Comparative Government

According to Madison, a large republic is better suited to govern and preserve a country than a small republic. A large republic has many advantages over a small republic, specifically the unifying and centralized power that represents the people. However, the number of representatives must be large enough to limit power but small enough to encourage communication. With too many representatives, there would not be a close knit relationship that develops with small group and it would be difficult to be heard. Also, the larger the republic is, the bigger the pool of representatives to pick from is, whereas in small republics it may be hard to find suitable candidates. In a small republic it is easier for candidates to fool voters that they stand for something that they don’t. Obviously you will find more qualified candidates in the United States than in a smaller country like Mexico. These better candidates help lead the country better, leading to a stronger and more unified state.

Comparing the U.S. governments ability to meet the needs of its citizens compared to that of a dictatorship is far superior. A dictatorship is designed to benefit one or few individuals that have achieved power using capital or force. Their only concern is for themselves and what will increase their power. The U.S. form of government is restricted to the power of the constitution.

I compared the U.S.A. constitution and the Australian constitution. Their differences are as abundant as their similarities. The Australian constitution is extremely long and drawn out, where as the United States constitution sticks right to the point. All in all, the two constitutions have the same goal in that they wish to bestow the same basic rights to each person.

America is an incredibly vast, diverse country, and has been this way for hundreds of years. The sheer size of America, even when it was only composed of thirteen states with a total population of nearly three million people (Brutus, essay 1, p. 64), concerned many Americans in the 1780s, due to this inquiry: was America simply too large for a republican style government to work? Many anti-federalists claimed that republics could only work on a small scale, while the federalists believed that having a large republic was the only way to go and would be beneficial to the public good. Before this time, history furnished no examples of a well-functioning republic as big as America, so the federalists and anti federalists were stepping into a completely new untouched territory.

What influence have the rationalist, structuralist and culturalist theoretical approaches had on the study of comparative politics?

Joseph Stalin is known to be “one of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history” (bbc.co.uk). Stalin became general secretary of the Communist Party, which had given him the control that he had been looking for (bbc.co.uk). Soon after, he was granted dictatorship of the Soviet Union after Vladimir Lenin had died (historyplace.com). Many people did not like the way that Stalin was ruling. People wanted their own independence from Stalin and he did not take that very well. In 1929, Stalin had believed that many Ukrainian scholars, scientists, religious leaders, etc. were planning a riot against him. Without even being listened to during a trial, they were killed or deported immediately to prison camps (blogspot.com).

In the past, different civilizations have been ruled by different forms of government. The U.S. Democratic Republic, the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy have similar and different functions of how they run their government.

From the mid 1920s onward there was talk of forming a formal European Union but rising nationalism and a world wide depression stopped any concrete advancement. The League of Nations had failed, economies had collapsed and radical right wing solutions seemed the only viable alternative after governments collapsed one after another. England remained in isolation, Germany was rearming and France was still in shock after horrible loses in WWI. After the inevitable WWII all was in ruin and the lesson finally struck home, No more! Peace and prosperity through unity and common understanding finally allowed the formation off the EEU. Europe could not survive as a polyglot of waring tribes. They need a counter balance to world domination by two superpowers

During World War II, Romanian leaders main concern was to avoid being overrun by the Communist army, or the Red Army. Unfortunately for them, the Red Army invaded and took over Bucharest, the capitol of Romania, in late August of 1944 (Turnock, Latham and Hitchins). This marked the beginning of Communist Romania. The foundation of a dictatorial administration was laid from 1948 to1960. During the 1960s, the

Throughout history, there have been many systems of government that have been created, and have revolutionised todays modern forms of government. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, and Anarchy all use various, unique techniques on how to run a civilization. Each of them require different leadership traits in order for it to work properly.

The European continent is an interesting case study of the divided between Eastern and Western Europe. The divided is an older issue rooted in historical events in modern European history. History allows understanding of what drives the divided in Europe into the contemporary times. Eastern Europe has specific regional issues that divide it from Western Europe. The most important are the weak governments and economics. The lack of strength in government allowed for the rise of empires to take over the region; sadly, this leads to the ethnic division within the regions, as people groups moved to different parts of an empire. The combination of the rule of empire helped to strengthen the weak economics, lack political

     Under the rule at the time of the assassination, the old Austrio-Hungarian Empire was built by conquest

Many different forms of government have existed throughout civilization. Theocracy, dictatorships, democracy, and many others have all had periods of time where they reigned as the government of choice. Arguments could be made in favor of each form of government. The key to finding the most viable form of government is to consider this: which form of government provides the most stability for the state?

The way that a country is controlled by the government depends on the relationship between the legislative and executive authority. Most democratic nations, today, generally use one of two governmental systems, either a parliamentary system or a presidential system. Today most of Europe prefers to use a parliamentary system, whereas the presidential form of government is preferred in places such as South Korea, South America and the United States. The differences between these two governmental systems are not obvious at first, but there are some key differences. However, neither one of them is necessarily superior to the other.

The citizens of Czechoslovakia had not known freedom in decades. During much of World War II the nation was occupied by the Nazis and later by the Red Army as it drove the Nazis back to Berlin. When they Red Army moved into an area, communist regimes were set up to govern the area, and establish satellite nations. There were numerous uprisings throughout the decade that were violently suppressed by the communist governments with help from the USSR. After Alexander Dubcek tried to grant reforms to the people of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the USSR and most members of the Warsaw Pact sent their military forces to intervene and suppress any unrest or reforms. Things grew somewhat violent and brutal, as any demonstrators were either or beaten,