Roman Republic: Oligarchy or Democracy While the system of government employed by the Roman Republic may appear to be democratic in theory, there is some debate as to whether one can consider the manner in which it functioned practically as being truly democratic. The main debate centres on the issue of whether the Roman Republic was a democracy or an oligarchy. Issues such as unequal distribution, a political structure that favours the elites, and the power of individuals, make an argument in favour of oligarchy, while the system of election by popular vote, the time limitation on holding office, and the sharing of power at every level of government, combine to make a case for democracy. All of these structures were exploited and manipulated
In a republic, the constitution protects only certain rights, which cannot be taken away from the government even if the majority of civilians have elected these rights. In a democracy, it is different where the majority of civilians is not restrained to rights and can impose their own rights on the minorities present within a society. However, along with having different limitations on governments by the law, the two political movements do have similar principles on the ideas of rights, where through the use of a representational system, they both allow citizens to vote to elect politicians to represent their interests as well as to form a government to represent these so called civilian rights. Therefore, there are some overlaps is between the way the two governments are ruled, however at the end of the day the clear difference is that no matter what the outcome civilian rights, it all depends on the way the elected bodies choose to distribute these rights over
A representative democracy is a form of government where electives are chosen to make major decisions. Direct and representative democracies are two very different types of government. Since direct democracies involve everyone voting, it is only appropriate in civilizations or groups with small populations, such as Greece. Representative democracies use elected officials, so it works well with larger populations, such as Rome or the United States. Even though there are so many differences
Other conflict that stemmed from the formation of the Constitution was the development of two different groups; the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution and the Antifederalists, those who did not support the Constitution. Federalists sought to reform the government system by implementing an executive power to act as a mediator for states so that no specific state had more power than the other and so that critical deeds can be executed without problem, such as collecting taxes. Anti-Federalists wanted to stray away from an authoritative power, fearing that a powerful and distant government would not serve for the interests and needs of the citizens. They also complained that the Constitution failed to guarantee individual liberties in
The two models of democracy compared and contrasted between various governmental institutions is the Majoritarian Model and the Consensus Model. To start off, democracy can be defined as: “political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty… it clearly emphasized individual freedom and is in keeping with the ideology of liberalism.” (O’Neil 128) Although both forms of democracy are in truth democracy, the argument is whether or not one system is more democratic than the other. When it comes to how the country is governed and how its laws are implemented, which is to demonstrate a more democratic idea of how democracy should be enforced. Majoritarian basically refers to governing by the majority
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government.
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
Party government, also known as responsible parties, is an idea supported by people who believe that strong government could be efficient to deal with economic and social problems at national levels. This “party government” is significantly different from the traditional American limited government, including a clear statement about principles, accountable candidates, differentiated campaigns, and responsible officeholders for party programs. For the United States to create responsible party government, there are three major prerequisites. Strong presidents such as Reagan and Bush can make the public recognize the gap between parties and have control over the Congress on bills and policies. However, such powerful presidents would bring a “presidential government” instead of responsible parties.
If a president were to be elected without proper votes, it would be a comfort for voters to have term limits. Most importantly, term limits prevent a president from becoming too powerful by limiting his time in power. Term limits prevent the government from turning into a dictatorship.
Indirect democracy is responsive to the will of the people and can educate citizens on political issues. Representatives may have ulterior motives and may not work in the best interest of the people. Minority groups may not be represented enough because they do not have the majority of the votes. Totalitarian democracy is a system of government where individuals are given the right to vote but have no participation in the decision making process. This could be seen as a good way to rule if the person in power, makes decision in the good of society.
As seen in Document A, it compares the Articles and the Constitution. For the executive branch, (the Constitution) had president administrators that enforce federal laws while (the Articles) only takes care when the Congress is not there. For the legislative branch, (the Constitution) a bicameral legislature where each state has equal representation in the Senate and each state has proportional representation in the House of Representatives thus fixing the issue of representation for small and large states. The Articles had a unicameral legislature where each state has one vote no matter what population they had which was unfair for the small states. The Constitution had a national court system that hears different cases while the Articles didn’t have that at all.
Under the Us Constitution the central government know has more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation to stabilize the United States. When the writers came up with the rules for a new government they wanted democracy to be a part of it. A republic was wanted by the colonists after the King imposed taxes and limited the settlement for people in North America. The US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation let the people have a say on how they could govern themselves instead of a monarch. Both documents limited the power that the central government had on the states and its people.