Democracy

Both Jeffersonian and Jacksonian were fighting for the interests of farmers against the commercial and mercantile interests of the country.

The real difference is application. Jefferson was portrayed as a man of the people, but he remained a wealthy planter who tended to associate only with other elites. His mannerisms were much more upper-class. Further, while Jefferson talked about limited government, his actual practices as President differed. He maintained the Bank of the US, authorized the Louisiana Purchase and pushed for stronger party cohesion, all things many Democrats opposed in the ideal.

Jackson was also a wealthy farmer, but he had come from a poorer region and did not have particularly wealthy parents. He was much more comfortable intermingling with people of lower social and economic classes. He was also much more focused on attacking the mercantile classes, particularly his refusal to renew the charter for the Bank of the US.

No. Canada was created in 1869. The world's longest lasting democracy is The United States of America created on July 4, 1776. However, the citizens of the micro state of San Morino in Italy might dispute that.

Argentina

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Benin

Brazil

Bulgaria

Canada

Cape Verde

Chile

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Jamaica

Kiribati

Latvia

Lesotha

Lithuania

Malaysia

Mali

Malta

Mexico

Micronesia

Mongolia, Namibia

The Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Norway

Palau

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Singapore

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

South Korea

Spain

Suriname

Sweden

Thailand

Taiwan

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tuvalu

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States of America

Uruguay

Soviet Russia

By allowing protesters to share information and build support for political movements.

Ancient Greece was the first to practice democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government" which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC. In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of "illiberal democracy." All of the people in the Ancient Greek society were expected to serve their country in the Assembly at least once during their lifetime.

negative-delay in decision making,less economic development comparing to dictatorship.

positive- equitable sharing of economic resources,decisions are acceptable to all strata of society ,guards fundamental right,moreover people are supreme

answered by hafsal.m.h@gmail.com

A challenge that almost every employer has is to keep its employees motivated. Employers do this by paying a good wage and providing a pleasant work environment. They do it in other ways, too.

A very important motivator is the employee's hope that he or she will receive raises and promotions. If the employer doesn't treat its employees equally, then the employees can't really be sure that trying hard will get them a raise or promotion. So then they won't try hard. Then the business doesn't do well, and nobody's happy.

In the United States, there are laws that require employers to treat their employees equally. If the employers don't do so, they may be fined, and this could get very expensive.

The five concepts of democracy are outlined below.

1. Worth of the Individual: Democracy serves many of the different and distinct individuals that reside in the governed land.
2. Equality of All Persons: In democracy all are equal meaning that it does not matter what race, gender, color, religion, etc., an individual is. Each individual is entitled to equal opportunity and equality before law.
3. Majority Rule, Minority Rights: In democracy the will of the people is determined by popular vote meaning majority rules, but it does not mean the majority is correct. Sometimes the minority is correct thus allowing for democracy is a trial and error process.
4. Necessity of Compromise: A process in which democracy achieves majority or public agreement rather than completely terminating an idea or thought.
5. Individual Freedom: All individual are given individual freedom as long as it does not interfere or harm the others, majority will.

Because the constitution of 1993 dictates such a system, whereby the head of the government is the PM & the head of state is the president. The president appoints the PM rather than a legislative election of the majority party being held. The president's nominee must be approved by the Duma, which in actuality is simply a rubber stamp for Medvedev & Putin. Putin has been elected President again and he will appoint Medvedev as his PM and the appointment will receive the approval of the Duma. There are some divisions of formal power between the two positions in the Constitution, however, as Putin has centralized power in the office and among his supporters over the past decade, the power, in reality, seems to reside with Putin who has been making more political decisions and influencing policy as the PM more than any other PM in the past, whereby overlooking the few divisions of power that do exist between these positions.

cause you are stupid

The representative democracy of the United States.

That is the question, isn't it? Certainly, you cannot simply and quickly force a nation to embrace democracy, any more than you can force it to do anything. The assumption often is that if the majority of people in a nation are oppressed and even badly abused, and if they want a change that they cannot seem to bring about, then democracy is a system that they should be free to try. But that has to be tempered by the reality that nations are sovereign states and can follow, within reason, the systems that history, traditions and the popular sentiment deem correct. The idea of 'forcing' democracy is contradictory. The other thing that has to be tempered by reality is the assumed legitimacy of oppressive and absolute theocracies that engage in atrocities against humanity in the name of a deity. Such theocracies concentrate all power and authority in the hands of a very few men who usually operate beyond the scope of any civil law, and certainly beyond the authority or control of the people governed. This is abhorrent to the minds of most who understand democracy, but even these systems can be part of the operations of some sovereign states.

Theoretically Ancient Greece was democratic.But thten that all depends on your view of Democracy.... Who decides who gets to vote ? And then what do you do with the decisions that the voters make ? The plan is that if the vote is 51% against 49% then we all do what the 51% decide..... it simply ain't so ! It does not work like that because the 49% will whinge that something somewhere is not right ! Democracy is an idealistic concept: It simply does not exist !

What did the Democratic Party and the Whig party have in common

Pure democracy essentially means that majority opinion rules; the Framers feared that this would oppress the rights of minorities. So, they provided a framework for a republican form of government, consisting of elected representatives.

That it was a slaveholding society that denied even the most basic rights of citizenship to tens of thousands of people. Thucydides says more than 20,000 slaves fled from Athens to Sparta (its very name synonymous with harsh austerity) in a single decade: hardly a model society, then. It was democracy for some: in other words, not democratic at all.

Greece and Rome for sure. Greece had a direct democracy, and Rome had a representative democracy. Rome's form of democracy was a Republic. A Republic is the kind of government to we use in the USA today.

They imagined that the male citizens meeting in fortnightly assembly to direct how the city-state was run would empower them and deliver good rulership and just administration. It worked for a few years until the smart ones worked out how to twist things to their own advantage, resulting in their getting into a 27-year war which they lost.

Democracy invariably involves conflicts of interests and new posts and those who excuse power are constrained by the influence and pressure exerted on them. The popular and pressure external on them. The popular struggles and movements are often expressed in organized ways. Political parties or men in power are required to balance these conflicting demands and pressures. These struggles and movements around conflicting demands and pressure shape the democratic structure of the country. Even an ordinary citizen plays an important role in these popular struggles and movements.

MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRACY IN NEPAL

In April 2006, Nepal witnessed an extra-ordinary movement that was aimed at restoring democracy in the country. Nepal, one of the third wave countries won democracy in 1990 despite the fact that King remained the head of the states. But the real power was exercised by popularly elected representatives. Unfortunately King Birendraj who accepted his transition from absolute minority to constitutional monarchy was killed mysteriously in the massacre of royal family in 2001. King Gyananendra, his successor and new king of Nepal showed his non-acceptance for democratic rule in the country. He dismissed the elected Prime Minister and dissolved the popularly elected Parliament in February 2005. It created a wave of dissatisfaction among citizens and led to movement of April 2006, that was aimed at regoing democracy over king and monarchy. All the major political parties in the parliament of Nepal formed a seven Alliance (SPA) and declared a four day strike in Kathmandu, Nepal's capital. The struggle aggravated and resulted into indefinite strike where Maoists insurgants and other social and political groups joined hands. The number of protestors reached in the figures of 3 to 5 lakhs on April 21 and collectively they served ultimatum to the king. There was demand for restoration of democracy in this movement. King made half hearted concessions but the leaders of the movements rejected them completely. They firmly stood to their demand and demanded power to all party government and a new constituent assembly.

Finally, King Gyanendra was forced to accept all their three demands on the last day of the ultimatum, 24 April 2004.

Girija Prasad Khosla was unanimously chose as the New Prime Minister of the internal government by SPA. This restricted parliament meet and passed laws taking away most of the power of the King.

SPA along with Maoists took important decisions about the formation and works of New Constituent Assembly. The struggle wrote history and was formed as Nepal's second movement for democracy.

BOLINA'S WATER WAR

This popuylar and successful struggle against the privatization of water in Boliva implies the fact that popular struggles are integral part to the working of democracy.

World Bank pressured Bolivia's government to give up its control of municipal water supply and later the government sold the rights for the city of Cochamba to affluent multi-national company (MNC). The Company immediately linked the priced of water by four times. Bolivia's people received monthly water bill of Rs. 1000 as the average income of their citizen was round Rs. 5000/- a month. It led to a popular protest that was spontaneous and was against this injustice.

DEMOCRACY AND POPULAR STRUGGLES

The struggles relating to Nepal and Bolivia were successful but their impact was at different levels. The struggle in Nepal was to establish democracy while the struggle in Bolivia involved claims on an elected democratic government. Both these different stories shares some elements which are relevant to the study of the past and future of democracies. Both these struggles involved mass mobilization. These popular struggles had major importance in democracies and they are as follows:

1. It is clear that democracy evolves through popular struggle. It usually involves conflict between those group who have exercised power and those who aspire for a share in power. These moments erupts when country is going through transition to democracy, expansion of democracy or deepening of democracy.

2. The democratic conflict is resolved through mass mobilization as it was done in Nepal and Bolina. But sometimes, the conflict is resolved through parliament or judiciary. It is possible that they sometimes even get involved in the dispute so the resolution has to come from the people.

3.

No, I don't think so. I live in California and we have a system that any initiative can be on the ballot with a set number of voter signatures. Some of these things are written by special interests and only help them, others are silly, and then there are the dangerous ones. These are the ones that mask as one thing on the surface, but really do something else. A few years ago we had proposition 57 that wanted to use discrimination against Hispanic immigrants. It passed, but went to the courts. This last year was one that lessened the prison time for nonviolent offenders. On the surface it sounds good, but since passage crime has gotten worse. The pot initiative passed this fall to make pot legal but cities are passing laws not allowing the sale of pot and the federal government is still arresting people.

A. Necessity of compromise

B. Equality of all persons

C. Majority rule with minority rights

D. Individual liberty

E. Worth of the individual

No. The Sultanate of Oman is an Absolute Monarchy. There is no difference between a Kingdom and Sultanate except that the rulers have different names (King vs. Sultan). The Sultan of Oman has absolute and dictatorial power. He controls his people through direct edicts and runs a largely nepotistic government.

Greco-Roman principles have led to laws that are based on reson rather than God's will. (APEX)

they both do stuff