It was a change from the idea of politics of divine right to the idea that power is an agreement between the sovereign and his people.
Bolsheviks
First as a monarchy, then as an oligarchy, then as a tyranny, then as a democracy, then as a radical democracy.
National Convention
Monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy, radical democracy.
MICHELLE HALE WILLIAMS has written: 'IMPACT OF RADICAL RIGHT-WING PARTIES IN WEST EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES'
Ancient Greece was not a country - it was comprised of over 2,000 independent city-states. These city-states each changed their form of government periodically as problems arose, ranging from monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, limited democracy and radical democracy. As one form failed, another would be tried. For example, Athens went from monarchy to oligarchy, tyranny, limited democracy and radical democracy, then back to limited democracy. Sparta went from a dual monarchy to a combined monarchy-oligarchy to a combined monarchy-limited democracy.
Reform against the Monarchy.
It transited over time from monarchy, to oligarchy, to limited democracy, to radical democracy, to limited democracy.
Monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy, radical democracy.
Monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, limited democracy, radical democracy, oligarchy, limited democracy,.
It started as a monarchy, became an oligarchy, then a tyranny, then limited democracy, then an oligarchy, then a radical democracy, then a limited democracy.
First, not everyone in the world considers democracy the best form of government, although most people living in true democracies find it acceptable and probably better than other governments they have known. People, for example, who support Islamic republics consider US styled democracies an abomination.Those who advocate for democracy do so because there is at least the possibility that everyone's voice can be heard, and everyone including minorities of every kind can actively participate in government. Perhaps more basic is the idea in most if not all democracies that the people themselves are the source of governmental authority. This was an absolutely radical idea in modern times when the fledgling US proposed and implemented it. You can imagine what an affront this was to King George and to colonists who supported him.In stark and probably forever irreconcilable contrast, religious republics make no distinction between religion and politics, and religious texts form the only basis for any kind of government.