A.The new leaders did not believe in democracy.
B.The former colonies had no experience in self-rule.
C.Rebel leaders established constitutional monarchies.
D.There were no models of democracy to follow.

A. It took a long time and much fighting to gain independence, so military men or strongmen were the leaders and such men tended to be authoritarian.

What was the purpose of setting up a democracy in athens and how did it develope?

The purpose was to allow people to actively participate in their government, with the idea that people will support better what they have a voice in. It didn’t happen all at once, or suddenly, but gradually evolved over time.

I have to write an 800 word paper on the course of Democracy in the United States. Everything from revolutions to equal protection of the laws. HELP!

It moved from conservatism- to the welfare state- and then to the corporate welfare state

Real democracy is not "rule of the majority" it is "rule of the people". All the people, not just the majority. A true democracy can’t limit the personal freedoms of a minority just because they are a minority.
We aren’t even talking about republic here, I realise america is not a democracy even though it likes to pretend it is. And often ochlocracy(mob rule) seems to show it’s ugly face, which was the case in california 2 years ago. But people seem to confuse that with real democracy. Why?

Because the founding fathers didn’t want the rabble to affect their slave profits

Do the accused have to have rights in order for a democratic society to exist? Is the due process really necessary for democracy? And WHY?

Yes it can, and no it is not necessary.

You see, all democracy does is allow for the tyranny of the majority. If the majority decides that the minority which they exploit does not required due process of the law, all they have to do is get 51% to agree with them.

I’m doing an essay on human rights and democracy. This is the source that I have to agree or disagree with
"Countries who have a record of human rights abuse need intervention by developed/wealthy countries to overthrow their government"
I agree with the source and I need a historical example of this and a current example of this. Help please!

This could be good. Rhodesia was considered a human rights abuser because Ian Smith wouldn’t allow blacks to vote. The government was overthrown due to international pressure even though it was thriving economically and today we have Zimbabwe which is now an economic basket case with the highest inflation in the world. South Africa is going exactly the same way.

I know that there wasn’t actually a "democracy" back then but there were civilizations that had governments that were like a democracy.

Oliver Cromwell running Britain as a military dictatorship 1653-1658.

Napoleon hijacking the results of the French Revolution,firstly by seizing power in a military backed coup d’etat and assuming dictatorial powers as First Consul,then later crowning himself Emperor of the French and ruling as an Absolute Monarch.

‘Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.’
Alexis de Tocqueville

Liberty – restraint, servitude; are opposites. Either/or but not both.

They are like sun and moon. A certain level of one or the other will drive off the other. Only in twilight where it’s neither a Democracy or a Socialist system can you have a mix as seen in parts of Europe and the US today.

Democracy isn’t about equality. Equality itself sounds kind of noble until you think about it. Since you cannot make a person more than they are, then equality means lowering everybody too the lowest common denominator. Democracy is the opposite. Democracy combined with free enterprise capitalism is the combination of an economic and governing system in which the doors of opportunity are opened. The only equality involved is everybody has an equal chance to make it. After that it’s up to you.

Socialist equality is really equally miserable. It is about creating chokepoints in the distribution of goods, robbing people of incentive and changing advancement from a system of merit too a system of who you know. So no matter how hard you work or don’t work your chances of advancement depend solely on how well you can kiss the right behind.

Democracy in the American form is about being a maverick. About striking off on your own path. The more controlled resources are, the less ability one has to do so. Thus the more Socialist a nation the less innovation, entrepreneurship and wildcatting is possible.

Socialism is a static system. It seeks to freeze everybody in place and keep them in a nice orderly anthill. Democracy is about chaos. It’s about each of us rooting around for what we can find in the world and keeping it once we find it. It’s a voice for each of us while Socialism is a voice constrained by the good of the collective. As such an individuals voice is stifled and so is individualism. The collective is the ultimate ant hill. It is that overriding principle that crushes the individual for the Socialist goals. Thus income and other resources may be redistributed. Resources are allocated as directed by the elites who formulate the will of the collective. Democracy is about a million ideas vying for the love of the majority. Some call it mob rule and it can be that way. Nobody said the will of the people was always right. The only thing Democracy can assure is that there is not tyranny. If each of us has a voice and we the people rule ourselves then punishment is self inflicted. However in Democracy you can CHANGE. You can see the error of your way. In a Socialist system the collective will is very difficult to sway much less correct when it errors. Making mistakes is human and it’s going to happen and real Democracy gives us the fastest and easiest way to correct for mistakes yet devised. Socialism is layer of layer of bureaucracy designed specifically to battle change. Errors become quickly institutionalized along with everything else.

A) They wanted the people to have power in the new government.

B) They had studied democracy in school and liked the idea.

C) America had no royal family so they couldn’t have a monarchy.

D) The colonists voted for a democracy over a monarchy.

Circle all the answers, write "non of the above," you’ll find out the truth behind it by reading Paine & Madison.

Otherwise "A," but that doesn’t really fit.

Paine advocated for it which spurred the population to take part in the Revolution, however, Madison argued to limit it because it would give too much power to the people & not enough to the wealthy. It’s really more complicated that a multiple choice answer could allow.

Then take into account, the Britain was already moving to a strong Constitutional Monarchy & both Britain & the Colonies understood that having colonial representatives in Parliament, given the technology of the time, could never work (although this is exactly the type of representation that would turn the Colonies into what the Irish free State used to be.)

What are the basic concepts of democracy? Pick one and explain why it is important.

you get to say what happens in the government… or at least thats the CONCEPT. really you vote for the ppl who have a say in the government but they usually don’t do what you want most of the time