Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
The Middle Eastern has developed a lot of economic success with the authoritarianism government they’ve established. To some people, if they are economically stable, they’re willing to endure the hardships of being lead under a dictator. Countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are flourishing in the oil business, which keeps them wealthy and involved in international relations. To the citizens of the Middle East, this makes their country look powerful because even with the Western’s opposing ideologies, they’re still working with the Middle East. This is sending the wrong message because even though the western countries have to cooperate and show political support with the Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries. Situations like these give the citizens a positive outlook of how their country is being conducted and support their governme...
... middle of paper ...
...and the fear installed in the citizens. The most powerful people in the Middle East are controlling the government financially, so it makes it hard to stand up against their wrong doings. The citizens don’t have the protection they need to feel stable if they do go against their dictators. Another reason is that they fear the punishment they’ll receive if they do stand up for themselves. They would rather endure the pain of not having freedom than the physical pain they would experience for fighting for their freedom. The Middle East’s traditional ideologies make it hard for people to change their viewpoints. Religion is how people define themselves, so once they lose that they feel like they’ve lost themselves. All in all, authoritarianism will continue to exist in the Middle East because the citizens don’t believe that having a democracy is worth the fight.
You may be thinking how did the constitution stop tyranny? Well we have the answer. Let's start of with what tyranny means, that a leader or king abuses their power. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? Well they abuse their power bad deeds. The constitution guard against tyranny in these four ways. Federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and small states vs. large states.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
The 19th century set the stage for different policies that lead to the extending of America’s power, which is defined as imperialism. Imperialism started for different reasons like the Americans wanting the U.S. to expand or explore the unknown land, or even some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up. The reason imperialism started doesn’t really matter, but more of what it caused. Imperialism lead to Cuban assistance, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska to America, and Yellow Journalism.
Constitution and Tyranny Tyranny is cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. This one act could ultimately be the downfall of a people, of a government, of a nation. Chaos ensues and the structure of the country collapses. The colonial United States required a plan of protection from tyranny, which led our Founding Fathers to institute the Constitution. The Constitution, written in 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, provides a backbone for our country.
Each and every individual country has its own ideologies, economies, and ways of governing. In the early 1900’s Italy had developed its own ideology that had a huge impact on the lives of the Italian people. This ideology was known as Fascism. Fascism was not only a way of governing, but it was also known as a social organization. Fascism became what it was in response to the movement of social theories. There is much more behind the idea of fascism such as where it came from, who the creator of Fascism was, and why it was popular among many civilians.
Nationalism is being patriotic towards one’s own country. It took place in the nineteenth century to those people who shared a language, history and culture. Nationalism led to creation of new powers, which are Italy and Germany. As these countries became united and stronger, they created war against other countries.
Early 2011 uprisings swept across the Middle East and North Africa, and many rebellions are still going on today. The Arab region has seen revolts and conflict since the 1800‘s, but only recently have these revolts been redirected to the problems of Arab society (Ghannam, J. 2011 pg 4-5)The Arab Spring Uprising was first sparked in Tunisia and eventually struck Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen and then spread to other countries. Citizens throughout these countries were dissatisfied with the rule of their local governments. Issues like human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, dictators...
When we heard about fascism, Germany and Italy enter our mind on the basis of the fact that these countrie's leaders caused the worst results which affected nearly all World.Today, however, most people believe that fascism is not a threat any more and there will be no leader who may like Mussolini or Adolf Hitler but I highly consider that fascism still pose a danger and in Europe the new fascist leaders may rise like in Turkey.But what is Fascism and leaders are really playing an important role ? I think firstly we should answer these questions.Fascism may refer to general social movement of right wing revolutionary conservatism in Europe.The term ''fascist'' was first applied to a political movement which combine ultranationalism with hostility and conservatism by Mussolini in 1919.The first fascist movements occured in Italy during World War I and it united right wing positions and elements of left wing politics.Fascists seek to bring together their nation through a totalitarian state which developed the huge mobilization of the national community.
The 1800's were a renowned era in European history. With the rise of imperialism came the ruthless desire to seek new land through the use of authoritative implications. Whether it be the discovery of the Americas, where Christopher Columbus discovered various islands, which were clustered with indigenous people that were eventually completely wiped out for the pure desire of Spaniard power. This craving to "assimilate" indigenous people and to convert them to Christianity was an element, which rooted 19th century Europe. Although the actual question to whether these actions were good or evil are up for debate. Imperialism has been viewed as an expansion that serves only ones "object" and that it has no purpose beyond the benefit of the "self". This paper will explain Imperialism through a sociological perspective, while blending in notions of capitalism and modern day Imperialism that may now be viewed as Globalism.
Throughout history, there has been countless times where a country is ran by tyranny, and countless times where tyranny negatively affects the country. Our country, the United States of America, was one of those countries at one point, but we thankfully got out of it from war. Since our country didn’t want to go back to tyranny, people had to create a system, and a set of principles that would prevent that from happening. So, the Constitution was made. Tyranny is a government ran by one person, or a small amount of people, and the United States got out of it, but we still had to establish a way to prevent it from happening again. The constitution did it’s job and protected against tyranny by the small states vs. large states, federalism, separation of power, and checks and balances.
In every society, there is conformity and nonconformity, although we may not notice it. Conformity is when someone is doing the same thing as others because they do not want to be the only one doing differently. Example, if there was a whole class raising their hands would you want to be the only one with your hand down, no so you would raise it with the rest of the class to not look like you don't know anything. This is called social pressures it when a large group is doing something and you're the only one not then you want to be doing whatever that large group is doing.
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
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have