Sparta put a military attitude in its society and made it the first priority to have a powerful army. The Athenians type of government, might have given the society More freedom, but in my opinion I think this was not the best form of government at this time. The democratic system in Athens cannot really be called a true democracy since it had several flaws in the government and the way it worked. For the way the voting worked
The Age of democracy is a response or answer to the Age of Absolutism by the new ideas that spread throughout the world. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs. During the Age of Absolutism there were many different views on how to run a monarchy. There were so many different monarchs at the time; they all had different ways of running their perspective courts.
However as there were so many parties only the ones with the most convincing views and issues that effected the general population became major for example, the Communists, Socialists and Democrats, which were aimed for, change and equality. Another key feature of the Weimar constitution was that the president of the
It was called direct democracy for the simple fact that the citizens got to choose who their leader would be. Sparta used an oligarchy as a form of government, which means that only a few powerful people rule the government system. Athenians were therefore able to have more say in government elections and could help choose a better candidate to be the king or president because the common people might have more knowledge than the higher up government official whom probably haven’t seen how hard life can be.. Another difference between Athens and Sparta politically is the amount of freedom the citizens were given to speak. In Athens if the citizens don’t like a certain idea or law that is being said, they can speak more openly about if they don’t think the law or idea is right or if they have questions about it. On the other hand in Sparta if you have an idea of your own or do not agree with something that a government official might say during a public debate you have a limited say in it
The idea that voters could choose presidential candidates was new because normally only a select number of people would be able to do so. Teddy Roosevelt, in one of his many speeches, supported the idea of direct nominations by the people. Roosevelt did not however just support the direct presidential primary; he also supported the direct election of senators. He believed that the past experiences of elections led way to the idea “that senators should be elected by direct vote of the people” (doc D). The support of the progressive reformers and the president led to an eventual amendment to the constitution.
Although the people had a right to be involved in the government, the author of Caesar No. 2 thought that it should be left up to people of greater intelligence to choose the government and its actions. The argument against this was that the people had the ability to choose the people that would have authority in the government. This idea helped place a foothold in the government for the people to always play a role. The last concern was that of the
Athens decided to worry more about culture. The Spartans Goverment had A War Like Attitude and best met the needs of ancient Greece. The Athen democratic government, gave the citizens in Greece more freedom. Only Some of the total population of Athens actually had voting rights and all of these citizens were upper class men who were over thirty years old. Women were given
There have been numerous meanings attached to the word democracy and over time democracy within government has meant different things to different governments (Heywood, 2007 p.4). The notion of democracy originates from Ancient Greece and has been considered simply by Abraham Lincoln in his 1864 Gettysburg Address as cited by Heywood (2007 pg. 72) as ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’. This definition suggests that a democratic government should be made up of citizens of a state who develop laws and policies to manage their society in order to protect, progress and provide for all members of their society. According to Maddox (2005 p.489) democracy has a number of guiding principles, including that all human beings are equipped with a sense of right and wrong, the ability to guide their own lives, freedom of expression and toleration of others.
The Constitution is an adequate democratic document, when the Constitution we have in place today is the subject of that sentence. By being adequate it is meant to serve its purpose, nothing more or less, in establishing a democratic form of government that is satisfactory to the people. The Constitution proves that statement true in the fact that we do not have citizens openly revolting in the street, calling out against it. However, in some streets there are voices starting to be heard, calling into question the democracy of the document. Some cause for concerns can be found in the first writing of the Constitution (the one that will soon be thoroughly discussed) and some lay in more recent Amendments.
However, in present day these parties are known as the Republican and Democratic parties. Both Jefferson and Hamilton were members of Washington’s cabinet during his presidency. Nonetheless, they had contrasting opinions on how the young nation should be governed. Although both men had a large population of followers, Hamilton’s views were most favored by the people and Jefferson’s views trailed behind. I believe the most important conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson is the issue on the interpretation of the Constitution and whether the state government or national government should hold more power.