Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
McBride Social 30 Evolution of political systems (general) and democracy sources
Transcript of McBride Social 30 Evolution of political systems (general) and democracy sources
city states - with the rapid influx and mixing of people came a need for a common law - Hammurabi's Code, some city states experimented with power sharing (Athenian democracy) but most still practiced a concentrated disribution of power. Even Athens did not have democracy for the masses as it was only available for Athenian men.
Rome - Rome went through stages of different power distribution experiments; most looked like oligarchy (as a few founding familes controlled the powerful senate during the republic) and more specifically plutocracy (rule by the rich). At times the Romans surrendered the few liberties that they had. If Rome was threatened, they could appoint a temporary dictator who would have absolute power, this was common during the monarchy and rebublic ages and then expanded during the age of their empire beginning with Caesar.
Feudalism - with the fall of Rome (5th century) the loose empiral connections dissolved, and a power vacuum in Europe invited waves of barbarian hordes, people willingly surrendered their individuality and liberties to gain security. Local strong men earned nobal title on the battlefield and a dynamic network of feudal lords protected Europe. It was God's will.
Divine Right of King's - Nobles were noble by birth, only God can control who is born into nobility, therefore nobles need only answer to God. This was the Age of Absolutism with noteworthy names such as King Louis XIV. Kings could control potential rivials (the other nobles) through a complex web of feudal responsibility and marriage.
The rise of bourgeois. With collective societal security all but achieved, Innovation and exploration flurished and this begun to alter the reality of economics. Agarian lords lost their monopoly of economic power and now the new middle class (of merchants, traders) wanted political power to match their new economic power. This causes the French Revolution in 1789. It was also possible as fragmentation of religion meant that the concent of God was no longer enough to justify a leader's authority to rule and the Kings appeared to be corrupt, distant, and selfish.
Napoleon - The revolution consumed itself (the King was corrupt, selfish and disjointed and guess what - so were the new political leaders). They turned on Lafayette, then Danton, then Robespierre, the mob (who was the new base of consent), disappointed with a failed economy, desired somebody to restore stability, surrounded by new evidence that all men were irrational and evil, surrendered their new liberty (Declaration of the Rights of Man) for the security that only Napoleon seemed to command.
Foreign policy - if all men are evil then we need a strong military, the best defense is a good offense . . . so . . . let's go to war. Whether it be the Napoleonic Wars or WWI and WWII nations turned to a local strong man with a dream for glory.
The international community - with individual nations acting irrationally, there was a real need for collective security. Who could control the local strong men if they became perverted by irrational ambitions? We see alliances (Triple Entente / Alliance, NATO / Warsaw Pact), and multinational unions (League of Nations / UN).
NWO - with a new sense of individual security (in a world mostly absent of threat), man is driven for economic glory and seem apathetic about political liberty (China, Russia . . . America . . . )
The evolution of systems: