Understanding the Evolution of Democracy in America

A century ago, a political philosopher named Alexis de Tocqueville wrote an interesting book about democracy in America. The Democracy in America is basically a modern form of democracy. It is also sometimes called the American Dictatorship. The term “democracy” in the United States was not used during the first decade of our republic because there was no popular vote for changing the constitution. Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a democracy would have an upper and lower house. The members of the lower house are chosen by election whereas the members of the upper house are elected by the people through a constitutional amendment process called voting in a general election.

There have been many changes to the constitution of our nation since the beginning of our nation. One of the most profound and lasting changes came with the Industrial Revolution and the ensuing enormous rate of urbanization. The state-men in the early republic thought that a republic was a form of slavery. Thus, they limited the suffrage to a small number of wealthy voters who would help them keep power in their hands.

The growth of the middle class made the people of the western hemisphere much more comfortable with democracy. When the population began to expand, the emerging middle class needed a forum to be heard. This gave rise to the first national newspapers in America, which were founded by printing houses located throughout the vast American countryside. In 1791, John Jay proposed a plan to amend the Articles of Constitution to include a declaration that the federal government is “the one supreme power of the government of the United States.” This idea, which is not discussed nearly as much today, became part of the great democratic revolution, the US constitution.

The Articles of Union established a system of representative and indirect democracy in America. In the state constitutions for the first time, the people directly elected leaders of the legislative assembly. The state constitutions also gave power to the citizens to ratify the measures determined by the legislature. The state constitutions gave way for free elections for legislative representatives and governor, and allowed freedom of religion, press, and speech. It also gave way for trial by jury, and established the right of property taxation.

Over time the state constitutions changed, mostly to suit the changing desires of the democratic people. The state constitutions of today give way to a direct election for presidential candidates, but maintain the “one-person-one-vote” principle. Today, only the state Supreme Court can decide whether or not an election has been fraudulent. In addition, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are chosen by the people through election, rather than by the state delegations. This difference between the federal government and the state governments concerning the nature of their powers gives rise to another distinction among the many definitions of democracy in America: the separation of powers.

The evolution of democracy in America has relied upon a number of historical events. The revolution of 1776 marked the beginning of the United States as a nation, and the further development of democracy in America has depended on the preservation of this fragile balance between the national interests of the majority of citizens, and the minority of representatives of the people who hold elected offices. Throughout the entire history of the evolution of democracy in America the people have not been shy about asking questions of their representatives about their accountability for their decisions. Today, with the Internet and technology rapidly advancing, the evolution of democracy in America can be studied from a distance.

The Differences Between Civil & Criminal Law

Law is a structured system of laws developed and enforced by governmental or civic institutions to regulate societal behavior, with its exact definition again a matter of long-standing debate. In the United States it is defined as the collection of the judgments of a body of law, also known as the legal tradition or law. It is a body of knowledge and practices developed out of centuries of experience, tradition and ideal. It is used to describe principles, rules and regulations developed by societies and civilizations throughout the world for the purpose of helping people live together in harmony and maintain social order. It is also used in the political systems of many countries to promote or limit freedom, privacy and safety.

The use of law goes back to the earliest times when man began to develop organized communities. Later, after the development of written law, writing became necessary to record and transmit legal decisions and other matters of importance to ensure compliance by the people. However, with developments in technology and the ability to communicate information, these matters were transferred from the judicial systems to the courts. This transfer of responsibility for making legal decisions has occurred throughout history; for example, in legal systems of Ancient Asia and ancient Greece, judges were the only people who could decide legal issues and would be respected as the ones who derived the final say in all matters.

Later in the development of democracy, the role of judges was limited to defining what the law is, how it should be interpreted and how it should be applied. Because the legislature cannot create the law, judges are given the duty of interpreting what the legislature means and applying it in the context of their jurisdiction. The wide-range of issues that are considered for review under the Jurisprudence of a country includes tax, criminal law, corporate law, family law, civil law, procreation law and environmental law. The extent of the jurisdiction of the courts varies widely among countries. In some countries, the courts have wide-ranging powers and jurisdiction over virtually every area of the law; while in other countries, the courts may not have broad powers and jurisdiction over any and all issues within their jurisdictions.

The jurisdiction of the courts also changes according to the nature of the law being reviewed. For example, in civil law there are several branches of courts including the Family Court, Civil Courts, High Court and the Magistrates Court. In criminal law, there are the Sessions Court, the Crown Court, the County Court and the Magistrates Court. Therefore, although the courts vary significantly in the areas of jurisdiction that they exercise, the role of the courts generally remains to define the parameters around which laws and issues are to be dealt with within a certain area.

In essence, the role of the law is to determine how human rights are protected and to determine who among us has the power to control the use of force and violence within the polity. For example, when there is an alleged abuse of human rights, one should make sure that the victim has the ability to seek legal help from someone who is qualified to handle such a case. In civil law, victims can seek compensation for their physical, emotional and mental injuries as well as monetary compensation for loss of income and reputation. Similarly, victims of crime can seek retribution or justice from those who have perpetrated the crime against them. Likewise, in criminal litigation, victims can seek redress for the harm that they have suffered. There are even cases where the victims of an alleged criminal activity can hold the accused responsible for his or her actions through the processes provided by the legal system.

Some of the most important things like property, contract law, corporate law, real estate law, family law and intellectual property law are governed by judicial law. Conversely, there are some other things like penal law, executive law, regulatory law,commerce law, immigration law, Proceeding law,as well as patent and trademark law that are governed by administrative law. Administrative law therefore, encompasses things like labor law, civil law and criminal law.

A Summary of democracy in Indonesia

Democracy in Indonesia can be defined as government of general public assemblies, freedom of speech, right to assemble and freedom of religion or belief. It is also known as independent political system, multi-party state, multiparty election, proportional representation and multipurpose system. It is characterized by strong constitutional commitment to principles of social unity and economic development, with a strong sense of community and a low tolerance for diversity. The concept of democracy in Indonesia evolved through centuries of struggle between western and Islamic influences. Nowadays Indonesia faces various challenges to preserving its multicultural and tolerant values.

In Indonesia, officially the Republic of Indonesia, it is characterized by multipurpose government, inclusive of a vibrant democracy, rule of law and freedom of assembly. It is made up of more than seventeen thousand islands, which include Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, and other parts of Borneo and New Guinea. Indonesia has a unique system of government established through constitutional means with a head administrative council and an independent legislature. There are separate chambers for the formulation of laws and resolutions, and a separate supreme court with limited power and authority.

Under the constitution approved in Jakarta,the supreme body called the Cabinet,which is comprised of the head of state and members of the legislature, has the power to make laws concerning the affairs of the state and control all executive and judicial powers. The constitution also spells out the main organs of government including the prime minister, ministers, cabinet members, local governments, national associations, and non-profit organizations. It also states the procedures for elections and lists the powers that the governor has in times of crises. The democratic form of government in Indonesia emphasizes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and guarantees the rights of the people in general.

The evolution of democracy in Indonesia began after Sukarno was deposed and replaced by Anwar Sadat, who was elected in January 1945 on the basis of a military junta which had been formed from the ranks of the armed forces. Sukarno’s immediate replacement as president was General Muhammad Egeddedji, who was based in Java. He set about drafting a new constitution for a new government which included elements from Sukarno’s original constitution drafted during World War ll. The new constitution included elements of Suharto’s PPR and emphasized a secular state. A military junta known as the Kompas regiments were put in charge of executing the new constitution. General Egeddedji was also made a vice president of the republic after Sukarno was relieved of all her powers.

After Egeddedji was made a vice president, General Humayun was made a general and later prime minister. Under the leadership of President Muhammad Egeddedji, a period of rapid economic development began in Indonesia. The first decade of the new century saw political stability established as the political parties began to form coalitions to compete for national power. The main political parties, with the help of the United States, pursued economic expansion programs, nationalizing many industries and introducing a new constitutional system based on representative form of parliament. Political parties in Indonesia today still participate in multiparty democracy, vowing to continue to work for the welfare of the Indonesian people.

democracy in indonesia is threatened by armed groups which have been given a base from which to carry out terrorist activities. International terrorists who are disenchanted by the conduct of the current regime in Indonesia can turn against the country and carry out attacks against civilians. Many analysts believe that the existence of a stable democracy in Indonesia is highly threatened due to the presence of a small number of transnational terrorist organizations in the country, which continue to clash between their fighters and the Indonesian security forces. These groups could destabilize the balance of power between the people and the government, leading to coups and increased instability in Indonesia.

What Does It Mean to Have A Democratic Government?

Many people are unaware that the phrase “democracy” actually means “order”. And in many parts of the world, including the United States, it denotes a political system where citizens have certain rights ( freedoms ) guaranteed by law. In other words, to be a democracy, a country has to have laws that guarantee rights to individual citizens that exceed those provided by other nations. For instance, a nation with a history of slavery would not necessarily be called a democracy. A society where people are denied their freedom of speech or their right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, would not likely be described as a democracy either.

The origin of democracy in America can be traced back to the long process of civilisational evolution in pre-colonial times. In these times, societies were often characterized by aristocratic rule, slavery, hierarchy, and privilege. These factors created a need for a system of laws and rights that would govern these changing institutions. This is what led to the idea of the US Declaration of Independence, which read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and the right to do business.” This founding document established the right of every citizen to participate in the political process and enjoy the freedoms that the constitution was written to protect. This also explains why the US constitution is considered by many to be one of the greatest works of human literature ever written.

The idea of democracy in America came to the forefront of American politics during the era of both revolutionary and constitutional periods. One of the most influential voices in promoting democracy in America was Thomas Jefferson. His comments regarding the need for a constitutional system gave way to the formation of the US Bill of Rights. Jefferson’s comments on democracy were often quoted as something that sounded like a throwback to the ancient Greek ideals of democracy. However, the principles Jefferson spoke of were actually derived from Montesquieu.

Montesquieu had written in his book that a republic was a form of government in which power is distributed between the many, rather than among a single ruler. In his view, a democracy should be chosen over a republic because a democracy allows many individuals to participate in making decisions for the nation. Thus, the founding fathers picked up the idea of democracy in America and used it to form the US Constitution. The US Bill of Rights also put into place a number of rights guaranteed to Americans, including the freedom of speech and the right to vote.

A key concept of democracy in America is the concept of economic policy, which is often referred to as laissez faire, or “the economic policy of equal access.” This phrase, although common, does have a distinct definition in the present period. America’s laissez faire political system allows some industries to be highly protected, while ensuring that other industries are fairly represented. In Jefferson’s time, an industrial sector would include such sectors as the woolen, textile, and tobacco industries.

In today’s economic climate, almost every industry is required to have labor that is protected from being underpaid or hiring illegal aliens, or having their rights violated in any way. Without such protections, an American economy can fall apart. The bottom line is that if we choose to work in an industrial sector that is highly regulated, we will receive fair wages and benefits, and be able to pursue our dreams and live our lives as we choose. It is important to remember that the freedoms that we cherish are ones that are the result of a civilization that was forged through centuries of struggles for democracy and liberty.

Types of Rights and Freedoms in America

Freedom means different things to different people. For some it’s all about rights, freedom, and power. Others focus on individual freedom, an abstract concept which includes all the benefits that one has to offer, but is not confined to a particular person. For many people, freedom means something different in everyday life.

For the majority of Americans, freedom means economic freedom. The ability to pursue personal and economic prosperity by working hard at it is something that they are granted for a just and equitable distribution of societal goods and services. There are no particular privileges or immunities granted to any one group or class of people, nor is there any general principle that someone must work harder than others to enjoy them. For example, a worker with the ability to choose whether or not to work would likely have greater economic freedom than a worker forced into an economic arrangement where he or she must work regardless. Freedom in economics is the ability to exchange your freedom for the right to work. In other words, to be prosperous you must be free to pursue whatever chosen pursuit.

Freedom of speech and religion are also important elements of freedom of action and freedom of choice. These are the freedoms that give individuals the power to say what they think and feel about nearly every issue in life, including the issues involving their bodies and those of other people. Civil liberties protect the individual in his dealings with fellow citizens and with the government. The right to vote, to serve on juries, to be free to have a private and public trial are all examples of civil rights.

Political freedom is the opposite of civil liberties. It is the ability to participate and take part in the political process, to vote, to pursue office, and to serve in any way that the law allows. Without political freedom, a vibrant and representative democracy would be unable to exist. There are many differing opinions on how to define political freedom, but almost all agree that it includes a wide range of actions and choices that are related to the functioning of society as a whole. It includes the freedom to criticize public figures, to peacefully protest, and to peacefully assemble.

Economic freedom differs from political freedom in many ways. Freedom of action and freedom of choice are directly related to the ability to make productive investments and to enjoy a reasonable level of wealth. Economic freedom includes things such as the ability to own property, freedom from slave labor or excessive taxation, freedom to invest, freedom to enter into contracts, freedom to enter various markets, and freedom to enjoy the fruits of the entrepreneurial enterprise. A truly free market provides a substantial number of opportunities for the growth and development of individuals and businesses. Economic freedom also includes the freedom to be a successful entrepreneur and to produce goods and services that can be sold and bought.

All three of these freedoms are important and necessary to the operation of our society and economy. Each one seems rather self-explanatory, but it is worth highlighting the difference between these freedoms in order to highlight just how important they are. The First Amendment protects the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for change. The Fourth Amendment protects the right to peacefully worship and the right to have freedom of speech.

Criminal Defense Lawyers and Statutes of Limitations

The law is political law which is made and administered by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behaviour, with its exact definition having been subject to ongoing discussion since its inception. Initially it was variously defined as the art and science of law. It is now considered by many, to be an academic field having to do with social, economic and legal issues. Law in India has been undergoing rapid growth and expansion in recent times, owing to the changing dynamism of the socio-political arena.

The evolution of law can be traced through a number of legal texts from the Rig Veda, down to the Indian Constitution. Some of the earliest texts dealing with laws were the Vedas, and were largely focused upon social issues such as ritual pollution and adultery. In the Rig Veda, laws were established to make people penitent for their mistakes. The Puranas were primarily concerned with ethical behaviour, including moral, social and dietary rules. Some of the earliest laws in India that are related to the regulation of behavior within a society or state are the Charuvsamis, the Mahasutra and the Kathakali.

Laws are generally established by a supreme court or the apex body of a country, such as the constitution of India. However, different parts of India also have varying conceptions of justice and some of these may overlap significantly, while others are unique to that region. Within any culture, law is considered essential and often revered. The concept of law has to do with what is just and right, something that is based entirely on personal and private judgment. It is a code of conduct governed by individual members of society. The concept of law can also include rules of conduct, property law, moral code, norms of acceptable behavior, civil law, family law and criminal law.

The courts of common law jurisdictions tend to give more weight to certain issues than the courts of statutory law. For example, in civil law, a suit cannot be instituted against a non-resident for an accident that happened on his property. This would be considered an impermissible encroachment onto his property. This rule has sometimes been referred to as common law Jurisprudence. On the other hand, the courts of statutory law, which are primarily responsible for implementing the common law, usually favor the plaintiff.

While the statutes and laws on criminal law differ considerably from those on civil law, most of the differences pertain to substantive offenses, which are those involving punished parties, such as murder, manslaughter, sexual abuse or the commission of an unlawful act. There are also significant differences between crimes and misdemeanors. For instance, most states have a burglary law, but not a trespass law, while most states have a privacy law. In contrast, most jurisdictions have a law related to damages that only covers damages to a person’s person or property and does not cover an action for damages that occurs because of an event that is not a direct part of the victim’s loss or damage, such as emotional distress caused by a traumatic event.

Statutes of limitations vary greatly between jurisdictions. Most criminal defense lawyers do not even bother to inform their clients about statutes of limitations, as they know that most defense cases end within six months of the arrest, and most defendants do not even know about the existence of these statutes. The defendant may be able to defeat a prosecution’s obstruction of justice motion by showing that there were reasonable indications that the accused could not have avoided the act or in fact prevented the commission.

Do You Know What Type of Government is Best – democracy or dictatorship?

The term “democracies” is generally used to refer to societies with wide-spread representative democracy. Democratic societies are usually characterized by widespread freedom of debate and free press, and by low levels of violent crime. As a political philosophy, democracy is the ideal form of government where the citizens have the ability to deliberate together and make decisions on behalf of their communities. For centuries, the concept of democracy has been associated with the idea of freedom, fairness, and social justice.

Historically, there are several types of governments that are considered to be democracies. In a democracy, the ruling party usually controls all branches of government. A constitutional monarchical system provides checks and balances to assure that the legislature does not become too powerful for the general welfare of its citizens. In multiparty democracy, where there are multiple parties running for elective office, the leaders of various parties vie for votes based on their party credentials rather than on their individual merits.

In contrast to democracy, there is dictatorship, also called autocratic government. A dictatorial government puts power into the hands of a single leader who can disregard the general welfare of his people. Although the leader may follow a set of rules and legislation, he or she does not have the final say in major issues, such as how to run the country. Usually, a dictatorship uses force and represses opposition groups and critics.

Apart from differences in laws and ideology, there are some striking similarities between dictatorship and democracy. Both involve leaders using force to maintain control. Both use the media to influence the masses. And both repress their opponents with harsh legal punishments, torture, and mass arrests.

The United States has been one of the world’s most democratic countries since its founding, although it was once known as a slave state. Many people today mistakenly believe that representative democracy is a world beyond the borders of America. On the contrary, representative democracy is thriving throughout the world today. In other words, America is still the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind.

So, when discussing whether democracy or dictatorship is better, remember that America is not a democracy and neither is China. America is a democracy and so is China. We live in a republic, not a democracy. Now do yourself a favor and read a book or watch an documentary. You’ll be better informed.

All American Citizens Have the Freedom to Do What They Want

Freedom, by definition, is the power to act or try to alter the state of affairs without constraint by others. It often is used as an ideal, but the reality is that freedom can be difficult to achieve. Something is “freedom” if it is not constrained in the state of its existence and is able to change easily.

The freedom of speech and press is an important part of this American ideal, but many people disagree with the value of this right. Freedom of speech and press means restrictions on what can be said and what can be published. The press is supposed to be an informing, open-minded institution, but in today’s world there are many who abuse the privilege of being a reporter. Many people use their freedom of speech and press to slander others, make sexual innuendos, and libel.

Political freedom refers to the freedom of government officials to act, to decide, and to promote policies that are in the interest of the majority of citizens in a polity. It is considered to be more valuable than religious freedom because religion is a personal relationship to a higher power. Many Americans believe that political freedoms are important and should never be allowed to wither. In addition, some political freedoms are used to protect minority groups from the majority. These freedoms are considered to be an essential part of individual freedom.

Individual freedom is closely related to the idea of freedom of contract. The idea of freedom of contract was introduced in the United States by the French national, philosophers, philosopher, and novelist, Montesquieu. He argued that individuals have the right to choose how they will live their lives. Individuals are allowed to pursue happiness and seek freedom of action in areas that do not interfere with the rights of others. An example of this would be the freedom of speech and media.

Individual freedom is one of the most important concepts in a democratic society. This concept is also considered to be central to the concept of democracy itself. In a representative democracy, the members of a polity are allowed to vote on laws and policies that affect their everyday lives. A representative such as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives is generally chosen by voters through a process called election. The purpose of this type of election is to ensure that the political party with the most votes wins the most seats in the legislature.

Overall, all Americans enjoy freedom of choice, freedom of speech and religion, and the ability to determine the course their lives will take. All these freedoms are essential for the maintenance of a vibrant and growing nation. Freedom, like the other qualities of America, can be seen in all its beautiful manifestations – including the freedom bestowed upon all citizens of the United States of America in the United States Declaration of Independence.

The Development Of Democracy In Indonesia

Democracy in Indonesia can be considered a model of development where basic human rights are assured and an active social contract established to manage economic, political, social, cultural, educational and religious institutions. The concept of democracy has undergone profound changes over the years and now it is practiced in almost all the Indonesian islands. Democratic parties enjoy a high level of support from the majority of the population although there are small minorities that express concern towards the governing system. A wide variety of social problems have been eased through the practice of democracy in Indonesia.

The transition to democracy in Indonesia was smooth following the downfall of the military regime led by General Suharto. But in the period immediately following the downfall of the military junta, there were sporadic outbreaks of violence and unrest. For some time, democracy in Indonesia was seen as a foreign concept because the Indonesian government and the forces fighting in the Aceh Forest (armed struggle) were seen as occupying powers. However, with the coming of democracy, Indonesian authorities had no option but to adopt democracy in Indonesia since the interests of the Indonesian people were safeguarded by the adoption of the 1947 United Nations Convention on Independence. In effect, the Indonesian government and its representative took part in the realization of the right of self determination among its people.

After the withdrawal of the armed forces, the transition to democracy in Indonesia was gradual. There was a rapid growth of political parties, new constitutional amendments were approved, and free trade arrangements were introduced. A new constitution was drafted and a new political party, the Moderate Party, was established. Sukarno was elected President of Indonesia in December 30th, 1947. Under the guidance of the United Nations Security Council, Suharto began the process of introducing a system of direct democracy in Indonesia.

On september 1957, after Sukarno had been elected President, Generalvorrant instructed the head of the Indonesian Army, General Widjo, to form a committee which would draft a new constitution for a democracy in Indonesia. The committee was composed of all the key leaders of the country: the prime minister, General Sulaiman, the cabinet, local administrators, the military and a few prominent family members. A meeting was organized with the heads of every district to be held at the Central Jakarta. At this meeting, thirty-nine signatories were present: the first president of Indonesia, Dr. Muhammad Ali Nik Ahmad, Dr. Temari Bargah, Dr. Wiranto Harusaki, Dr. Rafidiah B. Kerim, Mr. Idiomas Tanimura, Mr. Walaya, Mr. M.W. B., Mr. Abdulhamit Tjahani, Mr. Rufus H. De Joffe, Mr. W.B., Mr. Teodoro L. Hewson, Mr. W.H. Bhadrak, Mr. Mohideen, Mr. Kutebol, Mr. W.S. E. Bonding and many others.

After the meeting, it was decided that the constitution should include a provision empowering the military to take over if the general population does not concur. The provision however was inserted into the final version of the constitution and was printed with the title, “The Fundamental Principles of Democratic Government in Indonesia.” This was to serve as the text for the declaration of martial law in case there was insurmountable resistance by the people.

The story of Indonesia’s evolution towards democracy is interesting to us today. Although Sukarno did not succeed in completely establishing constitutional democracy, he did establish a system in which power was decentralized and an amicable political system based on representative institutions. The people still retained paramount authority but there was limited interference by the armed forces and the bureaucracy. The post-Independence period witnessed numerous constitutional changes and new constitution was drafted repeatedly. Sukarno attempted to introduce a universal suffrage bill but this was opposed by the western powers who felt that it would degenerate into multiparty democracy. It finally passed after Sukarno was deposed and the United Nations decided to recognize him as the first Indonesian president.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Direct Democracy

We often hear about “democracies” and “hereditary systems,” but what exactly is the difference between them? In general terms, we can use democracy to describe a system where public opinion is directed toward a common purpose, rather than toward a ruler. Underlying this definition is the belief that the people ought to have authority to govern for the good of the public. Demography shows this to be true. The U.S. has a large number of democratic citizens and also a relatively small number of poor citizens.

Many people ask how come our democratic institutions allow for freedom of speech and other basic political rights, but this is not an easy question to answer. One reason may be that the vast majority of citizens in democratic societies enjoy those freedoms. Democracy is a form of government where the people have the right to deliberate and determine laws, or to select governing leaders to perform that function. Some scholars argue that in order for a country to have democracy, it must have an established political culture, and a free and fair election system. Without these fundamental rights, it is impossible to guarantee human rights anywhere in the world.

Another explanation is that a society based on representative democracy has become increasingly stable since the advent of democracy around the world. Representative democracy allows citizens to influence politics through their representation in a legislative body. Elected representatives serve the public by being responsive to their constituents. They cannot serve themselves as they are bound to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. However, there are some criticisms of representative democracy and one of these criticisms is that representative democracy does not ensure that citizens have a genuine sense of social trust and social welfare. This is because elected officials are often given money by special interest groups who have a vested interest in seeing a certain policy enacted.

A problem with representative democracy is that elected officials may take their votes based on political party lines, and not on their own personal interests. Elected officials also are subject to bribery. Although this is against the basic tenets of democracy, the lack of strong ethics prevents us from holding leaders accountable. Without strong moral principles and strong principles of honesty and integrity, any government can easily fall into corruption. For this reason, those who support constitutional democracy argue that we need a stronger system of laws to protect against any undue influence from special interest groups.

Advocates of direct democracy believe that citizens have an individual right to participate in decision-making through a direct democracy. The founding fathers of our country gave us the option of choosing leaders through a constitutional process. We can choose our leaders through a direct democracy by voting for them through our representative. But we need to ensure that the process of choosing a leader and formulating policy through elected officials are balanced. Otherwise, a society of direct democracy can have an imbalance of power where some groups of citizens have more power than other groups of citizens.

A final criticism of democracy is that it is based on free-press and universal suffrage. Advocates of democracy believe in the separation of powers and say that if a group of individuals want to form a democracy, they should be able to. This separation of powers and checks and balances prevents the press from becoming a democracy and allows a free press to challenge power. In addition, critics of democracy claim that we do not have free elections because a democracy requires a majority to pass a bill.