Saturday, October 5, 2013
The Dangers of Democracy
During the past week, we've looked at the emergence of various strains of Greek civilization from the Dark Ages, the age of Greek Colonization from 750BC-550BC, and the gradual rise of democracy in the fundamental unit of ancient Greek political organization, the polis. For the most part, we seem to have assumed that the gradual development of a democracy is a "good thing" or a kind of progress within these communities. After all, these communities gradually moved from some form of monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, or oligarchy in which political decision-making rested in the hands of the few. But, is the story really that simple? Please respond to the following prompt in AT LEAST TEN thoughtful and focused sentences. SERIOUSLY defend ONE of the following forms of government and its advantages to the disadvantages of democracy (a more direct form of government in which many citizens represent themselves in the political decisions of governing):
1) a monarchy (rule by an individual hereditary royal who is supposedly focused on the good of all,
2) a tyranny (rule by an individual who has gained almost absolute power by appealing to the basic needs of the middle class and poor)
3) an aristocracy (rule of a few wealthy individuals who are supposedly focused on the good of all),
4) an oligarchy (rule by a few wealthy individuals who have gained almost absolute power within a community.
Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are some problems to a democracy that a tyranny would not have. First, tyrants always had a code of law that was made to protect the middle and lower class. The tyrants gained their power through these classes and had to make these agreeable. It would not be a problem having only rich people be leading, as the tyrant was forced to focus on the middle and lower class to stay in power. Secondly, the tyrants would take away some of the nobles land and money and give it to the lower classes. This would bring about more equality, as nobles no longer controlled everything by owning everything. There would be much less of a hierarchy and more equality in social classes. Democracy does not solve this as, though it does provide more equality under the law, it provides little to no equality in social classes, which can still effect politics. Thirdly, tyrants would provide jobs to many, many people in lower classes. The jobs consisted of building temples, roads, docks, and more. These would improve the economy and prosperity of the area, while a democracy can only provide a few jobs in politics, that do much less to change the actual economy, beauty, and prosperity of the area. Finally, important decisions would be made much faster. A tyrant can just sign a decree and solve a problem, whereas democracy can have problems with bogging down the speed of making important decisions.
ReplyDelete~Pen
Tyranny does not have some of the problems that a democracy faces. Tyrants were generally not considered as harsh and cruel, they were in a way heroic leaders who worked for the common good of ordinary people. Decision making in democracy takes a long time because everyone has to agree on everything though with Tyranny the Tyrants decisions still have to appeal to the people though they take less time.
ReplyDeleteIn city states there were many fights and conflicts between the common people and rulers. Tyrants were usually frustrated nobles who used the middle class to enhance their power. Though they could not just gain control of the middle class they had to appeal to them by doing three things. Creating a code of laws to protect the middle and lower class against the noble’s manipulations, they took away some of the land and money of the nobles and gave it to the middle and lower class and they helped create more jobs for them. Through taking away some of the power from the nobles and giving it to the poor and middle class this helped the society become more equal and not just one sided. Tyrants helped a society not just be ruled by someone who had all the power, they gave back some of the power to the middle class. One of the first steps towards democracy was when a man named Draco came into power in 621 B.C. and created a code of laws that stated that all Athenians rich or poor were equal under the law. Democracy is the idea of rule by the people. Though democracy provides equality under law there is little to no equality in social classes. So the nobles and the rich do have more influence and more power unlike in a Tyranny. Also while in a Tyranny the nobles helped created jobs for the poor and middle class in a democracy there becomes more of a separation in-between the classes. Also rule of a democracy is based on citizenship. Citizenship was only restricted to small number of people, adult males. So women, slaves and foreigners who were not considered citizens had little to no rights.
Although democracy is the ideal government of the Greek age of colonization, it still has its flaws like other forms of government. I believe that the only form of government that could challenge democracy in the age of colonization was tyranny. Under tyranny, the ruler is more focused on the issues of the middle and lower classes which is the majority of the population.Tyrannical rulers are more attuned to the public's needs. In a democracy the people rule the government instead of a single wealthy person or a group of wealthy people but wealthy individuals can unfairly influence the role of government to their advantage. This type of government can also delay many decisions due to disagreements. Democracy can divide a people based on an issue. In tyranny the middle and lower class were listened to and their wants and needs were addressed by the ruler. This form of government is good because decisions can be made faster and the people of the lower and middle class feel they have a say. Although democracy is the ideal government for the civilizations of the age of colonization, it was not as strong as a tyranny government.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in some city-states (ones especially prone to conflict) may have benefitted from an aristocracy as opposed to a democracy. An aristocracy is a form of government that was ruled by a group of families – nobles – that were in power due to the fact that they had been strong participants in the military. In city-states like Sparta (which were very hierarchical) they honored war, and one was likely to be highly venerated if they were in the military. Loyalty and servitude to Sparta was put in highest priority – even before family. If an aristocracy ruled a city-state like Sparta, I think that possibly it would have been able to advance their military, fighting being something the city-state prided itself on. I do believe that social classes would have been better in a tyranny or maybe even in a democracy. Tyrants (as was said by Pen and Juliet) came to power by more or less manipulating the middle and lower classes by favoring them with jobs and laws ‘protecting’ these classes. And while the word manipulating implies a sense of superficiality, I do believe that these less hierarchical societies benefitted the lower classes more; I also agree with Pen about what he said regarding how the tyrants supplying the lower class people with jobs strengthens the city-state. But, relating this back to the aristocracy, societies like Sparta strongly relied on war and really did not value much else. I do believe that maybe the jobs that the tyrants would have given to the lower class people would have been something not worth focusing on to the people of Sparta. While I do believe that less hierarchical societies are more helpful socially, I think that an aristocracy would have benefitted Sparta.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy had many disadvantages in the time it existed in Greek culture. For each and almost every crime, death was the punishment, whether the crime was stealing, or murdering. Only the top 3 classes could hold political office, making the lowest of the low class not be paid enough attention to. But tyranny paid attention to these issues. A tyrant nowadays is considered a cruel dictator, but back then a tyrant worked for the good of the lower classes, he provided his citizens with jobs and land for them to live on. So, instead of the higher classes dominating most everything, the middle and lower classes rose to power in a tyrannical rule based society. Even if people say that the tyrant supposedly "manipulates" the lower and middle classes, they will eventually revolt and take over themselves, making a new higher class, and a new middle and lower class. Although democracy does involve all classes in an Athenian assembly, a tyrant was able to pass a bill or law or important decision like that *snaps fingers*. If the Tyrant gives the lower and middle classes better lives, then I think Tyrannical Rule is the way to go. But Democracy would be my preferred choice for a government in Greek culture, the closest thing that challenges it though, is Tyrannical Rule.
ReplyDeleteI believe that tyranny would have been the best form of government in Ancient Greece. Tyranny is when there is one leader who gains power by working for the people and trying to make everyone equal. A tyrant divided up nobles land and gave it to the middle class and the poor so that they could support themselves. In a tyranny you usually have a ruler who is in charge of everything and really works for the people. A tyrant usually supports the middle class and poor and doesn't try so hard or care as much for the nobles. This sounds like an unfair ruler but if you look at it he makes everyone equal and what you do from that point on is up to you. A tyranny to me is where the leader gives everyone the stuff to build the road to where they are going and it's up to them to either build it or not and that, to me, is almost the highest sense of equality. Everyone starts the same, it's where they end up that's different. A tyrant is someone who is not going to become corrupt because he is working for the people and therefore the offer of money isn't going to change what happens. A tyrant is someone who works for the masses. He got where he is due to the people so, to some extent, he is giving back. Giving everyone else a chance to do whatever they want to do as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the ancient times, tyrants were considered to have manipulated the middle and lower class in order to have them on his/her side. They provided the citizens with power, dealt with their needs and wants, and gave them building jobs. As Pen said, the jobs benefited the economy. Democracy, on the other hand, was not as equal toward social classes. Women and slaves were not considered citizens and were not granted the right to vote: only males were citizens. Obviously, the rich males had made this decision. If this region had had tyranny, this specific action would not have happened. I believe that tyranny would be best for ancient Greece because it would make present the middle and lower class' thoughts and change Greece for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, tyranny was a better form of government than democracy. Tyranny is when one noble uses the middle class to gain power. To become a tyrant, someone had to create a code of laws, redistribute nobles' land among the poor, and provide the poor and middle class with jobs. This meant that everyone had a job, land, and was in some way a benefit to society. The tyrant depends on support from the middle class. If the tyrant angers the middle class, they would revolt and he would lose power. This means that everyone in the middle and lower classes had some say over what happens in that city state. However, in democracy only wealthy, land-owning men controlled the area. Women and the lower classes had no influence on the society. Therefore, tyranny does not only give power to an individual, it gives power to all the classes.
ReplyDeleteThere are advantages and disadvantages to a democratic form of government. (I will be comparing/contrasting democracy to a tyranny.) Let's start with the advantages.In a democratic form of gov't, people of all classes are able to represent themselves. Whilst representing themselves, they are able to make decisions pertaining to who will be able to serve a term as a political officer, or a decision regarding a law , etc. however, during the re-emergence of the Greeks, only noblemen could hold political office, and the middle and lower class were not considered equal to the upper class, financially (of course), politically, and socially. However, in a tyrannical form of government, the lower and middle classes were made (or manipulated, as some might claim.) to believe that they were equal to the nobles, and that they were not outcasts. They believed it because the ruler at the time, or the Tyrant, helped them out a lot. For one, he divvied up the land of the upperclassmen to give our to the poorer class, and the poorer classes were not exactly made to believe that the nobles were bad, but they were made to believe that they were equal, if not greater, to them. Also, he provided jobs to the lower classes, something that you can't exactly do in a democracy. On top of that, a/the tyrant was able to establish or demolish a law or rule in the blink of an eye. In a democracy, since you vote and deliberate on that choice to create/erase a law, it would take quite a long time to just confirm the passing of a law. Lastly, a tyrant was able to easily keep his people in check. In a democracy, there is always space to revolt and rebel against greater authorities. And THIS is why I think the best form of government for Greece was tyranny. (Note: I'm not saying democracy is bad at all, but I'm just saying that in a government system like that of greece, a tyranny would benefit the population the most.)
ReplyDeleteCompared to the disadvantages of democracy in ancient Greece I believe tyranny is the best political structure fit for Greece. Democracy encouraged the equal power amongst the citizens but never truly showed it with such social and economic divides. Within Tyranny social and economic divides were broken down. Tyrants with held power by receiving favor in the lower class eyes. Tyrants took from the rich and gave to the poor. This allowed the poor to actually get a chance and be able to upkeep themselves. Tyrants offered power and jobs to the poor. Tyrants brought the lower classes to work as a unit to gain the power they deserve. With such a strong force the rich/nobles had no chance to stop the changes begin made to break down social divides. Tyranny actually helped Greece become somewhat equal through actions and not just words.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a monarchy could be a better, more effective form of government than a Democracy. First of all the idea of a democracy may sound very good. It promises the representation of every citizen in society when making laws, decisions, etc. But look at the current democracy of the United States, where the government was shut down recently because people DISAGREED. That is the major flaw of democracy, people can disagree. And if people disagree, nothing can get done. The United States of America has gone through many economy hurting shutdowns, defaults, inability to pass budget bills. I believe that a monarchy can fix that. A Monarch has no one to disagree with him so he can make any law he wants anytime he wants. If something needs to be done, he can just do it, rather than the long, boring debates which occur in democracy that achieve nothing. A monarchy although the interests of only the monarch are represented, is still a better form of government because a monarch can help his people more quickly than a democracy can.
ReplyDeleteI believe that an aristocracy can be better than a democracy. This is for a few reasons. First off, if the majority of citizens become corrupt in yo democracy, they could vote for bad things. In a aristocracy, this wouldn't happen, because the people in charge would be making the decisions. That leads right to my second point. You could trust they would know how to make good decisions, because they would (in Greece anyways) have gained power from an accomplishment of the king's military cavalry. Also, in an aristocracy, actions could be made faster, because you wouldn't have to wait for a vote to determine what action to make. For time-sensitive actions like whether to attack a place that attacked you, sometimes it wouldn't be smart to wait for a vote, so an aristocracy would clearly be better. Another thing is that if there were a war, you would have a specific set of leaders who would have experience with war strategy, rather than the common people. This would be another experience-based reason for an aristocracy, like the one above.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start by saying what the disadvantages of democracy are. The first and largest one is probably that it creates a lot of conflict. The other forms of government that we were given also could cause conflict, but this is a side effect of the government as opposed to democracy, which is based on conflict. Democracy promotes division of classes in that the person who people are voting for will probably favor a class. It also promotes other social divisions, but class would probably have been the most prominent one at the time. Democracy has another problem relating to the first problem. It tends to discriminate against minorities. An example that fits the time would be wealthy people. There were probably fewer wealthy people than there were poor people. This is usually the case. What if some poor person came and ran for some powerful position. They might, in fact, get the position because the are backed by the majority (other poor people). Then they would make a law (voted for by the poor) that said that the rich would have to give money to the poor. Soon it would be communist. This is an exaggeration. It was just to show a point. I also know that there were laws that could counteract this, but laws are not perfect. Possibly a better form of government would be a monarchy. The only problem with a monarchy is that people who are in charge for many generations will probably become power hungry, self centered, and corrupt. If something could be done so that the rulers would keep looking out for the people rather than for themselves, a monarchy would be the perfect form of government. People could just be productive and happy knowing that other people were making the decisions and that said decisions were in their best interest. I am not saying that I want to live in a Monarchy because Monarchies have unfixable flaws. Democracies have more flaws, but these flaws can be counteracted by good lawmaking early in the process.
ReplyDelete