| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "SEPARATION POWERS DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Separation Powers and Democracy, 2006.
A discussion on whether separation powers is a necessary condition for democracy.
1,882 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper has a large emphasis on the Federalist Papers and the American system and constitution, but also looks more broadly at the importance of separation of powers in the U.S. It looks at difficulties in U.S. history of the system as well as the nature of the system and the way it has evolved, including the philosophy behind it.
From the Paper
"In the light of the objections to the Constitution the need for separation of powers for the supporters of the constitution is clear. There was a need both for a secure public sovereignty, and a check against tyranny. In the same way, however, the "tyranny of the majority" needed to be avoided. The constitution, in their eyes, was the perfect way to achieve popular sovereignty but avoid tyranny. Furthermore, a classic Aristotelian Republic, where virtue of government and people is crucial, is incongruent with Madison's view of human nature: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man"11. He describes humans as naturally exhibiting "animosity" and "self-interest". Democracy would obviously be idiocy in such conditions, but the separation of powers, for Madison, provided an extra balance against the possible self-interest of the no more virtuous representatives: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself""
| |
|
Power of the Media over Democracy, 2005.
This paper discusses the power of the media and our democracy.
1,995 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is an opinion paper which argues that the impact of the American media has politicized a pluralist democracy among the majority by creating a marginalized society, leaving the corporations, including the media, and the American politicians at the top of the pinnacle concerning political decisions and elite power.
From the Paper
"This bacama avidantly claar whan Richard Barlin, tha prasidant and chiaf axacutiva officar of tha Haarst Corporation in Naw York, askad Prasidant Richard Nixon to grant him immunity from tha antimonopoly law that had in pravious yaars sant othar corporata axacutivas to jail. Tha Haarst Corporation "ownad nina nawspapars, tan broadcasting stations, twanty-six magazinas, and a book publishing housa" (Adalstain). Nixon knaw that if ha did not axampt Barlin from tha law, his actions would ba ramambarad, coma tha naxt alaction. This illustratas that tha govarnmant naads tha madia mora than tha madia naads tha govarnmant dua to tha fact tha madia has tha ability to shapa and form political discoursa. It is also capabla of disrupting tha astablishad paradigm, tharafora thraataning thair dominant status."
| |
|
Russian Presidential Power and Democracy, 2005.
An overview of the powers of the Russian presidency and their implications for democracy.
2,780 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of some of the powers at the disposal of the president and how they have created serious implications for the development and consolidation of democracy. It starts with a brief discussion about the Soviet Union's legacy and contribution to the Russian presidential system. It also looks at how the presidency arose in Russia and covers Yeltsin's presidential abuses and powers as well as Putin's.
From the Paper
"Powerful executives have traditionally been at the helm of Russian politics. The tsars were at the peak of a steep pyramid of power, only God superseding their authority. Willerton (39-40) contends that the custom of having a strong executive head-ing the country bled over into the Soviet period, with execu-tives like Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev occupying much of their time with the purpose of consolidating power within the party-state system. The General Secretary of the Communist Party was the country's senior-most executive, holding broad powers of supervision over other secretaries and subordinate bodies."
| |
|
Corporate Power and the Negation of Democracy, 2002.
Examines the nature of corporate power and capitalism and how these structures tend to negate a free and democratic society.
2,650 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Modern organizations, particularly the state and corporate conglomerations, represent the historically unprecedented concentrations of power. This paper is about how people living in a supposed free society ended up legitimizing and giving approval to their own oppression and domination. Weber predicted that corporate power would help facilitate this development. Chomsky demonstrated how the particulars work in connection to the mass media. In a nutshell, this is about the issue of capitalism. Producers and advertisers have an interest in reinforcing certain ideologies, because, in their world, minorities, women and the poor should be relegated to certain spheres. This is, therefore, a political battle -- it is a class war. Economic elites retain their power by shaping and moulding social reality through the means of mass media.
| |
|
The Proper Balance of Power in Democracies, 2008.
This paper discusses the balance of power as it relates to the judiciary in Canada.
2,414 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Some political observers argue that the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary resides with the judiciary in Canada - a troubling assertion for those who feel unelected officials should not hold that kind of sway over the political process. In the view of this writer, such an argument is undoubtedly correct. With that uppermost in mind, this article looks at why it may be said that Canadian judges wield sweeping powers. From there, the paper turns to examine the arguments raised by at least one prominent Canadian academic who feels strongly that judges should use the considerable powers of their position to promote the creation of a Canada more in keeping with the notions of equality and inclusiveness that Canada allegedly stands for. The writer concludes by looking at how justices now see themselves in Canada, how the Charter entrenchment of certain rights has expanded their legislative role and what implications their prominent place in the democratic process offers for interest groups and citizens' groups. The writer maintains that the proper balance of power in a democracy should be one in which judges interpret the law rather than make it via prescriptive measures, but laments whether this will ever happen in Canada.
From the Paper
"Other academics, while appearing to share Dr. Greene's view that justices should play a key role in the shaping and formulation of Canadian law, nonetheless bristle at any suggestion that Canada's judiciary has been assertive in resisting the non-democratic or authoritarian impulses of Parliament - at least in some notable cases that have sweeping implications for all Canadians. For instance, L.E. Weinrib writes in 1994 that Canada's Supreme Court justices caved in to the legislature (and possibly to public pressure, as well) when they decided to reject Sue Rodriguez's request that she be allowed to die via assisted suicide. Of especial importance - at least to Ms. Weinrib - the majority of the Supreme Court read Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enshrining the sanctity of human life and not as an expression of an individual's right to be an autonomous decision-maker in a free society."
| |
|
Canadian Democracy and Judicial Powers, 2002.
Examines the impact of judicial review on Canada's representative democracy.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Upon the enactment of the Charter, courts have assumed the role of "guardians of the Constitution", which is of great concern to Canadian politics as judges have neither the necessary training or expertise to decide on political issues that affect the entire nation. The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy. Although it is tempting to focus closely on the more controversial and obvious relationship between judicial review and the Charter, this paper will endeavor to highlight the implications of binding adjudication on issues dealing with the distribution of legislative power since 1867.
| |
|
Democracy, the Constitution and the Balance of Power, 2002.
This paper discusses the concept, history and application of ?Checks and Balances?, the system that gives constitutional controls of the separate branches of government in a way that one branch will not have more power over the others.
1,830 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that, although the Federal Constitution of the United States with its ?Checks and Balances? makes it the best-known and most democratic system in the world today, most governments, even dictatorial ones, have a similar mechanism to balance the exercise of power among its branches. The author feels that the U.S. Constitution was and will be a reaction piece to events that happen to the people. This paper concludes that power must be controlled and accounted for: It is not only a right and a privilege but also, more so, a responsibility.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Checks and Balances in the Legislative Branch
The System and the People?s Rights
The System and the Judiciary
A Brilliant System in Present Times
From the Paper
"The system has been tested by actual situations. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson vetoed 20 bills (Anonymous), after which Congress overrode more than 20 bills vetoed by the President. In 1918, Congress turned down the Treaty of Versailles, which then President Woodrow Wilson worked hard for. The Treaty was to end World War I. In 1935 to 1936, Supreme Court declared that the NIRA and the AAA, New Deal programs passed by the Roosevelt Administration, were unconstitutional. Likewise, former President Ronald Regan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but his appointment or nomination was rejected by Congress."
| |
|
Democracy, the Constitution and the Balance of Power, 2002.
Discusses the system of 'Checks and Balances' within the American Federal Constitution.
1,825 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Constitution of a democratic government provides for the control of powers through a system of Checks and Balances. The paper explains that this system refers to constitutional controls of the separate branches of government, i.e., executive, legislative and judicial, over one another to insure that not one will have more power over the two others. The paper shows that it is commonly believed that the policy provided by the checks and balances of the Federal Constitution of the United States makes it the best-known and most democratic system in the world today.
Paper Outline:
Checks and Balances in the Legislative Branch
The System and the People?s Rights
The System and the Judiciary
A Brilliant System in Present Times
From the Paper
"The system has been tested by actual situations. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson vetoed 20 bills (Anonymous), after which Congress overrode more than 20 bills vetoed by the President. In 1918, Congress turned down the Treaty of Versailles, which then President Woodrow Wilson worked hard for. The Treaty was to end World War I. In 1935 to 1936, Supreme Court declared that the NIRA and the AAA, New Deal programs passed by the Roosevelt Administration, were unconstitutional. Likewise, former President Ronald Regan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but his appointment or nomination was rejected by Congress."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women?s function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures."
| |
|
"Democracy?s Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy?s Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy?s Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: ?Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal??(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
| |
|
Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy", 2005.
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper
""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
| |
|
Quality of Democracy in Iraq, 2006.
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
| |
|
"Democracy in America", 2002.
A study of freedom and democracy using Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the interrelation of the concepts of equality, freedom and democracy in history as portrayed in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
|
|
|
