed. When working towards creating a new government, the founder’s beliefs were rooted in “republicanism,
Everything our forefathers studied raised fear and revealed that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths". The word democracy is used today to describe governments that derive power from citizens and are held accountable to those citizens when using that power. Utilizing modern usage of the term, the United States can be described as a democracy and even though there are examples of "pure democracy" to be found, for example, state ballots containing policy questions that are directly decided by popular vote, the U.S. Constitution does not allow national ballot referendums or initiatives because those that framed it were opposed to the idea and were not comfortable with common
When the farmers began with the Constitution their efforts was to divide governmental power. To prevent tyranny they needed to separation of power so this created our three branches, legislative (Congress), judicial (Supreme Court), and executive, (The President). This would mean on one person could lead the country alone and make the laws alone. This is where checks and balances come in, no one branch can gain absolute power and they cannot abuse the power that is given. By separation of power provides a system of shared power and to make sure it is fair and equal to all.
The monarchy in Canada is a continuous debate among the politicians and individuals. This paper aims to present the advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy in Canada. This way will enable us to take a clear position. First, Canadian politics are known for their divisive attitudes, and it is very hard to get consensus on decisions. The Queen plays the role of reference for the Canadian politicians and their decisions.
This excerpt is giving a sturdy explanation on the topic of tyranny,and how it gave us a clarification on how tyranny is being stopped by overpowering the king. Critics also argued that the king or queen could create laws that applied to only some people and not others, and that unelected officials could make decisions that negatively affected citizens. The people were exhausted and started to realize that they wanted to overthrow the king themselves. Critics of the monarch read and discussed what tyranny meant in order to argue for their notion of the rule of law.
The barons wanted a government that could provide for the people and not overpower them, but in the authoritarian government shown in Fahrenheit 451, the government has the right to invade people’s natural rights and take away freedom and
Absolute monarchies had all the power in Europe. Their kingdoms were powerful and accomplished. Although absolute monarchies empowered and enriched their kingdoms, they were still largely detrimental because of King Louis XIV of France, debt, Frederick the Great’s seizure of Silesia, and the city of St. Petersburg. King Louis XIV of France was an absolute monarch.
Although, through an absolute monarchy would only benefit the king and his noblemen, but the Magna Carta changed that when rights were given to the people. The Magna Carta greatly states, “Men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions” (Britannica). To illustrate, the Magna Carta states no man will be denied of their rights or justice, instead will be equally among his heirs and the government. With that being said, no individual rights will be oppose under this justice system. Thus, from the article one of the constitution states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Absolute monarchy is rule by one person, usually a King or Queen, who obtains absolute power of authority with no repercussions for what he or she does. Bishop Bossuet held strongly to the argument of absolute monarchy, whereas John Locke opposed on the basis of man's natural rights. Bossuet and Locke have different views on the government’s source of power and their ideas about the rights of the people, but agreed that their chosen theories are in the best interest of the people and held their country's unity in high regard. The first thing we can look at when comparing the two philosophers ideas, is their differences of opinions on the government's source of power.
Do you ever wonder if the separation of powers in the government is important or not? The Separation of powers among the branches of the government is important because it makes sure that one branch or group of people/a person is not overpowering the rest of the government. The Separation of powers also ensures that the government is listening to the citizens and is keeping the rights and liberties that the citizens have. In this essay, i will explain to you how each branch of the government ensures that the other branches abide to the constitution and ensure that they keep the promise of Freedom and the rights of the citizen. Topic from yellow Each branch of the government makes sure that the other branches are not overpowering or breaking
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I