This law shows the flaw of Athens and its democracy based government because it infringed on the freedom of speech that most democracies have. The Assembly was made up of all men that were eligible to serve on the council. The Life in Athens may have been sophisticated and nimble. This made Athens a target to other countries since they thought that Athens was a week country. If Athens had more of a military based government then they wouldn’t have been attacked as many of times and maybe never lost their power in Ancient
Although these two important cities located in Greek were very important in history they had differences but they also had many similarities whether it be cultural or political. There were many differences and similarities between Athens and Sparta both culturally politically. One major difference between the two major cities was the way in which their leaders or kings were elected. The process in which Athens elected their leader was called direct democracy. It was called direct democracy for the simple fact that the citizens got to choose who their leader would be.
Who (Rome or Athens) has the better citizenship system? Rome had a better citizenship system because foreigners could become Roman citizens, Censors controlled the citizens, and the Roman senate was efficient. In Rome it was easier to become a citizen rather than Athens. The Roman Republic had requirements to become a citizen but they weren't difficult. Free, native-born adult males could become a citizen if his parents were married in a certain part of the Roman empire (Doc.
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
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.
Athens was more worried about the comfort and culture during the time of the military battles. The oligarchy in Sparta put a war like attitude as it's first priority and it met the needs of Ancient Greece. Athens did not have the best form of government because it did not give the citizens of Greece more freedom. The Athenian democracy can not be called a true democracy because there was several flaws in the governement and how it worked. Only the
The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals. To conclude I would say that neither Partisan Alignment nor party allegiance related to class is what convinces the electorate of the presence. For sure both of these factors are still there in the voting behavior of the United Kingdom but very rare. The modern, educated and open-minded voters do not want to be related to a party because of their social class, they want to decide completely uninfluenced by social factors which party they vote
From 330 to 200 B.C.E. numerous Hellenistic cities were established. Yet the creation of these cities posed a serious political problem that the Hellenistic kings failed to solve. To the Greeks civilized life was unthinkable without polis, which was far more than a mere city. The Greek polis simply meant that it was an independent state run by its citizens and free of outside interference.
Liberal Italy faced many problems in this period if it was from corruption in the government or catholic hostility. This showed that the government ( king ) was weak as political and religious opponents were ankle to challenge. The king had most of the power and was able to pass whatever law he wanted no matter how ridicules it was, Italy AT this time was meant to be liberated but with a king being able to do what he wanted it sounds very much like a dictatorship. The government also had substantial amounts of power but the problem was that they were elected by the king. This mean that the government mainly consisted of people with similar ideology as the king.
So the tug-of-war between the president and Congress is a special part (271). The framers had never envisioned that the presidency of the United States of America would become such a democratic office. They were afraid of tyranny and the pressure of the public opinion and made the Electoral College in a way that its members would be chosen in a manner decided by the state legislatures (270). They realized that the instead of letting the people elect the members, the state legislatures would elect the members by themselves. The electors from the states would than elect the country’s president from the leading citizens.