“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?
The argument is that they were a democratic republic.
several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
If you’re referring to direct democracy, I suppose we could consider the Athenian democracy, though I think there are other examples from different regions on the planet through antiquity.
Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
It kinda is, everything falls on that scale, either people are being represented and representing themselves or they aren’t. Everything else is just the mechanics of that.
Roman Republic exited for 500 years before Roman empire. They were the first to implement the division of government into 3 branches, so I guess they weren’t a dictatorship? They actually invented the word “dictator”. It was temporary authority given to the head of the state at the times of emergency. So, most of the time Rome wasn’t a dictatorship. And it wasn’t a democracy.
Anything else than democracy is shittier
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Demonstrably false.
Go ahead and demonstrate it then
Easy: democracies don’t last long compared to the other forms government. So they can’t be better than other forms of government.
Only for those who prefer the taste of boot leather.
We await patiently for your demonstration.
What’s the longest lifespan of a democratic state in human history? Now compare it to the average lifespan of monarchies, for example.
The measure of whether a system of government is good or bad is not “how long it lasts”.
It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?
The ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
There may be longer ones (e.g. Ancient Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese dynasties), but the Habsburg’s rule is listed from 1282-1918. The Habsburg monarchy, also known as Habsburg Empire, or Habsburg Realm (/ˈhæpsbɜːrɡ/), was the collection of empires, kingdoms, duchies, counties and other polities that were ruled by the House of Habsburg.
Roman Republic wasn’t a democracy. It was ruled by aristocratic families. Lol.
The argument is that they were a democratic republic.
If you’re referring to direct democracy, I suppose we could consider the Athenian democracy, though I think there are other examples from different regions on the planet through antiquity.
Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
We’re not so different after all!
okay russian shill, go back to /ML/.
Oooh edgy.
I’ll guess they are a college freshman or younger.
So you’re all for dictatorships then?
Democracy and dictatorship is not a dichotomy.
It kinda is, everything falls on that scale, either people are being represented and representing themselves or they aren’t. Everything else is just the mechanics of that.
Was Roman Republic a dictatorship?
I don’t know much about Romans. Eventually it became an empire with an emperor and all though.
Roman Republic exited for 500 years before Roman empire. They were the first to implement the division of government into 3 branches, so I guess they weren’t a dictatorship? They actually invented the word “dictator”. It was temporary authority given to the head of the state at the times of emergency. So, most of the time Rome wasn’t a dictatorship. And it wasn’t a democracy.
What do you mean by that?
Yes. Obviously.
No. Both are shit.
No.
Looking at your past comments would suggest you’re a bootlicker
Well, seems like your deductive capabilities are subpar. Don’t try suggesting thing again, you suck at it.