The Role Of National Character And The Political Institutions

According to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk “Authority, without any condition and reservation, belongs to the nation.” (Abinader). Nevertheless, many individuals around the world fail to understand the real meaning of a nation in the 21st century. According to the Oxford dictionary, a nation is a large body of people brought together by uniting factors which include descent, history, culture, or language. However, this definition has changed over time, especially due to onslaught of ethnic and minority conflicts in addition to economic sovereignty. As a result, more nations in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Latin America and Europe are undergoing significant changes thus leading to the emergence of new nations. This issue has been discussed in Michael Goldfarb’s article What Is a Nation in the 21st Century? Through a comprehensive analysis of his article the real meaning of a nation in the 21st century is revealed.

In this paper I am going to concentrate on comparing and contrasting how America and France’s economic and political policies choices combined with their cultural and historic backgrounds helped their current place on the word stage. It is undoubted that the United States and France are two of the strongest and most competitive countries in the world. Although they have almost the same economic system and same concept, they still have very different current situations which are closely bound up with their historic backgrounds and political choices. Through this paper I am going to discuss this topic through several sections.

The most important characteristic to have is self-fulfillment. Jose Marti’s essay stresses the importance of self pride and nationalism. My personal interpretation to his statement is that everyone should be in agreeance to their own lifestyle. The government will never be in accordance to every single person’s wishes, but we as rightfully opinionated people have the choice to agree or

With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country France from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people 's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people 's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.

They characterize France and its mission as one of “sovereignty for the people” which would “bring the peace, assistance, fraternity, liberty, [and]equality.” The attitude was

We as the people should maintain the most crucial political power within our designated states. Let’s not allow one entity to govern all of us, when those representatives do not know what each state and those who live in it need. Our focus must remain on us. A strong National Government under the Constitution would give them too much power.

Section 1 (a) the executive branch may veto legislation and may call special sessions of congress the legislative may override a president’s veto, may impeach the president, approves appointment 's of judges and approves treaties (b) the framers intentions were to keep any branch of government from having too much power and the checks and balances make their intentions possible. 2. 1. (a) Article I section 1 declares: “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states....” thus, congress is the lawmaking branch of the national government. Article II, section 1 declares: “the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of America.” thus, the president is given the law-executing, law enforcing, and law-administering powers of the national government. Article III, section 1 declares: “the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” thus, the federal court 's, and most importantly the supreme court, interpret and apply the laws of the united states in cases brought before them. Remember, the framers intended to create a stronger central government for the united states. Yet they also intended to limit the powers of that government. The doc-trine of separation of powers was designed to establish just that.(b) it basically means that the law must be obeyed no matter what and no one is immune to the law

Once Napoleon had taken power in 1802, there was a large amount of speculation over how he would save France from all of their troubles. With various domestic and foreign problems, the people looked to Napoleon reform France back into the dominant power that it was before. There has been plenty of debate over if Napoleon’s implemented laws and ideas while he was the authoritative power depicted him as being a friend or a foe of the Revolution. The question being asked is did his policies on the social structure of society and his desire to restore an absolute ruler, cause him to be perceived as a friend or a foe of the values of the Revolution. This paper will consist of analysis of those two policies which were made in the time of

Firstly, a nation can be defined by ethnicity and culture. This is the belief behind ethno-cultural nationalism. Ethno-cultural nationalism gives a very crude and simplistic

The French Revolution (1789-1814) was a period that affected the outcome of world history tremendously. This is considered a major turning point in European history which has led to dramatic changes in France and other regions of the world. Various social and political issues led to the start of the revolution. Politically, France suffered under the rule of Louis XVI, who ruled by absolute monarchy. Many people had their natural rights renounced and weren’t able to have a political voice. Socially, France had divided its population within 3 estates (classes). French citizens took it upon themselves to remodel their country 's’ political structure. The French Revolution had encountered both positive and negative effects. However, many Europeans viewed the Revolution as much more than just a bloody massacre. The French Revolution was used to demonstrate new ideology that would emphasize the principles of liberty and equality throughout Europe.

National identity is the transmission of each generation’s legacy to the next and the enabling of the nation citizen to take pride and identification of the country (Stephan, 2009). A nation positive unique identity breeds patriotism which consequently

François Guizot was a French historian during the 19th century, known as a powerful person in French politics. He presented one of the first comprehensive stories of Europe, by highlighting pluralism, which is a theory that characterize shared values, cooperation and harmony, also by highlighting antagonism, which is defined as a hostile opposition in a conflict or principle. François Guizot used these two terms as the key factors of the development of the continent of Europe. This essay is going to discuss two examples that will show the strengths and weaknesses of the pluralism and antagonism of Guizot’s thesis. The first example is the history of democracy in Greece, and how other organizations in Europe took after the success of the system. The second example is the regime Fascism, and how it has affected European countries.

A nation is a group of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin often possessing or seeking its own government. National identity refers to the distinguish features of group and to the individual’ sense of belonging to it. In some case even a little difference in pronunciation is enough to categorize a person as a member of different nation but in some cases two people may be separated by language, culture, geographical location etc categorized in

According to Rourke (2008) the most important way people have identified themselves politically for five centuries is through nationalism (p. 102). Nations are formed when people who “share demographic and cultural similarities [who identify themselves] as a group distinct from other groups and want to control themselves politically” (p. 103) band together in a national political identity which has “a soul, a spiritual quality” (Rourke, 2008, p. 103). Feelings of nationalism can be very intense and difficult to put aside because of this. For the concept of globalization to continue to spread and grow nationalistic feelings must be tempered with cosmopolitan ideals.

Human beings naturally are social creatures. In order to survive, humans have since been working together. People rely to each other in order to remain alive, whether it be with finding food, building houses, or with finding jobs. There is one famous quote by John Donne that says “No man is an island”. Humans have this need to belong in a group. This need for co-existing is what lead people into forming nations. Nations are groups of people who have a very strong bond of identity; may it be with having the same ethnicity or with having the same interests. One known description of a nation is Benedict Anderson’s (1983) conception of nations as imagined communities. They are imagined “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson, 1983, p. 15). By belonging in a certain nation or growing up in a certain environment, one develops their own national identity. There are a lot of factors as to how you can identify to a certain nation. Certain factors would be your language, ethnicity, culture, relationship to your land, your religion, spirituality, views with politics, or your land’s geography. As social beings, having a group you identify with has a very great effect on you. However, there also are