Political Theory

The first direct democracy in the colonies was established in the New England town of Plymouth in 1620. The Mayflower Compact created a civil body politic governed by the consent of the majority, pioneering the concept of self-government in the American colonies.

Jacksonian democracy expanded suffrage to more white males by eliminating property ownership requirements, giving them a larger voice in the government. Jackson also introduced the spoils system, appointing loyal supporters to government positions, and weakened the power of the wealthy elite by advocating for greater economic opportunities for common people.

A major obstacle in building stable democracies is lack of trust in political institutions, which can result in low voter turnout, political apathy, and a loss of confidence in the government's ability to address citizens' needs. Additionally, corruption, political polarization, and weak institutional frameworks can also hinder the establishment of stable democracies.

The four pillars of democracy in India are the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the press. These pillars work together to ensure a system of checks and balances and safeguard the democratic principles of justice, equality, and accountability.

Differences in political thought. If one person believes that people have a God-given natural right to live free, while another person believes that no one has a right to live except by the allowance of government, there is going to be some disagreement and division there.

The conquest theory of the state proposes that a small group of people establishes control over a territory and imposes its rules on others, forming a state. This theory suggests that states originate through force and domination rather than voluntary cooperation.

Tutelary (or guarded or protected) democracy is a type of diminished democracy in which the elected government has no effective power to govern and is in need of protection. Examples might be Iraq or Afghanistan though I'm not sure if one can speak of democracy in these cases.

In the US, representative democracy is used in the form of a bicameral legislature (House of Representatives and Senate) where elected officials represent the interests of their constituents. Citizens vote for representatives who then make laws and policies on their behalf. This system allows for a balance between direct input from the people and the practical need for efficient decision-making.

Aristocracy is a form of government where power is held by a small, privileged ruling class typically based on hereditary status. Some features include social stratification, exclusive access to political power and resources, and a system that often reinforces wealth and influence within a select group of individuals.

Actual 4 pillars of Indian Democracy so far considered are- Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and Press. But, unfortunately it seems today that remaining three's are hiijacked by POLTICIAN (Capitalist) who run 1st pillar Legislature.

1. Prevention
2. Protection
3. Mitigation
4. Preparedness

democracy is necessary because:

1) A democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government.

2)democracy improves the quality of decision making.

3)democracy enhances the dignity of citizens.

4)democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts.

5)democracy allowes the citizens to correct its own mistakes.

6)in democratic government people will be given the rights to choose their rulers.

For example; for the sake of human rights and freedom of information sharing to achieve a better society/civilization, one can take upon oneself to change the "norm idea" that a government should do whatever it sees fit, or, who am I to involve in this, or, it is not our position to interfere. That way one or a group can go an playing the supressed citizen(s). On the other hand, one can choose to take a part and react, get involved, and participate in the process of human rights, civil society issues, and try to find answer to concerns "where is this country going to?."

The relationship of this chain reaction, in which each person counts, to International Relations is a quite clear one. Let me explain by an analogy:

At a neighborhood where everybody cleans in front of their own door, we will get a whole clean street. Therefore, the international community is like the whole street, and everybody's each separate door is like their own country. Each country is part and member of the international community: cleaning starts from and goes on by each and every member's participation.

By democracy, and by giving an extra attention to social and economic development, the International Relations will help provide regional stability, and international security. International Relations mainly aim to provide a strong commitment to human rights and the rule of law; it does this through many activities annd agreed upon treaties, also including of following the right norm ideas and changing the wrong norm ideas, in the aftermath of cold-war era.

There are two major answers.

The first is the original answer of people like John Locke. They believed that every individual started with some basic, inviolable rights that either arose from human nature itself or were given to them by God, that the rights of groups were really no more than the rights of the individuals in those groups, that groups could only have a right to control others where individuals had that right. So, if I have no individual right to force people with views different from my own to be quiet, then no group had a right to do this, even if it was one person against the entire rest of the world.

The other answer is most famously associated with John Stuart Mill and his book On Liberty. It also figures significantly in the social thought of Karl Popper and his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. It is that a society can only keep from developing the wrong ideas by allowing its ideas to be constantly challenged by an adversarial process.

American democracy balances the power of majority rule through various mechanisms such as the separation of powers among branches of government, a system of checks and balances, protection of individual rights through the Bill of Rights, and the use of bicameral legislature to ensure multiple perspectives are considered in decision-making. These systems help prevent the tyranny of the majority and promote a more inclusive and fair decision-making process in the government.

helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllo

Representative democracy allows for more efficient decision-making by delegating authority to elected officials who can focus on policy issues full-time. It also ensures that decisions are made by individuals elected by the majority, providing a broader representation of voices and interests in the governance process. Additionally, representative democracy helps protect against the dangers of mob rule or the tyranny of the majority.

A "populous democracy" is a system of government in which all political actions are voted upon by the citizens. Nothing in the country happens UNLESS at least 50.1% of its citizens approve through voting. The purpose is to establish a "majority rules" system so that the maximum number of citizens are satisfied. The government caters exclusively to the public (that means private businesses, corporations, etc. are banned from political involvement by any means). There is a President, VP, etc. but they are strictly limited to enforcing what the people have established, or propose and approve through a majority vote.

special-interest groups can form and lobby for funding of a public good that has net benefits for society. Second, political logrolling can be used. In this case, votes are traded to obtain a favorable outcome on decisions that might otherwise be adverse. If the favorable outcome results in funding for a public good that has net benefits for society, then the economic inefficiencies from majority voting will be overcome.

Totalitarian governments have complete control over every aspect of people's lives, using censorship, propaganda, and suppression of opposition to maintain power. Individual freedoms and rights are severely restricted or eliminated in favor of centralized authority and state control. These governments often rely on fear and intimidation to keep the population in line, with little to no room for dissent.

There have been many leaders throughout history who have fought for democracy in various countries, including figures like Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States, and Mahatma Gandhi in India. These leaders have played crucial roles in advocating for democratic values and driving social and political change.

Unpopular leaders in Ancient Athens could be dealt with through a process called ostracism. Citizens would vote to exile a prominent individual for ten years if they were seen as a threat to the democracy or if they had gained too much power. This allowed the Athenian citizens to hold their leaders accountable and prevent tyrannical rule.

A caucus or a convention to choose whom a party will support during an election does not necessarily create a situation closer to a direct democracy. What it does do is cap the level at which democracy occurs.

For example, John is a Republican. He wants Ben to become president. John votes in the caucus for Ben, but Ben does not win. Instead, Paul wins and becomes the Republican presidential candidate. At this point in time, John's opinion is thrown out the window. He is left with 3 choices : vote with his party, vote Democrat, or vote for some third party guy (notice how none of these are his original opinion?)

So, no, a caucus or convention is not closer to a direct democracy.

Hope this helps ^_^

The United States drew inspiration from ancient Greece, specifically Athenian democracy; from the Roman Republic with its system of checks and balances; and from Enlightenment-era philosophers like Montesquieu, who advocated for separation of powers.

The sad truth is that Americans stand severely divided from one another. There is no overwhelming feeling of either conservatism or liberalism within the country. The United States are not really united at all. They are segregated into liberal and conservative, blue state and red state, and Democrat and Republican. Seeing as how the recent healthcare reforms BARELY passed, it is clear that the generalization of the American people in terms of their political stances, would be inaccurate to say the least. However, there is something to be said about the younger generation becoming increasing liberal and thus more inclined to vote with the Democrats, but again, the numbers do not lie. The American people cannot be generalized into one side of the political spectrum or the other.