The only problem that would be bad for this is if the dictator seated is an extreme leader who would see violence as the best way to bring peace and stability to the country. If the leader does not have the public’s interest on his side, it would be hard to maintain his power and stability of ruling in that certain nation. In times of crisis, this type of government would be a good resort in order to bring back a good government to the country. Since we are facing so many dilemmas now, this is a good type of government for
It is based on the principle of equality of all citizens and on the power to the people, but these principles are not completely fair with respect to the citizens, and more importantly, they do not work in developed societies. Equality of all is magnificent in principle; nonetheless, it would not be fair, since it does not take into account the principle of meritocracy. Under Marx’s communism, people will not be rewarded for their merits, but everyone will have the same opportunities and enjoy the same benefits. The equality of opportunities that Marx suggests is moral since everyone should have the same opportunities to receive a good quality education, to be able to apply for a good job and receive adequate health care. However, in certain fields as labor, people should be able to succeed thanks to merit, not thanks to equality or recommendations.
Democracy was always thought of as the best form of government that can lead a community of people. Its definition by Nyerere is that “democracy is government by discussion as opposed to government by force” (Nyerere 169). Basically, it’s a government by the people in which the citizens have the opportunity to change the government at any time. Democracy can produce many great products as well as negative ones. The democratic form of government has the potential to lead a group of people to success, but sometimes democracy doesn’t seem like the best way to run a country.
Thomas Jefferson’s version of Democracy would definitely contradict todays, but without change in the world nothing interesting would ever happen. Jack Ma states, “Most importantly, at Alibaba, we still have the dream in our hearts. We want to change the future.” This is important because wanting to change one of the most important factors in the progression of this country and the
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.
Trickle-down theory hypothesized that if the government took care of the rich and powerful, the wealth would then begin to benefit the rest of the community. Instead of benefitting everyone, the rich just got richer and everyone else got nothing. Since the wealthy continue to be the only people to see these benefits, their version of the American dream has evolved into something unrealistic for a profitable economy. In the article, The Evolution of the American Dream, O’Mara quotes James Adams, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian who states, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages…” (2). Since the American dream has gotten out of reach from 90 percent of the population, the rich keep profiting while everyone else continues to lose hope in the idea of a successful life.
Also, this shows how necessary it is to have a strong economy, otherwise, Americans would have to go through many problems. The others that disagreed with approving the New Constitution are wrong because, without a strong government, Americans won’t obtain freedom. This is why I think the new Constitution should be
In the history textbook, it sounds like our nation is the best and the greatest, but when you find the truth about of our nation, it makes a total difference. You might think, “Why am I here?” “Is it safe for me to stay in this nation?” Everything starts from the government. Because their duty is to rule the nation, so they get the credit or the blame. Although some people disagree with this idea because people are not perfect and they make the mistakes, but this is above the limit line of mistakes. It is intentionally done for it.
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.
or a government that allow your opinions but makes it harder to run the country because they have different opinions. But some people feel that democracy have more control over what goes and and they make all the decisions . People still feel that dictatorship is better and they can use to it to their advantage. This country should have a democracy government because it makes it gives us a chance to express our concerns and opinions about what the government is doing . In the text it states that “ The current leaders in a perfect democracy would have zero influence, whereas an absolute dictatorship would place total control over the decision in one person’s hands”(Acemoglu,2012) .