And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition. These circumstances proved effective in propelling Pitt’s domination but without his own skill he would not have been able to dominate, for example his financial skill ensured that Britain benefitted from the industrial revolution as was the handling of the regency crisis which completely favoured Pitt but he
Although there failure of completely vanquishing the warlords there can be little doubt that Chiang was fairly successful in solving this domestic problem and the effects it would have on the country as it is probably that without him stabilising the political and social unrest civil war would have broken out in the country much early than it did. The GMD was able to successfully implement new and improved transport links throughout the country. The three thousand mile railway track connected North and South which helped Chiang to begin re-unifying the country and the people. However there can be little doubt that the transport was created for sole purpose of the urban rich who were the majority of his supporters and it only aided them to become
Although the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were similar, they also had differences. The interactions with other empires were different. Imperial Rome interacted with more empires because it was located near bodies of water which facilitated trade with North Africa, Middle East, and Europe. Another difference between is their government structure. The Roman Republic was republic and only wealthy men could be emperors while Han China was a dynasty were the son of the previous king would take the throne.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
Representative democracy has been able to flourish in recent years as elected individuals who make decisions are arguably more knowledgeable than the electorate themselves. There is a greater sense of accountability to elected individuals to the public and more responsibility taken by those in power to protect the interests of the people by limiting the power of the government. Arguably, the question posed is of popular interest today as Britain has been described as a largely consultative democracy. A representative democracy is advantageous compared to a direct democracy as elected MPs are of sufficient educational backgrounds and are more superior in knowledge at making the most effective decisions. Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public.
1. Although Benjamin Franklin’s Plan for the Union was designed for protection and not power, it did have some aspects to it that were more politically and economically motivated. It suggested that a general assembly was to be formed, providing a general and uniform government in the colonies for the first time. This council would not only make military plans and preparations, but also make laws and “levy…general duties, imposts or taxes” on the colonies. This was most likely why the British government did not support the plan, as it would have given the colonists even more power to self govern, and would have allowed the Colonies to have more power of taxation during a time where Britain was beginning to levy more taxes on them.
One of the big issues in these two eras was conflicting definitions of “freedom.” Although people had freedom to make money in the Gilded Era, only a small minority of robber barons could do so. In the Progressive Era, White immigrants and women had more rights and freedom to help improve their own working and living conditions. This ultimately made America better, more democratic, forward and progressive. The ideas of Social Darwinism, the Gospel of Wealth, and Horatio Alger success formula made the Gilded Era. Government played a minor role and cities did not offer public relief.
Nero actively sought to create an Augustan rebirth after his incompetent predecessors, and with the aid of two brilliant men: the Praetorian prefect Burrus and the his mentor Seneca, he made many reforms that improved the lives of the common people exponentially. The tightly censored and regulated senate enjoyed greater freedom, he made many reforms that succeeded in stamping out corruption, he improved the infrastructure used by the common people, he passed intelligent reforms that helped create material prosperity, he even wanted to ban public executions, as he felt it was a barbaric practice. Perhaps this is not really a positive judgement of Nero, but rather a positive judgement of his advisors Burrus and Seneca, who played a huge role in forming Nero’s opinions and preventing people like Agrippina from exercising political power. Regardless, for a long time, Nero’s reign (or his clique’s reign) was brilliant and very close to a golden age, where there was stability, military successes, and many cultural and artistic
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.