Political Theory

well i guess it depends on what type of monarchy......but if u want just monarchy then?

in a monarchy the monarch chooses everything and the people are not given a choice

in a democracy the people choose their monarchs and how they want their country to be

get it?

Some reasons against confederation include concerns about loss of sovereignty and autonomy, potential for unequal distribution of power among member states, and difficulties in reaching consensus on important issues due to diverse interests and priorities among member states. Additionally, fears about economic disparities, cultural clashes, and the challenge of coordinating policies and resources at a larger scale can also deter countries from pursuing confederation.

Without government or control over individuals, society would likely devolve into chaos as there would be no system in place to regulate behavior, enforce laws, or provide essential services. It would be a situation of anarchy where people would have to fend for themselves without any overarching authority to maintain order or provide structure.

Citizens are the source of power in government.

We practice democracy in the United States. Citizens in the United States have a strong say in how government is run. Our election process and our rights to free speech and press attest to the level of active involvement US citizens may have.

a+the electorate decides who will control the government

Intraparty democracy, in very shortly it can be said that the democracy inside the party. As we say about democracy that democracy where everybody has a share, to govern the state. So we can say that intraparty democracy is a stage of democracy in the party where every member(of the party) has the right to take part of the decision making of the party.

During the radical democracy period of the second half of the 5th Century BCE, the exclusions were:

a. females;

b. males under 18 years of age;

c. slaves;

d. metics (resident aliens);

e. other aliens;

f. ostracised (temporarily banished) citizens.

Some US residents who value freedom and democracy may choose not to vacation in an official communist country like Cuba due to ideological differences and concerns about human rights abuses and restrictions on individual liberties. Others may be interested in experiencing a different culture and may choose to visit Cuba for its history, scenic beauty, and unique atmosphere. Ultimately, the decision to vacation in Cuba would depend on personal beliefs and values.

From what I understand, a direct democracy is just like a democratic republic but without the middle people. In other words, instead of voting for people who vote for people to vote for people, you vote directly, so I think a president rules but the way of voting is different.

Everybody. Direct democracy means you vote directly on the issues instead of through representatives.

Parliamentary democracy is the type of democracy where the legislature, typically the parliament, elects the prime minister. The prime minister is the head of government and is accountable to the parliament.

1. Economic gain: Access to new markets, resources, and cheap labor.
2. Nationalism: Desire for power, prestige, and influence on a global scale.
3. Strategic reasons: Control of key territories for military and geopolitical advantage.
4. Civilizing mission: Belief in spreading values, culture, and civilization to "inferior" nations.
5. Competition with other colonial powers: Rivalry to establish colonies and dominance.
6. Social Darwinism: Ideology of superiority and belief in the right to conquer and dominate others.

The "tyranny of the majority" is the fear that a democratic government, reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Theoretically, the majority could only be a majority of those who vote and not a majority of the citizens. In those cases, one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the majority. It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. Several de facto dictatorships also have compulsory, but not free and fair, voting in order to try to increase the legitimacy of the regime. Possible examples include: * those potentially subject to conscription are a minority. * several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols in public schools. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion. Supporters see it as following from the separation of state and religious activities. * prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. * recreational drug use is also typically legalized (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. * society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago; in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious or sexual mores of the majority. * the Athenian democracy and the early United States had slavery. * the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. * in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may not have the power to use the state to initiate redistribution when a majority of the electorate opposes such designs. When the poor form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state. * An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933 . Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler cannot be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the social democratic Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies. Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution protecting the rights of all citizens in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority. A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. All the possible problems mentioned above can also occur in nondemocracies with the added problem that a minority can oppress the majority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and mass murder by the government.. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

In a democracy the people with the authority to govern a country are those elected to do so by the people in free and fair elections. Also the term of rule is limited and new elections are required every 4/5 years.

Political parties influence the political system by organizing and mobilizing voters, selecting candidates, shaping public policy agendas, and providing a platform for political debate. They also help with fundraising, campaign strategy, and garnering public support for their candidates and policies. In essence, political parties play a central role in shaping the direction and functioning of our political system.

Communism was first developed in Russia

Major political personalities such as Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay took differing stances on states' rights and economic issues, leading to the formation of the Democratic and Whig parties. Jackson's support for a strong federal government and Clay's advocacy for internal improvements and protective tariffs fueled the growth of the two-party system as they attracted distinct groups of supporters. The debate over these issues highlighted the contrasting visions for the country's future, ultimately solidifying the divide between the two parties.

Plato believed the good society was one led by philosopher-kings, with a focus on justice and harmony in the ideal state. Machiavelli emphasized the need for strong leadership and the use of power to maintain order and stability. Mill valued individual freedoms and the prevention of harm, promoting a society where individuals have the liberty to pursue their own interests. Jefferson stressed the importance of democracy, with government deriving its power from the consent of the governed. Each thinker’s perspective offers insights into contemporary issues, but their ideas may need to be adapted to fit modern contexts.

Probably none. It's certainly not a blueprint for other countries. The situation in Germany was most unusual in two respects: 1. Germany had an earlier (though unsuccessful) democratic tradition of sorts. 2. The country that had prided itself on its cultural, academic and scientific achievements, the country that had liked to see itself as the pinnacle of civilization, was exposed as morally bankrupt through and through.

Machiavelli's principles focus on maintaining power at any cost, often through manipulation and violence. Today's world leaders should prioritize ethics, morality, and the well-being of their people while also being strategic and effective in governance. It's important for leaders to strike a balance between strength and compassion, seeking to serve the common good rather than just maintaining power for its own sake.

Communism, as meant by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and others, seeks to overthrow capitalism and the rule of the capitalist class and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. That is, a state that will openly serve the interests of the working class and repress the capitalists if the situation calls for it, with violence if necessary. A socialist society will then be built while spreading socialism throughout the world. When there is socialism and stability throughout the world, a transition process will be undertaken to mmove towards a classless society free of war, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Karl Marx became interested in social change during his early years in university, where he studied law and philosophy. He was influenced by the works of Hegel and Feuerbach, which led him to focus on critiquing and seeking to change the societal order he saw around him. Marx's experiences during the industrial revolution and witnessing the exploitation of laborers further solidified his commitment to studying and advocating for social change.

Ideologies survive best when they are not challenged and liberalism promotes the open discussion and criticism of ideologies. As a result, liberalism is an enemy of ideology since it promotes the very mechanism to destroy ideologies.

1. Discontent among the working class due to economic inequality could be exploited by organized crime groups to recruit members seeking better opportunities.
2. The emphasis on the redistribution of wealth and resources could create opportunities for criminal organizations to manipulate and control certain sectors of the economy.
3. The breakdown of traditional social structures and institutions under communism could lead to a lack of oversight and regulation, allowing criminal organizations to thrive in the resulting chaos.

According to Engels, Karl Marx was smarter. According to Marx, Karl Marx was smarter. Marx thought he was smarter than everyone else. He even referred to some of his supporters as "useful idiots."

Engels always gave Marx the lion's share of the credit for their philosophical writings. Marx's life work, "Capital", the theoretical foundation of his philosophy was written by him only with some editing help by Engels. "The Communist Manifesto" was written by both of them but it was only a short pamphlet.

Because he did not see Russian Capitalism as sufficiently mature compared to the European Capitalism.

It was not until 1861 that Russia abolished serfdom, which formalized its move from Feudalism to Capitalism.

Marx, who first published Das Kapital in 1867, saw Russian politico-economic system as a hybrid between Feudalism and Capitalism. He believed in a natural progression of political systems from Feudalism to Capitalism to Communism, with Capitalism being more progressive that Feudalism, and Communism more progressive than Capitalism. Each system, according to Marx, was intended to resolve the conflicts of the previous system, mature, run its course, create its own conflicts, which, when they came to a breaking point, would result in the next system change.

He saw the class conflicts in Germany and England as more pronounced and promising than those in Russia. If the proletariat (working class) was the engine of the next revolution, he figured, how could the Russian nascent proletariat be ready for it?

Of course, Russian revolution was anything but Marxist.