In this paper, I intend to show that ancient Athenian democracy influenced western political thought, specifically, western democracies. By influencing such modern day democracies, ancient Greek culture remains a presence in contemporary life.
First, it is not possible to determine the exact beginning and ending of these periods. For example, a more liberal economy trend had begun in 1947 during the RPP period before Democrat Party came to the power. Also, the protectionist policies had begun to be implemented in the mid-50s. Therefore, one might argue that the continuities are more important than the discontinuities between these periods. In response to this, without ignoring the continuities, I argue that the economic policies implemented during these periods served the interests of the different classes and created the different distribution relationships. While the etatism policy of the 30s aimed to strengthen the Muslim-Turkish urban bourgeoisie, the DP’ economic policies mostly served the interest of the merchant-rural bourgeoisie and between 1960-1980s, the government policies in the economy were mostly shaped by the alliances of the urban industrialists. Another important discontinuity between these periods was the populist policies. While the DP and its successors followed the populist policies, we can make the claim for the RPP governments of the Interwar period. In short, although I argue that the discontinuities are more important the continuities between these periods, the continuities are not
Rich in instructive ideas and fresh and productive insights, the “Affairs of Honor” makes relative contribution to the field of history by appraising on the historical events and concepts that were utilized in streamlining the political culture. In an explicit approach, a new elucidation on the existence of well-structured political parties has been established with the argument that their acceptance has been gradual as they are considered as the most secure and more civilized way of approaching elections. Believed to be a platform that is governed by the rule of law and imperative structures for efficiency in a contemporary political environment, such structured parties have turned out to be platform of satisfying personal interest (Freeman, 2002).
I will be taking viewpoints from both sides of each party and to identify whether they acted democratically in terms of how they promoted themselves to the public. Additionally, how public opinion is persuaded through political discourse will be theorized through the works of Habermas and Lipmaan.
As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.
To put the names “Armenia” and “Turkey” together evokes a wave of grief and anger. Over the years, a very few have challenged the two and strived to bridge the gap between Armenians and Turks. Dink “crossed that bridge to become a symbol of the struggle for human and minority rights, and of the struggle for democracy and European integration” (Cheterian, 16). Hrant Dink was one of whom who challenged the perceptions of the relationship between Armenians and Turks, starting with his discovery of the newspaper Agos, founded in 1996. The newspaper, which was written and published in both Armenian and Turkish, confronted topics about the complexities that existed between both countries over the years and advocated human rights and democratization.
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the
This paper delves into the realm of political issues, specifically the “gun control” debate. The findings for this paper are comprised of information extracted from four scholarly journals (Emory Law Journal (2006), Fordham Urban Law Journal (2013), Justice Policy Journal (2013) and the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (2008)) that are accompanied by several other lower echelon articles (www.pbs.org & www.businessinsider.com).
Stephen Medvic in his book, “In Defense of Politicians: The Expectations Trap and Its Threat to Democracy” reflects the problems of policies that affect the majority of society’s democratic contemporary: the discrediting of the class policy. As a reaction to the continuous vilification of the politicians, the author defends the hypothesis that much of the arguments condemning the policy professionals are unfair and undeserved. Although there are example of politicians corrupt or lacking in ethics, establish generalizations is wrong and is totally unjustified. Likewise, the book highlights the danger posed by this cynicism toward the political class for the legitimacy of democracy. And is that, despite that blind obedience not is positive, the figure of the political deserves respect and is necessary for the good functioning of those societies democratic.
Turkey's key internal conflict centers on the role of its large Kurdish minority, ethnically and linguistically distinct, in a state that constitutionally consists of Turks.
The transition of a multinational empire to a nation state has happened; therefore, Turkey's national identity has been established. In the creation of this identity, qualification of individuals as a 'citizen' has been a crucial point. Ataturk found the path for the public administration by setting a new democracy which is “Republic”.
Throughout history, the middle east has often been the focus of news reporters. A middle eastern country that has not been exempt from this, is Turkey. Turkey has not only been a focus, but it also has had a very long, complicated history.
Over half of the countries in the world are considered democracies, one of which being Turkey. Turkey believes that they are a model of a true democracy while other countries believe that Turkey is very far from being considered a democracy. This has been an ongoing argument amongst many people. If we take in to consideration what it means to be a true democracy, then Turkey would only possess a few of those qualities. If we were to look at the basic structure and elements of a dictatorship, Turkey would fit into majority of them. This is what leads me to believe that Turkey should not be considered a democracy but instead a soft dictatorship. There is a lot of evidence that would prove as to why Turkey should not be considered a democracy including, lack of freedom in many different way, lack of suffrage rights, a long process of trying to become a member of the European Union, high levels of government control, and high military power.