Authoritarian Vs Nonauthoritarian Government

720 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Different systems of government

Is our government uniting or dividing our citizens in the United States? This is a questions asked so many times, but first we have to understand the different types of political systems in the world, especially our own political system. There are many different types of political systems; Barbour and Wright group the different types into two categories: the authoritarian systems and the nonauthoritarian systems. When the power is given to the state and not its people is what is called an authoritarian government, the people have no effective power against the government. Usually the government has total power over its people and decides how people have to live their lives. Monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, fascism and oligarchy are all …show more content…

The citizens get to decide how they want to live their own lives, and the government’s role is to set fair rules guarantee and protect individual rights. There are different types of nonauthoritarian governments; one that has no real-world examples is called anarchy. An anarchy is when there is no government or laws, and the people do as they wish. A democracy government is the people. Democracies maximize freedom for all the people. In a democracy, the government makes decisions through majority rule, but they have to preserve individual rights. And if a person feels like their rights have been violated, they have the right to ask the government to correct the problem. In democracies, the people are the ultimate source of political power. In nonauthoritarian system, the people are more than a subject; they are citizens and have both rights and responsibilities. Citizens are given rights that the government has to protect like freedom of speech and press, and other legal protections for fair treatment in the criminal justice system, but they also have to obey the …show more content…

The first one was individualistic citizenship, which sees citizens as self-interested and that individual participation in government should be limited because the founders feared that too much democracy is a bad thing. The second one was collectivist citizenship, which put faith in the citizens to act for the common good and not their own good. I believe the way our American citizenship is shaped now is dividing us citizens more than uniting us. We are united as citizens because we share common values, ideas and beliefs, which are called our political culture. We all have different religious, educational, geographic and professional backgrounds that divide us as citizens. I think when the Founding built our government, they didn’t expect it to change so much over time, and they probably thought they were uniting the citizens but in the long run, it mostly divided

Show More
Related

  • Federalist Paper 51 Summary

    940 Words  | 2 Pages

    The republic should be able to, “guard the society against the oppression of its rulers,” but also “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” If a nation is not primarily run by the people, then the government has the ability to oppress them by implementing taxes and laws and revoking basic rights without their consent (as witnessed in the events preceding the Revolutionary War). The separate state governments did not allow every person to have a voice for their country even though “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government.” However, if too much authority is in the hands of the citizens, then, “the rights of the minority will be insecure,” because majority groups will be, “united by a common interest.” One analysis of these rights states that the “community will” (good intention of the government) is, “independent of the simple majority,” and that a government placing “power behind a group in society working against the public good” would be detrimental. Madison’s intention discussing factions is that we must strike a balance between representing the common interests of the people while not excluding minorities and placing trust in an unjust popular interest. The government of today takes into account Madison’s extensive concept of factionalism which includes the Republican, Democratic, and

    Read More

  • Dbq Alien And Sedition Acts

    1488 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the beginnings of the United States there was a unity called Federalism. Although legislators had serious differences of opinions, political unity was considered absolutely essential for the stability of the nation; factions. If others were to enter in to this great country they should also become intertwined in our "ways". This opinion is seen in President George Washington's' letter to John Adams. He stated that people coming into our government should be "...Assimilated to our customs, measures and laws.become one people". But he also said "they retain the Language, habits and principle (good or bad) which they bring with them" They could not only keep there religions and other customs; but have a freedom of their pursuit of happiness: first amendment right; something that was violated in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Public perceptions of factions were not related to British excesses and thought to be "the moral diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished". James Madison wrote in the most popular Federalist Paper number ten where he described his definition of a faction "by a faction, I understand a number of citize...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The US Constitution

    972 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Washington And Hamilton Essay

    883 Words  | 2 Pages

    Well, when it comes to politics it leads to divides such as the Federalists and the Republics. We see the first political divide race in the election of 1796 between the Federalist candidate, John Adams, and the Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson. People like Adams, Washington, and Hamilton believed in broad construction. Broad constructionists believed that the Constitution is a broad framework with many blanks to be filled in along the way. In other words, they thought it was fine to “read between the lines” of the Constitution. While on the other hand people like Jefferson and Madison believed that there is “no read between the lines” the Constitution says what it says and we must follow it by those rules. Federalists also believed in strong/active federal government, faith in government order, pro-tax, and industrial/commercial economy. Conversely, the republicans wanted a weak/inactive federal government, they were fearful of the government, anti-tax, and agrarian economy. Federalists believed the future of our country was in commerce, business, trade, and industry. They thought a strong government was needed for the stability of international commerce. On the other hand, Republicans had a vision for the country that was based on agricultural production. They saw this happening in the rural Southern farmland. Republicans was believed in strict obedience of the Constitution because they thought it

    Read More

  • Aristocracy, Oligarchy, And Monarchy By Stephen Douglass

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    With a dictionary definition (cited above), there is little end result between all definitions besides democracy. monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, tyranny all translate to few people or individual(s) ruling with power. Indeed, aristocracy and oligarchy are synonymous within this definition, as well as monarchy, aristocracy, and tyranny. The former being ruled by groups while the latter in definition are ruled by individuals. Not much difference.

    Read More

  • Exploring the Necessity and Benefits of Government

    529 Words  | 2 Pages

    We often wonder about the importance of government. Is it necessary? Does it really benefit society? The answer is yes. Many countries have diverse forms of government such as totalitarian, monarchy, theocracy, and much more. The United States of America specifically runs a democratic type of government. A democratic government gives power to the people. Citizens over the age of eighteen are allowed to elect leaders based on their individual opinions through voting rights. The main purpose of the American government is, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers intended.

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.

    Read More

  • Centralized Government Vs Individualism

    948 Words  | 2 Pages

    In modern times, this debate is ongoing and currently represented by the democratic and republican parties. Democrats believe in a strong centralized government while Republicans favor individualist rights. As illustrated in the texts of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and “Thomas Jefferson: The Best of Enemies”, there is a strong desire to separate the United States of America from the rule of the King of Great Britain but then establish a new government . Upon the establishment of this new government begins (again) the debate over a stronger centralized government or stronger individual rights. Ultimately, a compromise was met with the use of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights that established the people’s majority vote was needed to pass new rules and

    Read More

  • Federalist Arguments Against The Constitution

    1206 Words  | 3 Pages

    Around the late 1780s, America realized that the government it was using did not work. The States were divided, not together since the Articles of Confederation only loosely bound them together. Each State had different foreign treaties, different laws, even different money. The Constitution was proposed, which would transform the states into a united nation with a single, republican government. Two parties arose who disagreed over whether it should be ratified or not; the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists were in favor of unifying the states into one government. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation instead of throwing them out and creating a new government. The two sides had

    Read More

  • The United States Constitution: The Development Of The US Constitution

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    The development of the U.S. Constitution was a series of many trials and errors. There were many problems starting from the Articles of Confederation and even the battle to ratify the constitution. Not everyone wanted the same thing for the new government, however they all agreed that they didn’t want the same type of government that they had unde English rule.

    Read More

  • Founding Brothers

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    Joseph Ellis, writer of Founding Brothers, describes two phases that were crucial moments in the History of America. The first was the writing of the Constitution. He states that "...the primary purpose of the Constitution was to provide the framework to gather together the scattered strands of the population into a more coherent collective worthy of that designation."(Ellis 10). At this time the United states still felt tied to Britain. People still had this idea that government would become too powerful and take over their freedom. Others felt that if people had two much power, everything would get out of control.

    Read More

  • The Constitution of the United States

    2841 Words  | 6 Pages

    When the Constitution of the United States was first created in 1787, its purpose was to unify our country. However, by 1850, the United States had become 'source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it had created.' What happened during the 63 years after it was first established to 'contribute to the failure of the union it had created?' One must look at what the Constitution promoted to make the country unified and what it did to make it disunified. Compromises such as 3/5, the Missouri, and the tariff of 1850 all helped to unify and shape our country. However, compromises such as the Fugitive Slave Law, Popular Sovereignty, and the slave trade all led to disunify our country. The large populous states naturally wanted the number of representatives in the new Congress to be based on population. The Virginia Plan provided that there would be two houses of Congress and that in each one representation would be based on population. Like many other ideas that have made history, it was remarkably simple. Why not divide the Congress into two houses? In one house (the Senate) each state, regardless of population, would have the same number of representatives. In the other house (the House of Representatives) each member would represent the same number of people. 'Quite appropriately this came to be called the Great Compromise. Other major compromises came on slavery and on the control of commerce. The southern states, where the slaves were really treated as property, still wanted the slaves counted as people for the purposes of representation in the New House of Representatives. Some delegates argued that if one kind of property was counted f...

    Read More

  • Freedom and Authoritarianism

    1363 Words  | 3 Pages

    Freedom and equality are intertwined with one another. Freedom is defined as the custom of being free, political independence, and the possession of civil rights. When reflecting upon the history of the twentieth century many people all over the world were not afforded the luxury of being born with freedom or born with equal rights. In most cases, those people were often oppressed or subjugated by various forms of systematic state sponsored authoritarianism and terror. In order to receive the freedom necessary to survive and the equality required to live a happy and successful life the oppressed people had to take action. Often times the action took on various forms such as, revolts or nonviolent campaigns. Because the governments reliance on authoritarianism and terror to control their citizens, often times revolts and/or nonviolent campaigns were the consequence. Therefore, any advances towards gaining freedom and equality cannot happen without some form of systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror taking place first. It is no coincidence because the two phenomena are linked.

    Read More

  • Should Women Drive in Saudi Arabia?

    742 Words  | 2 Pages

    As most people know, Saudi Arabia is one of the most if not the most conservative country in the world, and the only country that prevents women from the right of driving. However, things are about to change as a group of activists launched a campaign called "October 26 driving". Basically, this campaign encourages all women to just get in the car and drive on October 26th. This campaign has started a huge debate whether women should drive in Saudi Arabia or not.

    Read More

  • Democracy Is The Worst Form Of Government

    1302 Words  | 3 Pages

    What is democracy? Democracy a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them in a country, democracy guarantees free and fair elections, basic personal and political rights and independent court of law. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy or pure democracy is where there is direct participate of the people; people make decisions for them instead of letting them representative make decision for them. Indirect democracy the decisions are made by the representative on behalf of the people that voted for them. All over the world people are having different views with regard to democracy and how it operates. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” ~ Winston Churchill, some have said democracy is the worst government form of government which I also think it’s! Due to the how it operates.

    Read More

More about Authoritarian Vs Nonauthoritarian Government

Open Document