For them, it meant the power of an extensive body of citizens to do things: to make and execute public policy. But why should citizens of the 21st century care what a bunch of slave-owning men, who denied political participation rights to women and immigrants, thought democracy meant? The answer is that we still aspire to their basic concept of democracy. In that revolution, the people of Athens overthrew a foreign-backed political leader who exiled his opponents and tried to impose a repressive government staffed by cronies.
Why India Is Democratic and Pakistan Is Not
In the aftermath of the revolution, the victorious Athenians recalled from exile Cleisthenes, their preferred leader. Cleisthenes realised it was not possible to simply return to rule by tyrants and narrow coalitions of aristocrats. The people of Athens would now be the collective author and guarantor of a new constitutional order. The revolution had brought the Athenian people on to the stage of history.
The experimental system devised by Cleisthenes in conditions of crisis proved extraordinarily successful. With their new government in place, the Athenians rose to prominence in the Greek world. Newly enfranchised working-class citizens provided Athens with large and highly motivated armed forces. They voted to use fiscal windfalls for public purposes. Freed from fear that tyrants would seize the profits of their initiative, Athenians invested in their society. Arts and crafts flourished. Manufacturing and trade soared. Athens joined with its rival Sparta to defeat a massive invasion by the mighty Persian Empire, then built an Aegean empire, survived a catastrophic war with Sparta, and drove two centuries of Greek economic growth.
The rise and vitality of classical Athenian democracy helped to lay the cultural groundwork for Western civilisation. The best argument, rather than the loudest voice, had a good chance of carrying the day. The new name asserted both an ideal and a practical fact.
Is Pakistan a failed state? No. – Foreign Policy
First, the word proclaimed that the citizens as a collectivity, rather than a tyrant or a small gang of aristocrats, ought to rule their own state: the people were the most legitimate public authority. The ideal of democracy also held that the people were morally and intellectually capable of governing themselves.
They were fallible, but competent to pursue public interests in a rational manner. The people ruled by using the new institutions of their democratic government to make and execute policy, without a boss. Citizens from all walks of life deliberated on matters of policy in ways at once cooperative and competitive.
They pooled information and knowledge to devise innovative solutions to problems. In an annual lottery, the Athenians chose the citizen-members of a democratic Council. The Councilmen consulted experts, debated policy, and set the agenda for frequent meetings of an Assembly open to all citizens. A typical Assembly meeting in the age of Aristotle drew between 6,, voting citizens. Some resented the power of the people.
Disgruntled aristocrats, furious at losing their political monopoly, scorned the new government as the domination of a self-interested majority over a leisured and educated minority. How, they asked, could ordinary men — farmers, potters, retail traders, shoemakers — know anything about important affairs of state? How did they differ from hard-working slaves? For angry aristocrats, demos became a pejorative term, limited to those citizens who had to work for a living. For Athenian democrats, the demos included everyone who could be imagined to be capable of actively exercising political authority within a bounded state territory.
In historical perspective, their imagination was expansive because it included all native males, without a property or educational qualification. The ancient Athenian level of inclusive citizenship remained unequalled until at least the 18th century Age of Revolution. O f course, in the 21st century, the ancient Greek cultural imagination of who could be a participatory citizen appears so bounded as to be illegitimate. It excluded women, slaves and most foreign-born residents of Athenian territory.
Some students of Greek history therefore assert that Athens was not democratic. But what they actually mean is that Athens was not a liberal democracy, in that the Athenians did not recognise the human rights of slaves, women and long-term foreign residents. Indeed, Athens was not a liberal democracy, but it was a democracy — that is, it was governed by its citizens. The end of the fifth century BCE saw the most important constitutional change in the history of Athenian democracy.
New rules, adopted by the citizens of Athens in the aftermath of a harrowing period of external war, plague and civil war, clarified the relationship between policy decrees and the underlying principles of constitutional law. The new rules made decrees passed in the Assembly of citizens subject to legal challenge.
Legal review could invalidate any decree. This check on the power of direct democracy stabilised Athenian society after the civil war, by ensuring that the wealthy and the poor alike had recommitted to sharing their community. The new rules were a refinement of democracy, not a degree turn-around from majoritarian tyranny to constitutional rule of law. The Athenians had in fact established limits on the power of the Assembly at the inception of the democratic era.
Each year, at a meeting of the Assembly, the Athenians voted on whether to hold an ostracism. Then they held a second meeting, in the public square, to which each citizen brought a fragment of pottery ostrakon on which he or a literate friend scratched the name of the man he thought most deserved to be exiled from Athens for 10 years.
There was no trial, and no appeal. Ostracism traduced the individual rights that would come to be the core of liberalism. But it was certainly democratic, and the Athenians narrowly defined its scope. The rules restricted the option to hold an ostracism to once each year. The vote on whom to expel was held only at the second meeting. With the ostracism law, Athenians constitutionally limited their own legislative authority in the immediate aftermath of their democratic revolution.
Democracy was doomed when Liaquat Ali Khan , the first elected prime minister, was shot at a public gathering.
Best Weight Loss Factor
From there onwards, the balance of power shifted in the favour of the military. An interesting comparison reveals this shift: from to India had one prime minister and several army chiefs while during the same period Pakistan had one army chief and several prime ministers.
From Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf, military rule ruined the state structure of Pakistan as a whole, with only the elite benefiting from the system and no benefit being passed to the general public. Military policies have given the country cross-border and internal terrorism, millions of internally displaced people and a bankrupt national economy. Ironically we are always ready to welcome them again. Although every person in Pakistan, whether in a position of power or not, is very vocal about the very idea of democracy, no collective effort is seen to establish it as an institution.
As the political and government culture in Pakistan is a product of its links to the pre-partition British rule, Pakistan's leaders knew best from this inheritance the vice-regal system that made little or no provision for popular awareness or involvement. Consequently, even after more than half a century of the country's independence, we are still entangled in age-old feudal, tribal and panchayat systems.
Failure of Democracy in Pakistan Essay
Feudalism is one of the key factors responsible for the weakness of the democratic politics in Pakistan and the supremacy of the bureaucracy. The landed aristocracy has always dominated Pakistan's political, social and economic life. If you look at history it very clearly shows how land reforms introduced in played a key role in creating a democratic Indian state. On the contrary no such reforms were ever introduced in Pakistan — for which reason the poor masses remain under the control of feudalism. Pakistan also came into being in on Muslim ideology.
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah , founder of Pakistan and father of the nation struggled day and night for democracy. Democracy of Pakistan is one of the unique and perfect which is on the base of parliament.
After independence, its political system failed quickly because of weak and fragmented political party they were unable to resolve important issues of the country. Constitutionally, Pakistan is a democratic parliamentary Islamic republic with its political system.
Tags Democracy English essay democracy essay Democracy of Pakistan essay. Pingback: quaid-e-azam is my national hero, my favourite personality english essay. You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Failure of Democracy in Pakistan Essay - Words | Cram!
- when to cite sources in a research paper.
- computers in 2020 essay.
- when i have fears thesis.
- aqa coursework advisor media studies?
- Essay Dictatorship in Pakistan!
Participation of citizens in politics and civic life. Equal protection of human rights of citizens in a state. Rule of Law Characteristics.