Evidence of governments and rulers can be seen throughout history and have been used to keep society intact. The amount of dominion a government has over its people has changed overtime, some communities choose to be tyrannical while others tend to remain tolerant. The intolerance of several rulers in Japan contrasts with the liberality of leaders such as Akbar. Despite the differences between the two, each method of ruling has its pros and cons. Yet when it comes to adjudicating a colony, government is an essential aspect in one’s life in order to sustain a balanced society, a tolerant government is specifically seen as the strongest most abiding. Strong and central governments successfully assist in the expansion culturally of a country. …show more content…
To begin, the people had rights to believe in what they requested. As stated in The Mughal Empire in India, “Akbar was a muslim. However, he strongly believed that people should be able to follow the religion they chose” (The Mughal Empire in India). This belief assisted in making sure the people remained satisfied, and avoided boycotting and protesting in general. People could “follow the religion they chose,” positively affecting them and their rights. The ability to believe in what they desired was considered a gift. Additionally, according to The Mughal Empire in India, “He hired people in his government based on their ability and not their religion” (The Mughal Empire in India). In contrast to the tyrannical rule, Akbar chose the roles of people based on their potential rather than how their family was ranked on the social pyramid. This allowed people of any religion to obtain a job involving government as long as they had the ability to. Conclusively, Albar also sustained fair taxes to satisfy the needs of everyone. The Mughal Empire in India writes, “Akbar ruled fairly. He ended the tax that Hindu pilgrims had to pay. He also ended the tax non-muslims had to pay. [...] This made it easier for peasants to pay” (The Mughal Empire in India). He was very generous and tended to the needs of not just the upper class, but the peasants and merchants as well. His overall fair rule kept the stabilized government active until his inevitable yet tragic death. The government remained strong, and the people contented. With the right to religion, the lack of prejudice and fair taxes, there are no apparent downfalls to a tolerant government. Akbar was able to keep a strong yet stable government, showing a tolerant government is the most abiding compared to a tyrannical government. In relation to the first point made, there were no
Akbar was considered the best of the Mughal rulers partly because of his tolerance of all religions. Akbar did his best to unify the Hindus and Muslims by giving both religions positions in the government. Traditionally, only Muslims would could be rulers zamindars while most of the population was Hindu. Akbar also married women of both religions, as an attempt to unify Hindus and Muslims. Akbar himself was interested in religions, inviting different people to discuss other religions with him. Akbar's greatest impact in trying to unite the Hindus and Muslims was creating the Divine Faith religion, but most people did not convert. When Akbar died, the following rulers did not support the same religious tolerance policy that he had. Aurangzeb tried to rid the empire of all Hindu. This caused revolts from both Hindus and Muslims, which created a period of instability allowing Europeans to come and take
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
Much like a young child growing up, they are prone to make mistakes. The same can be said about the United States after gaining independence from Great Britain. In 1778 the law of the land was the Articles of Confederation, where a majority of governmental power went to the 13 individual states in order to avoid a large, overbearing government like the one we recently fought against. Although it was great in concept, the Article of Confederation was not what the United States needed. With each state governing on their own the states were not united. But with the adoption of the U.S Constitution, that all changed.
Governing a society of people and achieving a justice presents a challenge regardless of the form. While the American Republic government has leant itself to many flaws when it comes to justice, it still embodies a stronger checks and balances to achieve justice that are limited in Platonic or Aristotelian government forms. We have a strong belief and precedent in achieving justice by way of our people from protests, boycotts to our election process. The activity level is important in combatting challenges in the justice system.
When one thinks of imperialism they often refer to the concept with very strong feelings. The general population will either agree with it or disagree. There tends to be no middle ground. The best way to look at imperialism is with an impartial mind. If one looks at imperialism with an open mind then they are able to see both the strengths and the weaknesses that it harbors. Throughout history one is most likely able to name several circumstances where imperialism took place and also point out the obvious aftermath of. Imperialism tends to have a greater good behind it, but unfortunately may have been executed poorly.
The U.S. Constitution was written with a great vision to create a strong nation. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a very well organized and well thought out document that holds a strong bases for the future of America. It was September 17, 1787 that the Constitution was created, just a few years after we broke away from England’s control. In 1777, America’s government operated under the Articles of Confederation. This allowed states to operate independently like little countries. America’s government was weak because people were afraid of the government having too much power.
Limited government is a political system in which legalized force is restricted through delegates and enumerated powers . The constitution itself starts with “We the people…” the people who should and mostly do have the power. Limited government allows people to have the power over government by having elections, checks and balances in a system, and federalism. All entities that help the people stay in control of their nation, a nation founded on limiting government, from the Articles of Confederation to our modern day constitution.
The new government of United States of America was formed in 1789 and George Washington was elected as America’s first president and John Adams was elected as first vice-president of America. It was the period which America’s first cabinet was formed along with the departments of war, treasury and State. Also, an Attorney Journal was selected. As it was the beginning of the new government, therefore, there were various problems faced by the U.S. government and that lead to many aspects which weakened the systems of the government.
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.
Perhaps of the most obvious differences between these two civilizations was in their political beliefs. Two political forces constructed the new form of government in Western Society, known as Nationalism and Liberalism. Nationalists argued that the state should be linked to a single basic culture, and all other natio...
people were not allowed to act on their beliefs, instead their thoughts and actions were controlled
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
The "American Rule" for lawsuit costs and fees requires each party to pay its own attorney fees regardless of whether they win or lose. The "English Rule", which is used most everywhere else in the world, requires that the loser pay for the winner's fees as well as their own. Is one system better than the other? Let us briefly discuss a few of the pros and cons of the "American Rule" of lawsuit costs and attorney fees payment system.
A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone comprises an essential part of the man.