How far do you agree that Tsar Alexander deserved the title 'Tsar Liberator'.
How far do you agree that Tsar Alexander deserved the title 'Tsar Liberator' To understand what the question is asking, we have to extrapolate on the meanings of the word: 'liberator'. The official definition of the word: 'liberate' is to 'set free'and 'to favour changes made towards democracy'. Alexander II realised that to 'free' Russia he would need to revolutionise his 'flagging' system, giving political and legal rights to the citizens, to allow civil or political independence and equipping the people with the capability of choosing for oneself without restriction from another. Although these ideas would install a level of autonomy in to the autocracy and would undoubtedly bring Western ideas to the forefront of the Russian institution, Alexander II did not want to abolish the autocracy hence there must be at least some reservation about their real effectiveness and undeniably, questions the title: Tsar Liberator. Russia's social structure had always pointed to the fact that Russia was a backward state. Her defeat in the Crimean war understandably triggered Alexander II to reconsider the condition and structure of Russian peasantry for the sake of the serfs and the nobility. As a result, in 1861, the emancipation edict was decreed. In theory, it should have given 'perfect freedom' to the millions of Serfs and State Peasants. But on closer inspection this was not true.
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
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
Which approach to the study of democratic transitions is the best
Which approach to the study of democratic transitions is the best? Democracy is a mode of decision making through collective binding rules and policies over which the people exercise control. All members enjoy effective equal rights to take part in decision making processes. The recent trend of globalization is perceived by some theorists for a global need for democratic governance. The transferral of control to democratic regimes, often from formally authoritarian, dictatorial or absolutist powers has produced three major theories in the study of democratic transition. Modernization; economic requisites. Structural or historical sociology; historical analysis, and transitional; elite initiatives. The debate over which theory best explains democratic transitions, can be detailed in discussing each theory and their critiques in turn. It is difficult to pin point one singular approach as a standalone theory to determine all transitions to democracy, as each state has its own particular criteria inclusive of economic, cultural and political demands at the time of transition. (Potter, David, 1997) Modernisation theory links democratization with globalization; an aim to spread democracy, ultimately creating one uniform culture. Seymour Martin Lipset heads this field of democratization studies and draws on a mix of Weberian notions of the modern state and the preoccupation of
Marxist Political Thought.
Josh Golladay Marxist Political Thought Final Paper - Fukuyama 2/16/03 Fukuyama believes that Marxism is irrelevant in the late twentieth century. He argues that history has come to an end; not the history of time, births and deaths, or progression of events, but the endpoint of political evolution is upon us today. There has been, according to Fukuyama, a kind of fulfillment, not a finish, of human political ideology. He believes that it has reached its pinnacle, and that any further progress is simply inconsequential tinkering with the currently prevalent form of government, liberal democracy under capitalism. Liberal democracy under capitalism is the apex of political and social systems on Earth, according to Fukuyama. It is a system with no serious inherent flaws, whereas other systems, such as communism, socialism, and fascism fall short. The development of liberal democracy and capitalism is the endpoint of a political evolution throughout history that all societies are inevitably evolving towards. The endpoint of history that Fukuyama pinpoints is twofold. First, he seems to believe that the defeat of the Nazis and Germany in WWII was a huge turning point in the progression towards liberal democracy and capitalism, especially in competition with fascism. The second victory, and the actual end of history that Fukuyama points to is the end of the Cold War and the
Is Democracy a set of institutions, an ideal or merely a way of making decisions?
Is Democracy a set of institutions, an ideal or merely a way of making decisions? The concept of democracy is a very debated topic amongst Political Scientists. As a concept it's exact meaning is hard to define although one common conception is that it means 'government by the people' (Arblaster, 2002 p.4) however it is generally accepted that this kind of direct democracy is impossible within large-scale states. The compatibility of the two conflicting ideas of democratic rule and Capitalist society also causes issue over the legitimisation of democracy. For the concept of Capitalism to exist there must be economic and political inequalities within society to provide an elite ruling class. However the theory of democracy is opposed to this as it relies on Majority rule by the people rather than buy an elite minority. As Dahl said 'It is inequalities which provide elites, however these are socially produced not naturally so in reality it should be possible to get rid of these' (1958,p141). Putting democracy into practice is a difficult task and thus it is important to consider the best methods of doing so. The question of whether democracy is a set of institutions depends heavily upon whether a participatory or a realist view is adopted. The realist view believes that direct democracy, rule by the people, is not possible and so believes that Institutions are accurate
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
Legislatures are central to the legitimacy of any political system
"Legislatures are central to the legitimacy of any political system". Discuss. "The term legitimacy (from the Latin legitimare, meaning 'to declare lawful') broadly means rightfulness. It differs from legality in that the latter does not necessarily guarantee that a government is respected or that its citizens acknowledge a duty of obedience."1 Heywood's definition of 'political legitimacy' (above) hits the mark exactly; legitimacy is the oxygen of government. Whilst the rule of law is likely to change over time, along with the nature of government (authoritarian, democratic etc.), rulers which cannot command respect and obedience can not survive. This essay will seek to explore how the legislature has become the central provider of legitimacy, although this relationship becomes increasingly tenuous once authoritarian regimes are examined. As far as liberal democracies are concerned, legislatures are unique in their capacity to provide a link between government and citizens via representation, education and scrutiny. Although, in general, the legislature is central to political legitimacy, the different ways in which different political systems have evolved has created a variety of nuances - not only in how the legislature is valued differently in terms of importance, but, in addition, how the concept of legitimacy itself is understood. The question of political legitimacy,
Compare critically the ideas of representation proposed by Edmund Burke, James Mill and John Stuart Mill.
Compare critically the ideas of representation proposed by Edmund Burke, James Mill and John Stuart Mill By comparing these three political thinkers we can see the widely debated issues on representation, i.e. supposed superior competence of elites against the virtues of mass participation. Burke was a proponent of the "trustee model" of representative government whereby a representative was elected within a constituency and he was trusted to represent the interests of the people who had voted for him. However in practise this turns out to be very elitist as he considered many people not to be capable of making the necessary deliberations in such a position. This clearly favours the more educated and therefore wealthier classes (this is possibly a reflection of his conservative nature.) When he was elected as a representative in Bristol, his constituency favoured political reform but he refused to bow to their wishes. "The member should consult, consider and respect his constituents, but he should not receive instructions from them. He owes them not his obedience but his judgement, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinions." (Burke, 1774) A major criticism of this idea is that if politicians are left unchecked then they will follow their own selfish interests. This criticism is validated by James Mill who says that it is inevitable that politicians will act