For this not to happen, a combination of oligarchy and democracy should be formed. The Founding Fathers favored representative democracy. They favored this form of government because it minimized the risk of abuse of power. They believed that the phrase "will of the people" was not
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
Citizens today want to be better represented which the only way for that is to have Direct Democracy; where every citizen can make their own decisions together about laws. Other citizens aren't even aware of current issue in our country today and that is only one of the many states in our country. Which leads me to believe that Direct Democracy would not work in the United States. The pros and cons show how Direct Democracy could be very effective to both sides. Every single citizen has his or her own opinion to certain issues as well to Direct Democracy.
Democratic leadership involves the leader encouraging the team members to become a part of the decision which is the opposite of Authoritarian leadership. Democratic leadership still means that the leader maintains control of the group of the final decision but the team still have the chance to voice their own opinions. This encourages a sense of responsibility in the team members. It also allows the leader to become better. This style would not be used in a situation where the team may be under fire, or in danger and have to act quickly, another style would be used then but I think this leadership style is most effective in situations that involve planning out things because both the team members and the team leader are involved in the decisions which make a bigger impact on the final decision in which all the team have put in input to make the action as effective as possible.
“The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each government will be controlled by it’s self,”(A). This also stop a tyrant or group of tyrants to have all the power. The separation of powers is another way that we are protected from tyranny. It stops one branch of government from having too much power. It also helps prevent “accumulation of all powers [...] in the same hands,”(B).
By ‘general will’ he means the coming together of the people to contribute to the collective good of all. The main purpose being the provision of laws that advocate the common good of the people. The distinction between the ‘general will’ and the ‘will of all’ is that the former is the will of the people manifested as the state or ‘sovereign’. Whereas, the ‘will of all’ is the resolve of the people manifested in their capacity as citizens. In practice, it would be difficult to ascertain which was the ‘will of all’ and which was the ‘general will’ because both are decided by popular vote.
Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau accepted the motto, “That government is best which governs least”. What I feel that means is that too much power in government can feel like there is no freedom to live life or be successful in life. I think with the time period it was written in it meant similar to my opinion. Sometimes people working together is more sufficient than counting on the government. The government that governs least is one that lets the voices of the civilians be heard the most, it lets its citizens make their own decisions, and stays out of their affairs.
Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature. Hamilton views the role of government as changeable and believed it would work better as a strong centralized government. As long man has faith in changing a government, man will abide by it. He states," not conform to the dictates of reason
There are pros and cons for public speaking, some cons are if people speak too much, it could jeopardize the security of our country. The establishment of free speech for all citizens is a successful political strategy for everyone; for people who disagree with those in power as well as those who agree. Allowing free speech adds to the marketplace of ideas, and keeps society involved in important issues. If there was not public speech there would be no media, or newspaper, people wouldn’t be informed about things that concern or help citizens. Some individuals are afraid to protest, because people don’t agree with the government, can become dangerous and get out of control, and they can even danger themselves as well as the safety, property, and lives of
The exclusion of this civic process is a threat to democracy. Remove the right to vote of a prisoner can lead to inequality and injustice that is contrary to democratic ideals. By contrast, the restitution of voting rights of prisoners may promote their rehabilitation and social reintegration, and can have a real impact on the political climate of a country. According to the article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors”. In addition, the article 2 states that this applies to every citizen “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,