A residual monarchy that acts on behalf of the entire population, regardless of wealth, race or religion is the best form of government. When hereditary monarchs can act as a social conscious with no hands in politics and an elected parliament can run the country without the need for glamour or prestige is ideal. When you separate glamour and politics what you get is a constitutional monarchy which is the best form of government.
Thomas Aquinas speaks of the highs and lows of governing and what power can do to mankind in his political prose De Regno - On Kinship.“… Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst. … For democracy stands in contrary opposition to polity, since both are governments carried on by many persons, as is clear from what has already been said; while oligarchy is the opposite of aristocracy, since both are governments carried on by a few persons; and kingship is the opposite of tyranny since both are carried on by one person. Now, as has been shown above, monarchy is the best government. If, therefore, "it is the contrary of the best that is worst." it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government”(Aquinas). Aquinas also speaks of the importance of a governing figure, he says the people need someone to look up to in order to succeed. Aquinas believes in his predecessors words which believes man is only as strong as the man he looks up to. He believes the prominence of an authority figure is crucial in the survival of a just society. “. In like manner, the body of a man or any other animal would disintegrate unless there were a general ruling force within the body which watches over the common good of all members. With this in mind, Solomon sa...
... middle of paper ...
...for me. A rose by any other name, does it still smell as sweet? When a monarchy can be redesigned and adapted to the needs and rights of the people, this flower indeed smells sweeter. A evolutionary monarchy, the constitutional monarchy that we as Canadians have developed and accepted, is truly the best form of government. As Canadians, we have the pride in our past, the patience in our present and the faith in our future, with heritage and choice. A constitutional monarchy, like the representative government in Canada today, is the best form of government.
Work Cited.
Aristotle. Republic
Aquinas. On Kinship
Bagehot, Walter. The English Constitution, 1867. (Retrieved From http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196)
Dante - De Monarchia
The British Monarchy Website (2014). (Retrieved From: http://www.royal.gov.uk/)
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
...nstead the state consists of rulers who behave like subjects and subjects who behave like rulers. The people begin to desire a strong leader, who will make the difficult decisions for them and bear the consequences: the Democracy has become a Tyranny.
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
...e ruler only holds power as long as his subjects obey his punishment commands. The sovereign does not determine the question of obedience to his commands, because that is ultimately a question the subjects determine for themselves, based on their assessment of their best interests and welfare. It therefore follows that the people as subjects, in due course, establish the very existence of the sovereign, which is dependent on obedience to his commands.
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Before arguing whether Canada should go back to the role of monarchy, we should understand what is monarchy. Monarchy is a form of government system that can occupied a country and count it as their property. There are only twenty-two countries that Britain did not invade, so if Canada is not
Oligarchy is valued above a democracy although they are both ruled by the appetite of the soul. Those within an oligarchy pursue necessary appetites whereas democratic individuals pursue unnecessary appetites. Rulers are present...
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
“When a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of the Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven (Paine
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.