Representative democracy is basically when there is a competition between leaders to earn as much votes as possible. It's the most common form of government used today. The other interpretation or meaning is known as direct or participatory democracy. This kind of democracy is when a government has all or the majority of its citizens participating in some way, either making policy or holding office. Economist Joseph Schumpeter's definition of democracy is that in order to become a leader, you have to go into a competitive struggle with someone else and gain the citizens votes.
The Age of Democracy and the Age of Absolutism were two different periods of time. The age of Enlightenment had new ideas spreading throughout the world about government and human rights. The enlightenment was a great period of establishment of democracy .A democracy is when the common people are considered as the primary source of political power. Throughout the enlightenment there were philosophers who believed greatly in a democratic government. Some of the most familiar philosophers were Voltaire, John Locke, and Montesquieu.
In an extraordinary move designed to demonstrate the federal government's preeminence and power, the President ordered militia from several other states into Pennsylvania to keep order. Another domestic problem was The Battle of Fallen Timbers. This battle is important because in this battle the US defeated the major native tribes and took parts of the Ohio territory. The domestic problems in the US led to great outcomes but also there were outcomes that should’ve been different. The foreign affairs that the US dealt with allowed the upcoming political parties to bring forth their ideas of how the government should be run.
As well as the Depression, the collapse of the Republic can be linked to a large number of factors, including the influence of the army, political instability and constitutional weaknesses. One of the most consequential outcomes of the Depression was the opportunity that it provided Hitler. A majority of the citizens lost faith and belief in the current Social Democratic government, turning instead to the confident and dynamic leader of Hitler. As Evans asserts, ‘citizens began to see in the youthful dynamism of the Nazi Party as a way out of the situation’. What Evans means by this is that the desperation of the people led them to polarising their votes and seeing radical leaders like Hitler as a solution to the mess that Germany had become.
During the beginning of the 1900s, there were plenty of revolutions and violence that took place. The Chinese revolution in 1911 and Russian Revolution in 1917 shared similar goals, they wanted to end the power of their current leader and establish a new one. For Russia, it was Tsar Nicholas II and for China it was the Qing Dynasty, Russia wanting a functioning communist government and Chinese revolutionaries wanted a democratic government. The first outcome is different in that China relied on agriculture to maintain its economy and Russia relied on industry to fuel its economy. The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries.
How democratic is the UK? To evaluate how democratic the UK is we must first understand what democracy is and recognize its many types. The most widely accepted definition of democracy is that created by former president of the united states Abraham Lincoln who said that democracy is 'government of the people, by the people and for the people'. There are then also the differing types of democracy, four of which are: parliamentary democracy, liberal democracy, direct democracy and representative democracy. At a glance it is obvious that a major part of UK democracy is parliamentary democracy as this is our chosen form of government, having the houses of parliament which consist of the house of commons and the house of lords.
Whereas what works best for the German culture is a multi party dual executive form of government where a majority of the power is located in the chancellor and the other branches are not quite as important but still serve their rolls to help the government to move forward. Ultimately, the distinguishing features of the two governments may seem small but they are actually quite significant and are the result of the two nations drastic difference in the way their relative histories progressed. The American presidential system is the result of the breaking away from the Great Britain; and the German presidential system is a direct result of the fall of Hitlers Nazi Germany. Both forms of democracy rose as a solution to tyranny and oppression and consequently produced two of the worlds front running
Liberals are probably the strongest advocates of democracy. Democracy solves a problem described by an old adage: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." When power or wealth concentrates too heavily in too few hands in society, democracy is useful for dispersing much of that power back to the people. In other words, when enough voters become discontented with the status quo, they vote to change it. Of course, those already in power bitterly resent this; that is why there is such a strong anti-democratic streak in wealthy conservatives and business owners.
Now on the other hand, the US has a long way to go to reach a system like that of Belo Horizonte. The US with all its wealth and power in my opinion likes to feel in power and enjoys to hand out its help instead of incorporating it into a system where it benefits all and not just a few. The US is famous for its liberal democracy, but there is a catch to everything. Democracy is a form of government in which the power is elected by the people for the people. So if the US job is to protect and nourish the country so it can rise and live
As a civilian and a citizen, we represent our nation’s status. We elect our own governments in democratic elections, and the government is our voice united. Living as a person in a well-established country with a stable economy, we should have morals and rights. Should we be ignorant to the rights and needs of suffering families in other countries that are in need because of natural disasters, poverty and corruption? No, so why is half of the world capable of handling itself when disaster strikes and the other with even nothing to lose?