Why did Constant think that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world?
Why did Constant think that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world? Constant believed that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world because ancient democracy is linked to the notion of ancient liberties, which placed in the modern state would result in arbitrary rule or an authoritarian state. He believed that an authoritarian state would occur when there was an emphasis on collective participation in the shared sovereignty of the state (an ancient notion of liberty) instead of the emphasis on individual liberty (a modern notion) as a result people could be coerced into this participation. Thus, this form of coercion would lead to the marginalisation of the individual rights and a slow erosion of political rights. "insistence on the impossibility in principle of realising the ancient conceptions of political agency within the inhospitable practical organisation of modern political societies and on the murderous consequences that are likely to result from the confused attempt to realise them in this profoundly alien setting"1 Furthermore, he believed that because we live in such a rational2 society and that because of this structure of society it would not be pragmatic to impose such ancient liberties in a modern setting. In addition, he thought that an increasing globalised world which economic expansion and commerce
What is Democracy? In what ways has the concept been controversial in the study of politics?"The notions
"What is Democracy? In what ways has the concept been controversial in the study of politics?" The notions of government and of democracy are independent notions and do not depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely naturally come about; whether or not, it has the consent of the people, real or imagined. Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, it can be argued, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed as is with many other long established democratic governments in the world, they did not come about by the general will of the people at all; nor is it necessary that it should it be maintained by the will of the people. One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy. An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained,
What is good, And What is bad About Democracy?
What is good, And What is bad About Democracy? Kari Williams - 03027111 Thursday, 11th December 2003 PG101 - Introduction to Politics Mike Mills / Peter Laugharne The word democracy comes from the Greek work Kratos which means 'power'. The word demos is understood to mean 'people' or 'many' therefore the joining of these two words would equate to the meaning of democracy - 'power to the people'. There are many different versions of democracy so there is not one specific model to measure by. The main strand of democracy is Liberal Democracy. This in itself is two-stemmed, one stem being of a liberal nature defined by the idea of a confined government and the other stem being of a democratic nature defined by the pledge to favoured rule. Rather than being a static entity, democracy is in fact an ongoing struggle to build and lengthen its ideology. Though in general it is assumed that a nation is 'democratic' since its government is accountable to the people through election into public posts and all adults of a certain age have the right to vote and stand for election themselves, in fact, no nation actually delivers those notions to their full capability in practice. Over the last few years, democracy has been mistaken for many things especially with the heightened understanding of Globalisation. Some have called democracy Capitalism, Westernisation, American
Why has neither the UK nor the US adopted a system of proportional representation?
Why has neither the UK nor the US adopted a system of proportional representation? Proportional representation is defined as; a system whereby representation of parties in an elective body is in direct proportion to the votes they win (Collins E D), in effect, an ideal form of representation. Despite the fact that the USA and the UK are widely regarded as two of the foremost democracies in the world, neither country uses this system of voting to elect their most powerful political bodies. Instead they use a majoritarian system, First Past The Post, which, as we will see has not only a number of disadvantages but could also be described as anti-democratic. Electoral reform in both the US and the UK is a topic which has been much debated over the years. In the UK electoral reform has a long history; in 1918 a Speaker's Conference recommended a hybrid electoral system which was then passed as a bill in the House of Commons but failed in the House of Lords (Garnett & Lynch 2003). Similarly in the US there have been many instances where proportional systems have been tested but not adopted. The reasoning behind why we do not have proportional representation in the US or the UK is a complicated web of a number of factors. Longley, discusses some of these factors "events, individuals, organisations, the media, issues and perceptions of self interest" (1988:531) in his book "The
Comparative Social Structures.
Comparative Social Structures Question 1& 2 My resource for citizenship is: Gaventa, J. and Jones, E. (2002) Concepts of Citizenship: A review [online] Institution of Development studies Available from: www.ids.ac.uk/drccitizen/docs/db19.pdf [Accessed 20th Nov 2003] My resource for democracy is: Schumpeter, J. (1952) 5th Edition, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Unwin University Books. My resource for fascism is: Bessel, R. (1996) Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Cambridge: The University of Cambridge Press. Question 3 According to the New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopaedic Dictionary, fascism is defined as 'any political or social ideology of the extreme right, which rules on a combination of pseudo religious attitudes and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power'.( http://www.webtdcenter.com/bookaai.html). A fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior to another based upon race, social class or origin. Though it is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state, this is shown whereby the 'preferred' class lives in a republic state while those in the oppressed class live in a fascist state. (De Grand, 1995:14-16) Fascism promotes legal segregation, national resource allocation and employment. It operates in a two-tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where
Are Liberalism and Democracy Compatible?
ARE LIBERALISM AND DEMOCARCY COMPATIBLE? "If you could represent me ideally, you would need so much understanding and knowledge of me and my interests that you would virtually be identical with me, in which case I may as well represent myself" (Goodwin, 1997:292) The above quote shows one of the incompatibilities between liberalism and democracy, despite sounding almost comical and amusing to me, it is, in a sense, very true. These two ideologies are very different yet suprisingly share some basic principles. In this essay I hope to describe and explain the basic background and context to the two ideals. Democracy's ancient Greek origins and founding principles and what it has come to mean today. How liberalism was thought to have been conceived in the ancient world yet wasn't prominent until at least the seventeenth century. I am also going to examine the compatibility of liberalism and democracy. Detailing their shared basic principles and those that contradict one another, and how today we have arrived at a compromise of liberal democracy. I will also conclude by sharing my own views on the compatibility of the two ideals, which are liberalism and democracy. "There are few people nowadays...who do not praise democracy and claim to be democrats" (Ball and Dagger, 1995:23). Democracy today is very popular, both on its own and linked with other
It wasn't until the 19th century that people finally started to see that democracy was a good thing.
Chris Lackore Political Science 230 Essay 1 2/12/02 It wasn't until the 19th century that people finally started to see that democracy was a good thing. Aristotle's classification of governments defines democracy as governing by the many in the view of ones own self. The whole idea of democracy is based on the decision making process. The biggest question being who should make decisions. In order for a democracy to be able to achieve the maximum results this question must be answered. Citizens must also know what is required of them in order for the democracy to survive. There has been many people throughout history that have stated their views of democracy, some of which were for the better others for the worse. Such people as Alexis De Tocqueville who feared democracy because of its equalities of conditions. One example being how people in the US owned their own land compared to those in Europe where they had nobles. He also saw the lack of a difference between the rich and the poor as a problem along with the idea that the majority rule. Then there were people like John Stuart Mill who believed that democracy would make a citizen better because of their involvement in the political system. One of Tocqueville believes of democracy as stated in "Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal" is: "The people who join with their neighbors to settle common
"The ultimate safeguards for our democracy are undemocratic". Discuss.
Public Law A - Essay Question "The ultimate safeguards for our democracy are undemocratic". Discuss. To be able to state whether the ultimate safeguards for our democracy are undemocratic, it is important to be able to define exactly what democracy is. Many leading theorists, including Aristotle and Beetham, provide such a definition. Aristotle suggests that the basis of a democratic state is liberty. He goes on to state that democratic justice is based on majority decisions, to the point that in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, as there are poor people than rich. Democracy also embraces the idea of individual freedom in that a man can do as he likes. Beetham takes a more rule-based approach, stating that democracy is a mode of decision making about collectively binding rules and policies, over which people exercise control. Democracy is most effective when members collectively enjoy equal rights to take part in such decision-making. Next, the safeguards for democracy must be identified. They come in four primary forms, of which each will be discussed in turn: the Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law, the European Union and Parliamentary Sovereignty. Firstly there is the Separation of Powers. This constitutes of three powers: the executive, legislative and judicial. As power is shared between the three, no one power can be too powerful, thus
Distinguish between ‘Power and authority’.
Distinguish between 'Power and authority'. We tend to assume that politics is associated with power and authority, which is partly true. However, these terms are often confused. Power is the ability for an individual or a body has to make others do something, and authority is the right to exercise the power. For example, in a representative democracy there are three states legislative, judiciary and the executive, the executive have the power to make the judiciary enforce the law and only the judiciary can pass the laws not the executive. In everyday life Power and authority is sometimes used by the threat of unpleasant consequences e.g. physical or economic but also through the offer for rewards. For example: * A man with a gun orders you to accompany him. You comply. * A policeman orders you to accompany him. You comply. The outcomes are the same but the nature of the relationship with the person giving the orders is different. In the event with the gunman he or she was able to get he or she's way through your fear of what would happen if you did not comply. However, the police officer has the control and you almost certainly have to obey him or her because you accepted his or her right to order you, unlike the scenario with the gunman, he or she has the power because he or she is in control and could shoot you but has no authority. In this case the gunman has the
Is Britain part of the old or new EU
Is the UK part of the old or new EU? Hypotheses Conceptualizing Europe has been at the vanguard of academic literature. US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld (2003), famously used the term old Europe when referring to the European countries not offering support for the US invasion of Iraq. This project considers which bracket Britain falls within. The connotations of Rumsfeld's speech suggest Britain is part of the new EU but having become a member over three decades ago this is disputable. This project looks beyond what Rumsfeld implied. The concept of strategic culture is applied. 'Strategic Culture is that set of shared beliefs, assumptions, and modes of behaviour, derived from common experiences and accepted narratives that shape collective identity and relationships to other groups, and which determine appropriate ends and means for achieving security objectives.' (Johnson, J.L. & Larsen, J.A. 2002 p.3) Taking the definition, this project will question the theoretical elements of strategic culture and develop a hypothesis. Examining episodes of the European venture this project aims to categorize the UK of old or new Europe. First an assessment of old and new Europe will be considered at the European level of analysis. Second, in an attempt to overcome analysis problems the concept of strategic culture will be used to categorize old and new Europe and the UK's