For example, a system of social hierarchy and a society based on patriarchal. However, political and social factors became an issue later on during decline of their empire. To start off with, Rome and Gupta do not have much in common in political factors than that of social structure. Rome was a republic that was based on absolute power of a ruler who commanded loyalty of the military and the roman people. Controlled by a non-heredity emperor, which was chosen by the Senate, usually by predecessor.
In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same. In some cases all of the rulers passed reforms that they had no choice whether to or not, it was simply necessary. All of the Tsars wanted to uphold their autocratic position, Alexander III most of all due to what happened to his father, so keeping absolute control was essential. Nicholas II was the only tsar to make any major political reforms due to the Tsar’s wanted to keep their power. However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign'. He states a number of reasons as to how this is possible. Firstly Dicey points out that Parliament can pass laws on any subject without legal restriction therefore it is sovereign. This principle is a result of the election of the Members of Parliament (MPs), by the electorate which gives them authority to represent and pass legislation on their behalf.
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
A con to having a constitutional monarchy this are that the Grand Duke is a hereditary position, meaning it is passed down through the generation of one family. Another con is that there are many powerful people in charge. Also, the judiciary branch executes its functions independently. I think that
The rise of political parties as the fundamental organizing unit of the Second Party System represented a sharp break from the values that had shaped Republican and Federalist political competition. Leaders in the earlier system remained deeply suspicious that parties could corrupt and destroy the young republic. At the heart of the new legitimacy of parties, and their forthright celebration of democracy, was the dramatic expansion of voting rights for white men. Immediately after the Revolution most states retained some property requirements that prevented poor people from voting. Following republican logic, citizens were believed to need an economic stake in society in order to be trusted to vote wisely.
“… it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from refection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and force.” A question posed by Hamilton in Federalist 1, but in my opinion it has been answered by many others such as Tocqueville, Gilman, Lippman, and within the Federalist Papers, Civil War, and the conflicts of Washington and Jefferson, though each has done so with a unique and different approach. The foundations of a true democracy and its expectations were set with the first election. George Washington delivered his first inaugural address in April, 1789 in which he expressed his expectations of the American government. He desired a centralized government for America that would serve to be an example for other nations for its morality and principles. A government that treats all with
Within a republic there are still government positions, each possessing specific powers and even rank. These officials are still elected by the citizens of the United States, but they often possess powers that cannot be altered or motivated by the common individual. The most powerful way for citizens to influence government is by voting –