The first phase was the dispersal of hereditary peers with only 92 remaining today and it abolished the voting rights of most hereditary peers. The second phase was to include some element of election to the appointment of Lords, but due to the lack of consensus in the House of Commons on the way forward with this reform, Phase 2 of the reform has failed. This reform has had very little impact on the government because without including any voting in the procedure of membership to the House of Lords, the House of Commons remains more legitimate therefore overall it retains its powers while the House of Lords has fewer powers. Hence, this reform has not completed its aim as it didn’t
Another example of a PM who did not dominate the political system is Major. The Tory party and cabinet were split and hence Major lacked support; therefore he encouraged discussions within cabinet meetings. However, in hindsight it should be noted that Major and Callaghan both lacked a majority in the House of Commons and had to seize all the support they could. Another way a PM dominated the political system is by running it as a PM government. This is a govt.
One reason for this change is that fratricide was no longer a practice that was used. Fratricide helps the Sultan to become stronger, as before taking the throne, they had to kill their own brothers. It was a way for them to succeed, however, this rule was changed to imprisonment in a harem. This was a negative change by the Sultan, Ahmed I, because it caused the upcoming Sultans weaker and knew little knowledge about how to rule the empire, instead they stayed in luxurious rooms. This eventually leads to weak Sultans on the throne.
However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker. This links to my next point because they both result in Stalin’s getting more power. Stalin made an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev to form the triumvirate. The triumvirate’s main aim was to defeat Trotsky. Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want.
Ella Pope 1 Why did the 1905 Revolution fail? (25 marks) The unrest in 1905 led to some changes in Russia, for example the introduction of Dumas. However in terms of a revolution it did ultimately fail for one of the main reasons that there was little coordination between the opposition groups and there was not a significant amount of change in Russia as autocracy still remained. One reason why the 1905 revolution failed was due to the loyalty of the army. Despite the fact there was mutinies like on the battleship Potemkin there was not enough of them to have a serious effect.
To what extent were economic forces the principle cause of political change in medieval England? Over the course of the medieval period, politics changed dramatically. Monarchs began to realise that rule by force implied that you always ran the risk of being beaten by a more powerful foe. In response to this change, the monarchy undoubtedly began to use legal systems and Parliament to cement their positions. The age of the absolutist monarch was waning as Parliament’s freedoms and powers increased – their hold over the monarch’s finances was a particular strength.
Republican governments of post Restorationist Spain generally didn't fair as well as their Western European counterparts for a variety of reasons. The Second Spanish Republic, as indicated by its name, only had one predecessor, which lasted less than two years. It would therefore be fair to say that a generation of people accustomed to monarchism and dictatorships were unfamiliar with the bipolar system thrust upon them. People lacked confidence in the system, which favoured majority voting and usually unilaterally supported laws. Another contribution was the lack of participation on behalf of two big groups, Anarchists and Syndicalists, who refused to run in elections.
Over the past 200 years, power in the U.S. has shifted towards the President; President Regan, who wanted to give power back to the states instead of centralizing it, challenged this. Our current President, Barrack Obama, sides with President Roosevelt’s New Deal policy, which attempts to centralize power. President Obama caused great excitement with his ideas of change for America, but his administration is far less popular today due to policies he implemented. President Nixon argued against the notion that the President is becoming to powerful, stating that if we did in fact have an “Imperial” Presidency, then reelection would be much easier, but since President Roosevelt, we have only seen five reelections. The
WIthout the revolutions and the turning points in history, we would have a completely different world. The Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation had historical circumstances surrounding it, changed history and may have lead to an Age of Revolutions. The Renaissance, meaning rebirth, was the revival of art and literature during the late Middle Ages. Europe suffered from both war and plague, and people started to question the institutions of the Middle Ages. The institution were unable to prevent war and revive the people from the plague.