Definisi Sivik- Apa itu Republik - Sejarah

Definisi Sivik- Apa itu Republik - Sejarah


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Segala yang Kami Ketahui Mengenai Tentera Republik Civic, Kumpulan Helikopter The Walking Dead

AMC The Walking Dead francais semakin berkembang, dengan pertunjukan baru, filem baru, dan hubungan baru antara ketiga rancangan di Walking Dead Universe, The Walking Dead, Takut si mati berjalan, dan The Walking Dead: World Beyond. Selain zombie, tisu penghubung antara semua pertunjukan adalah kumpulan bayangan yang dikenali sebagai Civic Republic Military, atau CRM.

CRM pertama kali dilihat The Walking Dead Musim 8, dan kumpulan itu akhirnya membawa Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) pergi dari Alexandria dengan helikopter dan menuju pengembaraan sinematik masa depannya. Sejak itu mereka muncul Takut si mati berjalan, dan akan memainkan peranan utama dalam Dunia Di Luar, yang telah memperkenalkan watak yang berperanan sebagai wajah kumpulan, Leftenan Kolonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond).

Kumpulan ini masih diselimuti misteri, tetapi kami sebenarnya telah mengetahui banyak perkara mengenai mereka kerana maklumat telah dihapus secara berasingan. Inilah yang kami ketahui mengenai Tentera Republik Sivik setakat ini.

Siapakah mereka?

CRM adalah cabang ketenteraan Republik Civic, anggota Perikatan Tiga, rangkaian tiga komuniti yang mengumpulkan sumber daya mereka untuk bertahan dalam kiamat zombie. Perikatan itu dilambangkan oleh tiga lingkaran yang saling berkaitan, sebuah lambang yang muncul pada pakaian seragam dan peralatan komuniti anggota. Ketiga-tiga komuniti tersebut adalah Republik Civic, yang lokasinya merupakan rahsia yang dijaga ketat walaupun dari anggota Perikatan yang lain tetapi mungkin di suatu tempat di New York menyatakan bandar Omaha, Nebraska, dan & quotOmaha Campus Colony & quot di mana Dunia Di Luar bermula, sebuah pos satelit komuniti dan Portland, Oregon, sebuah komuniti yang tidak ada yang terungkap selain ada.

Republik Sivik berusaha membina semula masyarakat menjadi sesuatu seperti yang ada sebelumnya. Mereka mempunyai teknologi yang lebih baik daripada orang lain dalam pertunjukan sejauh ini, seperti yang dibuktikan oleh helikopter mereka, pakaian kalis gigitan futuristik, dan kehebatan ilmiah. Mereka secara aktif berusaha untuk mencari penawar virus zombie. Pemimpin tentera Republik Civic adalah seseorang yang bernama Mejar Jeneral Bill, tetapi wajah kumpulan itu buat masa ini adalah seorang wanita bernama Letnan Kolonel Elizabeth Kublek.

Dalam siri perdana dari Dunia Di Luar, Kublek mengunjungi Omaha Campus Colony bagi pihak Republik Civic, nampaknya menghadiri perayaan tetapi benar-benar menyampaikan beberapa kepintaran kepada Hope (Alexa Mansour) dan Iris (Aliyah Royale) Bennett dan akhirnya membubarkan jajahan (lebih lanjut kemudian). Harapan dan ayah Iris, Leo (Joe Holt) adalah seorang saintis yang, pada awal siri ini, telah membantu Republik Civic mempelajari virus tersebut. Gadis-gadis itu tidak mempercayai Kublek atau Republik Civic yang lebih besar kerana mereka berahsia dan berkhayal, dan memberitahu Kublek itu ke wajahnya. Oleh itu, Kublek, dalam usaha membangun kepercayaan, memberitahu mereka bahawa ayah mereka mengajar di kemudahan penyelidikan Republik Sivik di negara bagian New York, dan memberi mereka peta berkod yang dapat membantu mereka mencarinya - peta yang dia katakan dapat membuatnya masuk banyak masalah jika ada yang tahu dia memberikannya kepada mereka.

Pada keesokan harinya, gadis-gadis itu mendapat faks dari bapa mereka yang mengatakan & quot'S GONE BAD. MENJAGA KEPALA SAYA TURUN. SAYA AKAN MENCARI BANTUAN. JANGAN MENGATAKAN MAJLIS. & Quot; Oleh itu, mereka berangkat untuk menyelamatkannya, bersama dengan beberapa anggota koloni yang lain. Setelah mereka pergi, Kublek dan tenteranya membantai seluruh jajahan.

Sydney Lemmon, Takut Berjalan Mati

Apa yang mereka mahukan?

Motif sebenar CRM masih belum diketahui. Matlamat mereka nampaknya tidak berniat jahat semata-mata, walaupun mereka sanggup melakukan perkara-perkara buruk dalam mencapai tujuan mereka, apa pun tujuannya. Di & quot The End of Everything, & quot the Takut Berjalan Mati episod yang memperkenalkan Isabelle (Sydney Lemmon), ahli CRM pertama yang kami kenali sedikit sebanyak, Isabelle tidak akan memberitahu Althea (Maggie Grace) apa-apa yang spesifik mengenai apa yang dilakukan CRM, tetapi dia mengatakan bahawa mereka sedang membangun untuk masa depan, dan dia merasa idealis mengenai misi mereka. "Kami adalah kekuatan yang tidak hidup untuk diri sendiri atau buat masa ini," kata Isabelle kepada Al. & quotAnda mempunyai kisah anda, yang sudah dibuat setiap hari masa lalu. Kita mempunyai masa depan. & Quot; Plus, Al dan Isabelle berkongsi hubungan romantis yang tulus, dan tidak terasa seperti Isabelle jahat.

Dihidupkan Dunia Di Luar, Kublek, nampaknya dengan tulus, memberitahu Iris bahawa suatu hari nanti dia akan memahami apa yang dilakukan oleh Civic Republic dan mempercayai mereka, tetapi kemudian dia membunuh seluruh masyarakat Iris. Tetapi tidak sebelum dia memberi peta kepada Iris dan adiknya untuk menyelamatkan ayah mereka. Tetapi kita tidak tahu mengapa dia melakukan itu. Itu banyak tetapi menyebabkan banyak soalan!

Kami juga tidak benar-benar mengetahui tujuan sebenar misi mereka. Kali pertama penonton bertemu CRM adalah melalui Jadis (Pollyanna McIntosh), yang berdagang dengan mereka dalam kapasiti sebagai pemimpin Heapsters. Sebagai pertukaran untuk bekalan, dia memberi mereka orang. Dia memberi mereka Heath (Corey Hawkins), yang hilang pada Musim 7, dan dia berusaha memberi mereka Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) - namun, pemimpin Juruselamat ketika itu menggagalkan usaha itu. Kemudian, dia hampir memberi mereka Bapa Gabriel (Seth Gilliam) tetapi berubah pikiran pada saat-saat terakhir. Akhirnya, dia melihat Rick yang terluka parah di tebing sungai setelah dia meletupkan jambatan, dan dia membuat panggilan untuk memanggil mereka untuk datang dan menyelamatkannya. CRM dan Jadis mengkategorikan orang yang dia berikan kepada mereka sebagai & quot; & quot; & & quot; & quot; Pertunjukan itu tidak pernah secara jelas menjelaskan sebutan-sebutan ini, tetapi menyiratkan mereka bermaksud & quot; kuat & & quot; & & quot; lemah. & Quot; Ketika mereka menjemputnya, Rick adalah orang B.

Dihidupkan Dunia Di Luar, kita tidak tahu apa yang sebenarnya dilakukan Kublek. Hope melihat empat pesawat lain menyertai helikopter Kublek, tetapi kami tidak tahu ke mana mereka pergi atau mengapa Kublek berbohong dan mengatakan bahawa helikopter itu pergi sendirian. Kami tidak tahu mengapa dia membunuh seluruh jajahan.

Dihidupkan Takut Berjalan Mati, Isabelle mencari bekalan - khususnya petrol - dan melakukan pengintaian di salah satu daripada banyak wilayah yang termasuk dalam kumpulan itu. Tetapi perincian misinya dikelaskan.

Semasa Takut Berjalan MatiPanel Komik-Con @ Home pada bulan Julai 2020, Scott Gimple mengatakan bahawa kami akan mengetahui lebih lanjut mengenai Isabelle pada masa akan datang, dan setelah menonton tayangan perdana Dunia Di Luar, nampaknya Letnan Kolonel Kublek adalah ibu Isabelle. Kublek memberitahu Iris dan Hope bahawa dia mempunyai seorang anak perempuan yang sedikit lebih tua dari mereka dan seorang askar yang berusaha untuk membantu mengembalikan dunia, yang sangat mirip dengan apa yang diberitahu oleh Isabelle kepada Al.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond

Dari mana mereka datang?

Kami tidak dapat mengatakan dengan pasti, tetapi papan tanda menunjukkan ke arah kawasan metro New York City. Leo Bennett berada di suatu tempat di New York, dan terakhir di Michonne (Danai Gurira) Berjalan Mati episod, dia menemui bukti bahawa Rick masih hidup, bertahun-tahun setelah dia dibawa, dan baru-baru ini dia menaiki kapal yang berasal dari pelabuhan New Jersey.

Tetapi mungkin wilayah Civic Republic merangkumi banyak tanah. Isabelle berada di Texas, yang sangat jauh dari wilayah Virginia Utara tempat Rick dibawa, yang jauh dari New York. Di Comic-Con @ Home, Julia Ormond ditanya apakah Kublek tahu di mana Rick Grimes berada. & quot; Sekiranya Elizabeth tahu di mana Rick, saya tidak pasti dia akan memberitahu anda, & quot; dia menjawab. "Dan jika Elizabeth memberitahu anda, saya tidak pasti bahawa anda harus mempercayainya, dan saya, Julia, tidak akan mengatakan apa-apa kerana saya ingin mengekalkan pekerjaan saya."

Satu perkara yang kita pasti tahu adalah bahawa Republik Sivik bukan Komanwel, sebuah komuniti yang sangat maju yang komiknya berpusat di Toledo, Ohio. Ketua pegawai kandungan The Walking Dead Universe, Scott Gimple dengan tegas mengatakan bahawa Rick tidak dibawa ke sana. Komanwel diperkenalkan dalam rancangan dalam episod & quotA Doom Tertentu & & quot; dan kami akan belajar lebih banyak mengenai mereka ketika The Walking Dead kembali. Tetapi pakaian merah dan putih askar mereka sangat berbeza dengan pakaian serba hitam CRM, dan jelas tidak mempunyai simbol cincin tiga Perikatan Tiga.

Bilakah kita akan belajar lebih banyak?

Pada ketika ini, pertaruhan terbaik kami adalah menonton Musim 1 Dunia Di Luar dan Musim 6 dari Takut Berjalan Mati, yang tayang perdana pada 11 Oktober, kerana mereka mungkin sedang membangun semacam acara crossover yang akan memuncak pada filem Rick Grimes pertama. Kami meneka! Kita hanya perlu menunggu dan melihat apa yang dimasak oleh Scott Gimple.

The Walking Dead akan kembali untuk enam episod Musim 10 lagi pada awal 2021. Takut Berjalan Mati perdana hari Ahad, 11 Oktober jam 9 / 8c di AMC, dan The Walking Dead: World Beyond disiarkan pada hari Ahad pada pukul 10 / 9c di AMC. Filem Rick Grimes masih dalam pembangunan.


Definisi Sivik- Apa itu Republik - Sejarah

demokrasi, republik, komanwel (kata nama)

sistem politik di mana kuasa tertinggi terletak pada badan warganegara yang dapat memilih orang untuk mewakili mereka

bentuk pemerintahan yang ketua negara bukan raja

"ketua negara di sebuah republik biasanya adalah presiden"

Wiktionary (3.00 / 3 suara) Nilai takrif ini:

Sebuah negeri di mana kedaulatan terletak pada rakyat atau wakilnya, dan bukannya dengan raja atau maharaja negara tanpa monarki.

Amerika Syarikat adalah sebuah republik. Britain secara teknikalnya merupakan monarki.

Etimologi: Dari république, berasal dari res publica, dari res + publicus maka secara harfiah "perkara umum".

Sebuah negara, yang mungkin atau mungkin bukan monarki, di mana cabang pemerintahan eksekutif dan perundangan terpisah. (kuno)

Republikanisme adalah prinsip politik pemisahan kekuasaan eksekutif (pentadbiran) dari despotisme perundangan adalah pelaksanaan otonom oleh negara undang-undang yang telah ditentukan olehnya sendiri. . Oleh itu, kita dapat mengatakan: semakin kecil kakitangan pemerintah (semakin kecil jumlah penguasa), semakin besar perwakilan mereka dan semakin hampir perlembagaan mendekati kemungkinan republikanisme maka perlembagaan dapat diharapkan oleh reformasi secara beransur-ansur akhirnya bangkit untuk republik. Tidak ada satu pun yang disebut "republik" kuno yang mengetahui sistem ini, dan mereka akhirnya dan pasti dapat merosot menjadi despotisme di bawah kedaulatan satu, yang paling dapat ditanggung dari semua bentuk despotisme. uE00018089uE001 Immanuel Kant, Damai Abadi

Etimologi: Dari république, berasal dari res publica, dari res + publicus maka secara harfiah "perkara umum".

Salah satu bahagian yang membentuk Rusia. Lihat wilayah.

Republik Udmurtia berada di sebelah barat Wilayah Permian.

Etimologi: Dari république, berasal dari res publica, dari res + publicus maka secara harfiah "perkara umum".

Kamus Webster (0.00 / 0 suara) Nilai takrif ini:

Etimologi: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, a affair + publicus, publica, public. Lihat Nyata, a., Dan Umum.]

sebuah negeri di mana kekuasaan berdaulat berada di seluruh tubuh rakyat, dan dilaksanakan oleh perwakilan yang dipilih oleh mereka sebagai negara persemakmuran. Rujuk Demokrasi, 2

Etimologi: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, a affair + publicus, publica, public. Lihat Nyata, a., Dan Umum.]

Freebase (1.00 / 1 vote) Nilai takrif ini:

Sebuah republik adalah bentuk pemerintahan di mana urusan negara adalah "perkara awam", bukan kepentingan peribadi para penguasa. Di sebuah republik, pejabat awam dilantik atau dipilih daripada diwarisi, dan bukan milik peribadi orang yang memegangnya. Pada zaman moden ini, definisi umum republik yang dipermudahkan adalah pemerintahan di mana ketua negara bukan raja. Pada masa ini, 135 dari 206 negara berdaulat di dunia menggunakan perkataan "republik" sebagai sebahagian daripada nama rasmi mereka. Kedua-dua republik moden dan kuno berbeza dalam ideologi dan komposisi mereka. Pada zaman klasik dan abad pertengahan, pola dasar semua republik adalah Republik Rom, yang merujuk kepada Roma di antara periode ketika ia memiliki raja, dan periode ketika ia memiliki maharaja. Tradisi politik abad pertengahan dan Renaisans Itali yang disebut sebagai "humanisme sivik" kadang-kadang dianggap berasal langsung dari republik Rom seperti Sallust dan Tacitus. Walau bagaimanapun, pengarang Rom yang dipengaruhi oleh Yunani, seperti Polybius dan Cicero, kadang-kadang juga menggunakan istilah ini sebagai terjemahan untuk politeia Yunani yang boleh bermaksud rejim secara umum, tetapi juga dapat diterapkan pada jenis rejim tertentu yang tidak sesuai dengan itu Republik Rom. Republik tidak disamakan dengan demokrasi klasik seperti Athens, tetapi mempunyai aspek demokrasi.

Kamus Chambers 20th Century (0.00 / 0 suara) Nilai takrif ini:

r & # x113-pub & primelik, n. komanwel: bentuk pemerintahan tanpa raja, di mana kuasa tertinggi diberikan kepada wakil yang dipilih oleh rakyat. & mdashpelengkap Repub & primelican , milik sebuah republik: setuju dengan prinsip sebuah republik. & mdashn. orang yang menyokong bentuk pemerintahan republik: demokrat: salah satu daripada dua parti politik besar di Amerika Syarikat, yang menentang Demokrat, menyukai tarif perlindungan yang tinggi, perbelanjaan liberal, dan perluasan kuasa pemerintah negara. & mdashv.t. Repub & primelicanise . & mdashn. Repub & primelicanisme , prinsip pemerintahan republik: keterikatan dengan pemerintahan republik. & mdashn. Republik & # x101 & primerian . & mdashRepublik Surat, nama untuk badan umum sasterawan dan orang terpelajar. & mdashZaman Republik, era yang diterapkan oleh Perancis setelah kejatuhan monarki, bermula pada 22 September 1792. & mdashRepublikan merah, seorang republik yang ganas, dari topi merah yang terjejas. [Fr. penerbitan semula& mdashL. respublica, komanwel.]

Ensiklopedia Nuttall (2.00 / 2 suara) Nilai takrif ini:

nama yang diberikan kepada Negara di mana kekuasaan berdaulat diberikan pada satu atau lebih orang yang dipilih oleh masyarakat, dan bertanggung jawab kepadanya walaupun pada hakikatnya, baik di Roma dan Republik Venesia, masyarakat itu tidak bebas untuk memilih mana-mana di luar pesanan istimewa.

Sumbangan Editor (0.00 / 0 suara) Nilai takrif ini:

Merupakan sistem pemerintahan di mana kekuasaan demokratik bersama warga usia pengundian rasmi yang diberi kuasa untuk memilih orang menjadi pemerintah perpaduan melalui sistem pemilihan suara perwakilan berkadar yang telus dan adil.

Banyak negara di seluruh dunia adalah Republik. cth. Republik Ireland, Republik Congo.

Kor Nasional British

Populariti kedudukan untuk perkataan 'Republic' dalam Spoken Corpus Frequency: # 2301


Definisi Sivik- Apa itu Republik - Sejarah

Sering kali, ahli politik, dan banyak orang Amerika biasa, menyebut Amerika Syarikat sebagai demokrasi. Yang lain menganggap ini menjengkelkan kerana, tidak seperti demokrasi di mana warganegara memilih secara langsung undang-undang, di Amerika Syarikat, wakil rakyat memilih - dan, oleh itu, A.S. adalah sebuah republik.

Syukurlah, kedua-duanya betul! Inilah & # 8217 mengapa:

& # 8220Republik & # 8221 penyokong mentakrifkan & # 8220demokrasi & # 8221 kerana ia mula-mula digunakan. Disebut secara bergantian & # 8220 demokrasi langsung & # 8221 atau & # 8220 demokrasi murni, & # 8221 dalam bentuk pemerintahan ini, dan bukannya mempunyai wakil memilih undang-undang dan tindakan lain, setiap warganegara akan memilih & # 8211 dan majoriti memutuskannya.

Walaupun di tingkat negara bagian dan lokal, referend (misalnya, menghalalkan ganja) dan inisiatif pemungutan suara (misalnya, terbitan bon), di mana warganegara memilih secara langsung mengenai undang-undang, kadang-kadang digunakan, secara keseluruhan, beberapa perkara diputuskan dengan cara ini di Amerika & # 8211 bahkan Presiden tidak dipilih dengan majoriti suara rakyat, melainkan oleh suara wakil rakyat kita.

Penghinaan terhadap demokrasi tulen di Amerika bermula dari bapa pendiri. Alexander Hamilton tidak & # 8217 tidak suka: & # 8220 Kebebasan sejati tidak pernah dijumpai dalam kepincangan atau demokrasi yang melampau. & # 8221 Begitu juga dengan Samuel Adams: & # 8220 Ingatlah, Demokrasi tidak akan bertahan lama. Segera membazirkan, membuang dan membunuh sendiri! & # 8221

Jadi apa yang mereka buat? Selain contoh sejarah, mereka telah melihat demokrasi murni dalam tindakan di seluruh negara muda dalam pemerintahan negara yang ditubuhkan setelah Deklarasi Kemerdekaan tetapi sebelum Perlembagaan A.S.

Badan perundangan bertindak seolah-olah mereka hampir mahakuasa. Tidak ada Perlembagaan Negara yang efektif untuk membatasi badan perundangan kerana kebanyakan pemerintah Negeri beroperasi berdasarkan hanya Undang-Undang badan perundangan masing-masing yang tidak berlabel & # 8220Perlembagaan. & # 8221 Baik gabenor maupun pengadilan dari Negara-negara yang melanggar itu dapat melakukan apa-apa yang penting dan pengaruh pengekangan yang efektif terhadap badan perundangan dalam mempertahankan hak individu yang tidak dapat dilupakan, apabila dilanggar oleh pelanggaran perundangan.

Thomas Jefferson mengalami pelanggaran ini secara langsung di Virginia:

Semua kuasa pemerintah, perundangan, eksekutif, kehakiman, diserahkan kepada badan perundangan. Memusatkan perhatian ini pada tangan yang sama adalah tepatnya definisi pemerintahan yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Tidak akan meringankan bahawa kekuatan-kekuatan ini akan digunakan oleh banyak tangan, dan bukan oleh satu pun. 173 orang penguasa pasti akan menindas.

Massachusetts & # 8217 Elbridge Gerry bersetuju: & # 8220Kelemahan yang kita alami berpunca dari kelebihan demokrasi, & # 8221 seperti yang dilakukan oleh bekas gabenor Virginia Edmund Randolph yang menggambarkan keinginannya untuk sebuah republik di Konvensyen Perlembagaan pada tahun 1787:

Untuk memberikan penawar bagi kejahatan-kejahatan di mana Amerika Syarikat berusaha untuk mengesan kejahatan-kejahatan ini ke asal-usulnya setiap orang telah menemukannya dalam pergolakan dan percobaan demokrasi.

Ramai yang melihat demokrasi murni sebagai bentuk pemerintahan yang pasti akan & # 8220 merosot menjadi anarki atau kezaliman & # 8220mob. & # 8221 Ini tentunya pemerhatian James Madison, yang menulis kepada Jefferson: & # 8220Di Virginia Saya telah melihat undang-undang hak dilanggar dalam setiap keadaan di mana ia menentang arus yang popular. & # 8221

Dalam ketakutan terhadap kezaliman majoriti ini, para pengasas dengan jelas dan tegas menubuhkan sebuah republik perlembagaan, di mana undang-undang dibuat dan ditadbir melalui perwakilan dan kuasa yang dibatasi oleh perlembagaan bertulis. Pengasas dan pemikir Pencerahan lain percaya bahawa ia:

Bantu melindungi daripada kezaliman majoriti dengan menapis kehendak rakyat melalui budi bicara perwakilan lain yang rasional. . . . [dan] membantu mencegah tindakan pemerintah merampas hak individu, walaupun tindakan tersebut disokong oleh majoriti - kadang-kadang majoriti besar - rakyat. . .

Jadi, jelas, Amerika Syarikat adalah sebuah republik.

& # 8220Demokrasi & # 8221 berasal dari istilah Yunani demo bermaksud & # 8220 orang biasa & # 8221 dan kratos bermaksud & # 8220 peraturan, kekuatan, & # 8221 yang bersama-sama berubah menjadi demokratia bermaksud & # 8220 pemerintahan popular. & # 8221

Sebilangan kecil berpendapat bahawa pemerintah Amerika Syarikat tidak memperoleh kuasa dari rakyatnya. Sebenarnya, salah seorang presiden Amerika yang terhebat, Abraham Lincoln, menggambarkan negara kita mempunyai & # 8220 pemerintahan rakyat, oleh rakyat [dan] untuk rakyat. & # 8221

Penyokong Amerika sebagai demokrasi mengenal pasti beberapa prinsip asas yang umum bagi demokrasi, termasuk & # 8220 perwakilan demokratik, aturan undang-undang, dan perlindungan perlembagaan, & # 8221 dan ini selaras dengan kriteria utama Aristoteles untuk demokrasi, yang masing-masing orang yang dikongsi dalam & # 8220 persamaan angka. & # 8221

Pemerintah A.S. di era moden juga, telah membuang definisi terhad tentang demokrasi murni dan demokrasi langsung yang menyokong versi yang diperluas:

Demokrasi adalah pelembagaan kebebasan. . . [P] tanggungjawab dan tanggungjawab sivik dilaksanakan oleh semua warga dewasa, secara langsung, atau melalui wakil rakyat mereka yang bebas. . . . [di mana] semua peringkat pemerintahan harus dapat diakses dan responsif terhadap rakyat mungkin. . . . [dan] melindungi hak asasi manusia seperti kebebasan bersuara dan beragama. . . perlindungan yang sama di bawah undang-undang. . [dan] peluang untuk mengatur dan mengambil bahagian sepenuhnya dalam kehidupan politik, ekonomi, dan budaya masyarakat.

Hal ini tentunya berlaku di Amerika dan masing-masing lima puluh negeri. Jadi, jelas, Amerika Syarikat, di bawah definisi moden istilah itu, adalah demokrasi.

Sejak awal, para pengasas bermaksud membentuk:

& # 8220Perpaduan & # 8221 pemerintahan yang menggabungkan sifat terbaik dari tiga bentuk murni [monarki, bangsawan dan demokrasi] dan yang memberikan & # 8216periksa & # 8217 menentang rasuah mereka menjadi absolutisme.

Dan nampaknya mereka berjaya. Pengulas Gary Gutting telah mencirikan republik hibrid kami sebagai: & # 8220sebuah multarki . . . gabungan pelbagai bentuk pemerintahan - sememangnya, dari semua lima jenis Plato & # 8217s [aristokrasi, timarki, oligarki, demokrasi dan kezaliman]. & # 8221

Tuan rumah penulis dan rancangan rancangan bual bicara Thom Hartman menyebutnya:

Republik demokratik perwakilan yang terhad secara konstitusional [di mana]. . . perlembagaan, menghadkan kuasa pemerintahan. Kami memilih wakil, jadi itu bukan demokrasi yang murni. Tetapi kita memilih mereka dengan peraturan majoriti sehingga demokratik. Dan bentuk, infrastruktur, bentuk pemerintahan keseluruhan, adalah republik, ia adalah republik.

Profesor Peter Levine bersetuju, menyimpulkan: & # 8220 Akhirnya, Amerika Syarikat boleh dipanggil republik dan demokratik. & # 8221

Sekiranya anda menyukai artikel ini, anda mungkin juga menikmati podcast popular kami yang baru, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Feed), serta:

43 komen

Pemikiran khas Amerika. UK adalah monarki tetapi juga demokrasi. Demokrasi adalah struktur politik bukan bentuk pemerintahan. Anda boleh memiliki sebuah republik dan oligarki seperti Republik Venesia dan ia tidak akan menjadi demokrasi.

Saya juga terperanjat bahawa artikel mengenai pemerintahan Amerika mencerminkan & # 8220pemikiran Amerika yang tipikal & # 8221. Maksud saya, apa-apaan

Masalahnya adalah bahawa ini adalah pendapat khas sayap kanan Amerika. Anda boleh memberitahu bahawa bila-bila masa anda mengetengahkan subjek. Cuba ia.

Jadi & # 8230Bentuk soalan & # 8211 Tentukan syarat & # 8211 Nyatakan contoh sejarah dan akhirnya, buat pernyataan deklaratif berdasarkan tindakan sebelumnya. Itu adalah Pendapat Sayap Kanan Amerika yang tipikal?

@Mike, orang luar biasa Britain. maaf anda hilang dan terjebak dalam sistem dunia lama.

Amerika adalah republik perwakilan & # 8230 Ia merangkumi bahagian demokrasi seperti selimut untuk mengelakkan sepenuhnya menjadi demokrasi. Demokrasi sememangnya jahat.

Sebuah republik hanyalah sejenis ergo demokrasi, jika demokrasi itu jahat maka demikian pula sebuah republik.

Menjadi republik tidak bermaksud anda juga tidak boleh menjadi demokrasi. Saya sering mendengar orang berpendapat (sering kali secara militan) bahawa Amerika Syarikat adalah sebuah republik, bukan demokrasi. Tetapi itu adalah dikotomi palsu. Definisi umum "republik" adalah, untuk memetik Kamus Warisan Amerika, "Urutan politik di mana kuasa tertinggi terletak pada badan warga yang berhak memilih pegawai dan perwakilan yang bertanggung jawab kepada mereka" - kita memang demikian. Definisi umum "demokrasi" adalah, "Pemerintahan oleh rakyat, dilaksanakan secara langsung atau melalui wakil rakyat" - kita juga begitu.

Amerika Syarikat bukanlah demokrasi langsung, dalam arti sebuah negara di mana undang-undang (dan keputusan pemerintah lain) dibuat terutama dengan suara mayoritas. Beberapa pembuatan undang-undang dilakukan dengan cara ini, di peringkat negeri dan tempatan, tetapi hanya sebahagian kecil dari semua pembuatan undang-undang. Tetapi kita adalah demokrasi perwakilan, yang merupakan bentuk demokrasi.

Dan dua makna yang sama "demokrasi" (kadang-kadang demokrasi langsung, kadang-kadang pemerintahan sendiri yang popular secara umum) ada pada penubuhan republik itu juga. Beberapa pengulas era pembingkaian membuat hujah yang membezakan "demokrasi" dan "republik" melihat, misalnya, Federalis (No. 10), dan juga sebilangan lain kertas Federalis. Tetapi bahkan pada era itu, "demokrasi perwakilan" dipahami sebagai bentuk demokrasi, di samping "demokrasi murni": John Adams menggunakan istilah "demokrasi perwakilan" pada tahun 1794, begitu juga dengan Nuh Webster pada tahun 1785, begitu juga St. George Tucker pada tahun 1803 edisi Blackstone begitu juga Thomas Jefferson pada tahun 1815. Tucker's Blackstone juga menggunakan "demokrasi" untuk menggambarkan demokrasi perwakilan, walaupun "perwakilan" yang memenuhi syarat dihilangkan. Demikian juga, James Wilson, salah satu penggubal utama Perlembagaan dan salah satu hakim Mahkamah Agung pertama, mempertahankan Perlembagaan pada tahun 1787 dengan membicarakan tiga bentuk pemerintahan itu sebagai "monarki, bangsawan, dan demokratik," dan mengatakan bahawa dalam demokrasi kuasa yang berdaulat "wujud dalam diri rakyat, dan dilaksanakan oleh mereka sendiri atau oleh wakil mereka." Ketua Hakim John Marshall - yang membantu memimpin perjuangan dalam Konvensyen Virginia 1788 untuk mengesahkan Perlembagaan AS - juga mempertahankan Perlembagaan dalam konvensyen itu dengan menggambarkannya sebagai melaksanakan "demokrasi" (sebagai lawan dari "despotisme"), dan tanpa perlu malah menambah "wakil" kelayakan.

Sir William Blackstone, yang banyak dibaca dan dikagumi oleh para pembuat kerangka, juga menggunakan "demokrasi" untuk memasukkan republik: "Baron Montesquieu meletakkannya, kemewahan itu diperlukan dalam monarki, seperti di Perancis tetapi merosakkan demokrasi, seperti di Belanda. Oleh kerana itu, mengenai England, yang pemerintahannya terdiri dari kedua-dua spesies itu, mungkin masih menjadi pertanyaan yang meragukan, sejauh mana kemewahan swasta adalah kejahatan awam…. ” Tentunya Holland adalah sebuah republik, dan England dikombinasikan oleh monarki dan pemerintahan oleh wakil rakyat - Blackstone dengan demikian melabelkan pemerintahan tersebut oleh wakil rakyat sebagai bentuk "demokrat [y]."

Dan begini "demokrasi" seperti "wang tunai" (dan seperti banyak perkataan lain). Sekiranya anda membayar tunai di kedai, apa maksudnya? Ini bermaksud bahawa anda membayar dengan bil dan duit syiling, bukan dengan cek atau kad kredit. Tetapi jika anda membeli rumah anda dengan wang tunai, adakah itu bermakna anda muncul dengan beg bimbit yang penuh dengan bil atau syiling? Kecuali jika anda berada dalam bidang pekerjaan yang pelik, mungkin tidak. Demikian juga, ketika orang-orang di era pembingkaian membahas pemerintahan yang populer dan bukannya pemerintah di mana sebagian besar rakyat tidak memiliki suara, mereka sering menggunakan "demokrasi" (atau "demokratik" atau "demokratik") untuk berarti "bukan monarki atau despotisme atau aristokrasi, ”dengan“ demo- ”yang merujuk kepada kawalan popular (apa yang akan menjadi“ pemerintahan rakyat Lincoln, untuk rakyat dan rakyat. ”Tetapi ketika mereka membincangkan pemerintahan perwakilan sebagai lawan pemerintahan langsung, mereka sering menggunakan "Demokrasi" atau "demokrasi murni" yang berarti "bukan pemerintah perwakilan," dengan "demo" merujuk pada pengambilan keputusan yang popular.

Begitu juga dengan hari ini. Amerika adalah demokrasi, kerana bukan monarki atau kediktatoran. (Sebilangan orang mendakwa ia terlalu oligarki, dalam hal ini mereka mengatakan Amerika tidak cukup demokratik - tetapi sekali lagi mereka akan membezakan demokrasi dengan oligarki.) Amerika bukanlah demokrasi dalam arti menjadi demokrasi langsung. Sekiranya anda bertanya sama ada untuk melakukan sesuatu dengan undi langsung atau melalui proses perwakilan, anda mungkin bertanya sama ada kita harus lebih demokratik atau lebih republik. Sekiranya anda bertanya sama ada China lebih baik memberikan lebih banyak kuasa kepada pengundi Cina, anda mungkin bertanya sama ada negara itu lebih demokratik atau kurang demokratik, terlepas dari apakah anda fikir demokrasi itu harus langsung atau wakil.

Yang pasti, selain menjadi demokrasi perwakilan, Amerika Syarikat juga merupakan demokrasi konstitusional, di mana mahkamah menahan beberapa ukuran kehendak demokratik. Oleh itu, Amerika Syarikat juga merupakan sebuah republik perlembagaan. Memang, Amerika Syarikat mungkin dilabel demokrasi perwakilan persekutuan yang berperlembagaan.

Dan anda adalah pensil yang rosak Tetapi di mana satu perkataan digunakan, dengan penyederhanaan yang terlalu besar, "demokrasi" dan "republik" berfungsi. Sememangnya, kerana demokrasi langsung - sekali lagi, pemerintahan di mana semua atau kebanyakan undang-undang dibuat dengan suara langsung - tidak praktikal memandangkan jumlah dan kerumitan undang-undang yang hampir mana-mana kerajaan negeri atau nasional diharapkan dapat dibuat, tidak menghairankan bahawa "perwakilan" kelayakan akan sering ditinggalkan. Secara praktikal, demokrasi perwakilan adalah satu-satunya demokrasi yang ada di mana-mana peringkat negeri atau nasional. (Referensi negara dan bahkan nasional kadang-kadang digunakan, tetapi hanya untuk sebahagian kecil dari perundangan negara atau bangsa.) Demokrasi, kemudian, mempunyai banyak makna - seperti begitu banyak kata - dan telah lama mempunyai banyak makna. Anda mungkin berfikir bahasa Inggeris, atau wacana politik, akan lebih baik sekiranya demokrasi hanya mempunyai satu makna. Tetapi anda tidak boleh memilih makna itu dengan sewenang-wenangnya, dan melabelkan makna yang bertentangan sebagai salah dari segi bahasa, walaupun mempunyai satu makna itu lebih senang.

Saya juga tidak harus melaburkan begitu banyak kepentingan, menurut saya, ke dalam kata tertentu. Konsep penting ada perbezaan penting antara proses demokrasi langsung dan proses perwakilan-demokrasi, dan di antara tahap ketepatan atau keterwakilan yang berbeza. Tetapi jangan berharap bahawa bahasa Inggeris seperti yang sebenarnya digunakan oleh sebilangan besar penutur bahasa Inggeris - dari Adams, Jefferson, dan Wilson ke bawah - akan dengan sempurna atau bahkan hampir sempurna menangkap perbezaan tersebut.


Terokai Kamus.com

Suatu bentuk pemerintahan di mana kuasa secara eksplisit diberikan kepada rakyat, yang pada gilirannya menggunakan kuasa mereka melalui wakil rakyat. Hari ini, istilah republik dan demokrasi hampir tidak dapat dipertukarkan, tetapi secara historis keduanya berbeza. Demokrasi menyiratkan pemerintahan langsung oleh rakyat, semuanya sama, sedangkan republik menyiratkan sistem pemerintahan di mana kehendak rakyat dimediasi oleh perwakilan, yang mungkin lebih bijak dan berpendidikan lebih tinggi daripada orang biasa. Di republik Amerika awal, misalnya, syarat bahawa pemilih memiliki harta dan penubuhan institusi seperti Kolej Pemilihan bertujuan untuk membebaskan pemerintah dari ungkapan langsung kehendak rakyat.


Pendidikan sivik di Amerika Syarikat

Promosi sebuah republik dan nilai-nilainya telah menjadi perhatian penting bagi pembuat dasar - untuk mempengaruhi persepsi politik orang, untuk mendorong penyertaan politik, dan untuk memupuk prinsip-prinsip yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan (misalnya kebebasan, kebebasan bersuara, hak-hak sipil ). Subjek "Sivik" telah diintegrasikan ke dalam Kurikulum dan Standard Kandungan, untuk meningkatkan pemahaman tentang nilai-nilai demokratik dalam sistem pendidikan. Sastera sivik telah mendapati bahawa "melibatkan anak-anak kecil dalam kegiatan sivik sejak usia dini adalah peramal positif penyertaan mereka dalam kehidupan sipil kemudian". [1]

Sebagai subjek akademik, Civics mempunyai objektif pengajaran untuk mempromosikan pengetahuan yang selaras dengan pemerintahan sendiri dan penyertaan dalam hal-hal yang menjadi perhatian masyarakat. [2] Objektif ini menganjurkan instruksi yang mendorong penyertaan aktif pelajar dalam lingkungan pengambilan keputusan demokratik, seperti memilih untuk memilih wakil kursus untuk pemerintah sekolah, atau memutuskan tindakan yang akan mempengaruhi lingkungan sekolah atau masyarakat. Oleh itu, persimpangan aktiviti membuat keputusan individu dan kolektif, sangat penting untuk membentuk "perkembangan moral individu". [1] To reach those goals, civic instructors must promote the adoption of certain skills and attitudes such as “respectful argumentation, debate, information literacy”, to support “the development of morally responsible individuals who will shape a morally responsible and civically minded society". [1] In the 21st century, young people are less interested in direct political participation (i.e. being in a political party or even voting), but are motivated to use digital media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Digital media enable young people to share and exchange ideas rapidly, enabling the coordination of local communities that promote volunteerism and political activism, in topics principally related to human rights and environmental subjects. [3]

Young people are constructing and supporting their political identities in the 21st century by using social media, and digital tools (e.g. text messaging, hashtags, videos) to share, post, reply an opinion or attitude about a political/social topic and to promote social mobilization and support through online mechanism to a wide and diverse audience. Therefore, civics' end-goal in the 21st century must be oriented to “empower the learners to find issues in their immediate communities that seem important to the people with whom they live and associate”, once “learners have identified with a personal issue and participated in constructing a collective framing for common issues”. [3]

According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, one of the purposes of Civic Education is to “foster civic competence and responsibility” which is promoted through the Center for Civic Education’s We the People and Project Citizen initiatives. [4] However, there is a lack of consensus for how this mission should be pursued. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. [5] The findings include: [6]

  • All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government.
  • 39 states require at least one course in government/civics. [nota 1]
  • 21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
  • 8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
  • 9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.

The lack of state-mandated student accountability relating to civics may be a result of a shift in emphasis towards reading and mathematics in response to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. [7] There is a movement to require that states utilize the citizenship test as a graduation requirement, but this is seen as a controversial solution to some educators. [8]

Students are also demonstrating that their civic knowledge leaves much to be desired. A National Center for Education Statistics NAEP report card for civics (2010) stated that “levels of civic knowledge in U.S. have remained unchanged or even declined over the past century”. Specifically, only 24 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in civics. [9] Traditionally, civic education has emphasized the facts of government processes detached from participatory experience. [10] In an effort to combat the existing approach, the National Council for the Social Studies developed the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. The C3 Framework emphasizes “new and active approaches” including the “discussion of controversial issues and current events, deliberation of public issues, service-learning, action civics, participation in simulation and role play, and the use of digital technologies”. [11]

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, among teens 12–17 years old, 95% have access to the Internet, 70% go online daily, 80% use social networking sites, and 77% have cell phones. [12] As a result, participatory culture has become a staple for today’s youth, affecting their conceptualization of civic participation. They use Web 2.0 tools (i.e. blogs, podcasts, wikis, social media) to: circulate information (blogs and podcasts) collaborate with peers (wikis) produce and exchange media and connect with people around the world via social media and online communities. [13] The pervasiveness of participatory digital tools has led to a shift in the way adolescents today perceive civic action and participation. Whereas 20th century civic education embraced the belief of “dutiful citizenship” and civic engagement as a “matter of duty or obligation” 21st century civic education has shifted to reflect youths' “personally expressive politics” and “peer-to-peer relationships” that promote civic engagement. [12]

This shift in students' perceptions has led to classroom civic education experiences that reflect the digital world in which 21st century youth now live, in order to make the content both relevant and meaningful. Civics education classrooms in the 21st century now seek to provide genuine opportunities to actively engage in the consumption, circulation, discussion, and production of civic and political content via Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, wikis, and social media. [14] Although these tools offer new ways for engagement, interaction, and dialogue, educators have also recognized the need to teach youth how to interact both respectfully and productively with their peers and members of online communities. As a result, many school districts have also begun adopting Media Literacy Frameworks for Engaged Citizenship as a pedagogical approach to prepare students for active participatory citizenship in today’s digital age. This model includes critical analysis of digital media as well as a deep understanding of media literacy as a “collaborative and participatory movement that aims to empower individuals to have a voice and to use it.” [15] [16]


The Walking Dead: World Beyond Civic Republic and Three Rings Explained

The Walking Dead: World Beyond explains the franchise’s Three Rings symbol with the introduction of three new colonies.

Photo: AMC

The following contains spoilers for The Walking Dead: World Beyond episode 1.

Way back in the tenth episode of The Walking Dead’s sixth season, Paul Rovia a.k.a. Jesus (Tom Payne) made a promise to Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln).

“You’re world’s about to get a whole lot bigger,” the Messianic-appearing figure said. And it did not take long for Jesus’s promise to bear fruit. Rick Grimes’s world did get bigger with the introduction of the Hilltop Colony, The Kingdom, Oceanside, and even The Sanctuary.

Since that moment, the world of The Walking Dead has only continued to grow. That growth reaches its apex (thus far at least) in the premiere of the third TWD spinoff, The Walking Dead: World Beyond. This latest installment of the franchise introduces viewers to not just one new location but three…and maybe more than that. And unlike Hilltop, Alexandria, The Kingdom, The Sanctuary, or even Stephanie’s supposed community in West Virginia, these communities aren’t confined to merely the mid-Atlantic. These communities, the Civic Republic, Pacific Republic, and Campus Colony, span the entire country.

Ad – content continues below

Here is what we know about The Walking Dead’s latest expansion based on World Beyond’s first episode, “Brave.”

Semasa World Beyond introduces three new communities, viewers spend time in only one. The series begins on the outskirts of Omaha, Nebraska in the Campus Colony of Omaha. This is where all main characters Hope (Alexa Mansour), Iris (Aliyah Royale), Elton (Nicolas Cantu), and Silas (Hal Cumpston) reside. There appear to be at least two components of the Omaha settlement. Many children and their respective caretakers and educators reside in the Campus Colony portion. There is also clearly an urban portion of the community in Omaha proper. It’s mentioned that the Campus Colony is “100 miles” from the city. The Campus Colony contains 9,671 people according to Iris’s therapist.

This suggests that things have settled down enough in The Walking Dead universe that individuals are able to band together to create quasi-super cities or at least a series of small communities over a relatively large area that are united enough to consider themselves one city. It would kind of be like if Alexandria, Hilltop, Kingdom, Sanctuary, and Oceanside all existed under one “Washington’ banner.

But the world gets even bigger than that on World Beyond. The first episode’s plot deals with some very special guests coming to town. The Campus Colony of Omaha is one of three political entities bound in what is known as “The Alliance of the Three.” The other two are the Pacific Republic based out of Portland, Oregon and the Civic Republic based out of…well nobody knows where, as they won’t tell anyone. The Alliance of the Three is represented by a logo featuring three interlocking rings, which viewers have seen previously on The Walking Deaddan Takut Berjalan Mati.

Of the three, the Civic Republic (sometimes abbreviated as CRM for “Civic Republic Military”) are clearly the dominant faction. Despite not knowing where the Civic Republic is located, we still learn quite a bit about them in this first hour. The Civic Republic is a highly technologically sophisticated society. They have access to helicopters, proper body armor, and efficient zombie-killing automatic weapons. Though they’re careful not to reveal where they’re from, they do mention that it was a long trip out to Omaha. They also have at least one facility in New York state if Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond) is to be believed. A lot of further information about the Civic Republic that can be gleaned from the previous two Walking Deadseri.


Kandungan

Republicanism in the United States grew out of some very old ideas. It includes ideas from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and England. [4]

Some of the most important ideas of republicanism are that: [5]

    and "unalienable" rights (natural rights) are some of the most important things in a society
  • Government should exist to protect these rights
  • The people who live in a country, as a whole, should be sovereign (they should be able to choose who leads them and have a say in how their government is run)
  • Power must always be given by the people, never inherited (like in a monarchy)
  • People must all play a role in their government by doing things like voting
  • Political corruption is terrible and has no place in a republic

Republicanism is different than other forms of democracy. In a "pure" democracy, the majority rules. If a majority of the people voted to take rights away from a certain group, that is what would happen. [6] [7] Alexis de Tocqueville, a famous French political thinker, called this the "tyranny of the majority." [8] He meant that a pure democracy could still turn into an unfair, unequal, corrupt society if the majority of the people decided to take away others' rights. [8]

However, republicanism says that people have "unalienable" rights that cannot be voted away. Republican governments are different than "pure" democracies, because they include protections to make sure people's rights are not taken away. In a true republican government, one group - even if it is a majority - cannot take another group's unalienable rights away. [9]

American republicanism was created and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, "republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy." [10] Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Creating American republicanism Edit

The leaders of colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s read history carefully. Their goal was to compare governments and how well different types of governments worked. [11] They were especially interested in the history of liberty in England. They modeled American republicanism partly after the English "Country Party." This was a political party which opposed the Court Party, which held power in England. [11]

The Country Party was based on ancient Greek and Roman republicanism. [12] The Party criticized the corruption in the "Court" Party, which focused mostly on the King's court in London. It did not focus on the needs of regular people in England, or on areas outside of the capital city. [13]

By reading history, The Founders came up with a set of political ideas that they called "republicanism." By 1775, these ideas were common in colonial America. [14] One historian writes: "Republicanism was the distinctive political [way of thinking] of the entire Revolutionary generation." [15]

Another historian explains that believers of American republicanism saw government as a threat. He writes that colonists felt constantly "threatened by corruption." Government, to them, was "the [biggest] source of corruption and operat[ed] through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies ( [instead of] the ideal of the militia) [and] established churches" which people would have to belong to. [16]

Cause of Revolution Edit

By the 1770s, most Americans were dedicated to republican values and to their property rights. This helped cause the American Revolution. More and more, Americans saw Britain as corrupt hostile and a threat to republicanism, freedom, and property rights. [17] Many people thought that the greatest threat to liberty was corruption – not just in London, but at home too. They thought corruption went along with inherited aristocracy, which they hated. [17]

During the Revolution, many Christians connected republicanism with their religion. When the Revolution started, there was a major change in thinking that "convinced Americans . that God was raising up America for some special purpose," according to one historian. [18] This made the Revolutionists believe that they had a moral and religious duty to get rid of the corruption in the monarchy. [17]

Another historian, Gordon Wood, writes that republicanism led to American Exceptionalism: "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy." [19]

Dalam dia Discourse of 1759, Revolutionist Jonathan Mayhew argued that people should only obey their governments if they "actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and [fair] authority for the good of human society." Many American colonists were convinced that British rulers were not using their power "for the good of human society." This made them want to form a new government which would be based on republicanism. They thought a republican government would protect – not threaten – freedom and democracy. [17]

Founding Fathers Edit

For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a government that had the most possible participation by "its citizens in mass" (all the people together) was the safest kind. He said a republic is:

. a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority. [T]he powers of the government, being divided, should [each] be exercised . by representatives chosen. for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. [T]he mass of the citizens is the safest [protector] of their own rights. [20]

The Founding Fathers often talked about what "republicanism" meant. In 1787, John Adams defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws." [21]

Other ideas Edit

Some other ideas also affected the Founding Fathers. For example, in the 1600s, John Locke, an English philosopher, had created the idea of the "social contract." [22] This idea said that people agree to obey governments, and in return, those governments agree to protect the people and their rights. This is like a contract made between the people and the government. If the government breaks this contract, and does not protect the people's rights, then the people have the right to overthrow their leaders. [22] This idea was important to the Revolutionists.

When they were writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used ideas from Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political thinker. Montesquieu wrote about how the perfect British constitution would be "balanced." [23] The idea of a balance of power (also called "checks and balances") is a very important part of the Constitution. It is one of the strategies the Founders used to make sure their government would be republican and protect the people from government corruption. [23]

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its ideas guaranteed liberty, with limited powers checking and balancing each other. However, they also wanted change to happen slowly. They worried that in a democracy, the majority of voters could vote away rights and freedoms. [6] [24] They were most worried about poor Americans (who made up most of the United States) turning against the rich. [25] They worried that democracy could turn into "mob rule." [26]

To guard against this, the Founders wrote many protections into the Constitution. For example: [27]

  • They made sure the Constitution can only be changed by a "supermajority": two-thirds of the United States Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures[a]
  • They set up a court system that could help protect people's rights if the majority of Americans decided to take a group's rights away
  • They created an Electoral College, where a small number of elite people would select the President
    • Soon, political parties controlled elections more than the Electoral College did

    Most adult white males were able to vote. In 1776, most states required people to own property to be able to vote. However, at that time, America was 90% rural, and most people owned farms. As cities grew bigger and people started doing work in the cities, most states dropped the property requirement. By 1850, this requirement was gone in every state. [28]

    Republican motherhood Edit

    Under the new government after the Revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren were held up as the perfect "republican mothers." This idea said that a republican mother's first duty was to teach her children republican values. Her second job was to live simply and avoid luxury, which the Founders linked with corruption. [29] [30]

    Democracy Edit

    Many of the Founders did not think "democracy" was a good idea. Their idea of "democracy" was the "pure democracy" that de Tocqueville had described. [8] They worried often about the problem of 'tyranny of the majority' that de Tocqueville had warned about. They wrote many protections into the Constitution to prevent this from happening. As historians Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson write: "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to [make sure] that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be [destroyed] by majorities." [31] Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elect[ed] despotism is not the government we fought for." [32]

    James Madison, in particular, worried about this, and wrote about it in Kertas Federalis. The Kertas Federalis talk about democracy as being dangerous, because it allows a majority to take away the rights of a smaller group. [33] However, Madison thought that as more people came to the United States, the country would get more diverse, and it would be harder to form a majority big enough to do this. [34] In Federalist No. 10, Madison also argued that a strong federal government would help protect republicanism. [35] The United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most power to the states and had a very weak federal government that could not get anything done. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a small but powerful group might be able to take control of a small area, like a state. However, it would be much harder to take over an entire country. The bigger the country, he argued, the safer republicanism would be. [35]

    As late as 1800, the word "democrat" still had a very bad meaning to most Americans. It was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. In 1798, George Washington complained that a "Democrat . will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." [36] This changed over the next few decades.

    Property rights Edit

    United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845) made the protection of property rights by the courts a major part of American republicanism. James Madison appointed Story to the Court in 1811. Story and Chief Justice John Marshall made the Court a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. [37] Story believed that "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property" (if they got it legally) was "a great and fundamental principle of a republican government." [38] Historians agree that Story—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—reshaped American law in a conservative direction that protected property rights. [39]

    Military service Edit

    Republicanism saw military service as one of a citizen's most important duties. [40] John Randolph, a Congressman from Virginia, once said: "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe." [41]

    However, at this time, the word "army" meant "foreign mercenaries." After the Revolutionary War, Americans did not trust mercenaries. [42] Instead, they came up with the idea of a national army, made of citizens. They changed their definition of military service from a choice of careers to a civic duty – something every good republican should do. [42] Before the Civil War, people saw military service as an important show of patriotism, and a necessary part of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was something they chose to do, something they had a say in, and it showed that they were good citizens. [43]

    Republic Edit

    Istilah republic is not used in the Declaration of Independence. [44] However, it does appear in Article Four of the Constitution, which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." [45]

    The United States Supreme Court has created a basic definition of what a "republic" is. Dalam Amerika Syarikat lwn Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. [46] Later, the Court's decision from In re Duncan (1891) ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition of a republic. [47]

    Democracy Edit

    Over time, most Americans changed their opinion about the word "democracy." By the 1830s, most Americans saw democracy as a great thing, and members of the new Democratic Party proudly called themselves "Democrats." [48] [49]

    After 1800, the limitations on democracy (like rules that limited who could vote) were removed one by one:


    What is an example of a Republicanism?

    A bukan-example of republicanism is care for the elderly and the poor. Dalam Republicanism, citizens are expected to be independent in their performance of their duties and responsibilities of being a citizen of the republic.

    what is the Republican principle? It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole rejects monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power, rejects direct democracy, expects citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.

    People also ask, what is Republicanism in the Constitution?

    Republicanism in the United States is a set of ideas that guides the government and politics. A republic is a type of government (one where the people can choose their leaders). Republicanism is an ideology &ndash set of beliefs that people in a republic have about what is most important to them.

    What does classical republicanism mean?

    Classical republicanism, also known as civic republikanisme or civic humanism, is a form of republikanisme developed in the Renaissance inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity, especially such classical writers as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero.


    Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the Weimar Republic: History's dark lessons

    By Matthew Rozsa
    Published June 6, 2021 6:00AM (EDT)

    Joe Biden, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitch McConnell, the QAnon Shaman and Adolf Hitler (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

    Saham

    If Donald Trump's movement is destined to be America's answer to Nazism, than the Joe Biden administration is currently a rough equivalent of the Weimar Republic — the unstable constitutional democracy that governed Germany before the rise of Adolf Hitler. The comparison is imperfect, but the cautionary tale is still clear. There is an obvious risk that Biden and the narrow Democratic majorities in Congress will fail, and that Trump or a successor will take over and then cement themselves into power for at least the next generation. Every American who wants to avoid this — especially Biden and the leading Democrats in Congress — needs to learn the right lessons from Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

    It would require a medium-length academic article to lay out all the similar and dissimilar qualities of these two nations in these two periods. But for the purposes of understanding the threat posed by Trumpism, there are five key similarities:

    1. Both sagas began with an incompetent right-wing ruler. In Germany's case, they had the misfortune of being led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who has been described as viewing "other people in instrumental terms," as a "compulsive liar" and possessing "a limited understanding of cause and effect." That sounds more than a little bit like Donald Trump, whose administration was plagued with scandal and who failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. On both occasions, that ruler was eventually removed from power (through losing both World War I and the German Revolution in the case of the former and losing the 2020 election in the case of the latter).

    2. Both stories continued because of a Big Lie. Hitler appealed to nationalist sentiments by claiming that Germany had actually won World War I but been betrayed behind the scenes by a conspiracy of socialists and Jews. Trump, who displays narcissistic traits and has spent years telling people that any election he loses is by definition stolen from him, has without evidence or any logical argument insisted that Biden cheated in 2020. Another defeated president might have been dismissed as a pathological sore loser, but Trump's cult of personality is so strong that his Trumper tantrum has now become a defining part of Republicanism.

    3. Both used their Big Lies to break democratic norms. In Hitler's case, he became a de facto legal dictator shortly after rising to power. Because America has a much longer history of unbroken democratic government than Germany did in 1933, things will be trickier for the Trumpists. In Trump's case, he became the first president to lose an election and refuse to accept the result (there have been 10 previous defeated presidents, and all accepted the voters' verdict), as well as the first to incite an insurrection to stay in power. Trump is now reportedly fueling conspiracy theories that he could still overturn the election just as significantly, Republicans are using his Big Lie to restrict voting for Democratic-leaning groups throughout the country. Through these methods, they will make it possible for Republicans to steal future elections — presidential and local — through means created to "fix" the problem they manufactured through their Big Lie. No doubt there will be many future Big Lies.

    4. Both Hitler and Trump use fascist tactics to win over their supporters. These include appeals to nationalism, vilification of "out" groups and conditioning their followers to use self-expression as a substitute for authentic political self-agency. (It helps when they can create a cult of personality around the leader figure.)

    5. Both may wind up using their legal troubles to create resurrection narratives. Hitler famously served nine months in prison for participating in a failed coup d'état known as the Beer Hall Putsch. Trump may go to prison for anything and everything from his own coup attempt to the numerous financial crimes alleged against him. If he's convicted, he will likely be held up as a martyr if he doesn't, that fact will be cited as vindication.

    Because of these similarities, it is unfortunately conceivable that Trump will complete his takeover of the Republican Party (generously assuming he has not already done so) and the Trumpists will win every future election because of their various voter suppression laws and Orwellian propaganda. We face a future in which Trump's brand of right-wing politics is not only empowered, but virtually impossible to dislodge. My guess is the process will start gaining steam soon, win some important victories in the 2022 midterm elections and then climax when either Trump or a Trumpist is elected in 2024.

    How can Biden make sure this does not happen?

    He must recognize the gravity of the crisis and prioritize neutralizing it. That means making sure Republicans can't cover up the truth about Trumpism's anti-democratic agenda, and that voting rights are protected.

    None of that will be possible as long as Republicans in the Senate can filibuster legislation to death. Even though Democrats have a theoretical majority in a 50-50 Senate because of Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote, two Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have infamously refused to support ending the filibuster. Their rationale is that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany and thereby emboldened Hitler: Like Chamberlain, they want to appease the far right extremists in their midst. Today this means legislation that would protect voting rights, investigate the Trumpist coup effort and help America's economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic is being unnecessarily thwarted or watered down by Republicans bent on reclaiming power.

    While Biden has expressed frustration with Manchin and Sinema, that is nowhere near enough. Biden and other leading Democrats need to make it clear that if Manchin and Sinema do not support ending the filibuster, they will suffer serious political consequences. The Trumpists understood this principle when they stripped Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her position in the House Republican leadership because she wouldn't back the Big Lie. In their quest to Make America Forever Trumpist, they will tolerate no dissent. When it comes to what Democrats must do to stop Manchin and Sinema, however, the goal is not to suppress dissent but to make sure that those who buat suppress dissent can't rise to power. If Manchin and Sinema refuse to do something reasonable to stop them, the Democratic Party must make them suffer politically for it. To quote John F. Kennedy's final speech (which he never got to deliver because he was assassinated: "This is a time for courage and a time of challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed."

    Consider this nightmare scenario: Sinema and Manchin switch parties and Democrats lose control of the Senate. As bad as that might be, it would also force Republicans to shoulder some of the blame for political gridlock, and might be preferable to Democrats being seen as impotent because two bad senators are blocking their entire agenda. If Biden can't get Manchin and Sinema to stop supporting the filibuster and back his agenda, then they deserve to be effectively treated as Republicans even if they remain nominal Democrats. Biden can still creatively use executive power to at least somewhat follow this next step. (I elaborate on that here.)

    That step is to make sure that he adequately addresses the people's legitimate needs. The Weimar Republic fell, in part, because of widespread economic hardships that the government simply could not fix. Biden needs to make sure that the vast majority of Americans feel economically secure, safe from threats foreign and domestic (like terrorists and pandemics), and protected from long-term existential crises like global warming, plastic pollution and income inequality. Any legislation passed anywhere in the nation that limits citizens' access to voting must be stricken from the books. Lies spread in bad faith to discourage voting, from Trump claiming he won in 2020 to myths about mail-in ballots, have to be proactively rebutted.

    It is unrealistic to expect Biden to be a revolutionary even if Manchin and Sinema do stop playing God, but he is capable of doing a lot entirely on his own. Whenever possible, he must be bold.

    Finally, Biden must make sure that we never forget Jan. 6. Just as George W. Bush's presidency was defined by his response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, so too will Joe Biden's be defined by whether he can make 1/6 into a cornerstone of our political consciousness. If he can do that, he will be able to make sure that Trumpism's anti-democratic philosophy — which poses a far more dangerous threat to America than Islamist terrorism — is known by all but its followers for what it is.

    This won't be easy, but we don't have a choice. A century ago one of the world's great powers collapsed into authoritarian evil with astonishing rapidity: While monarchists and major capitalists believed Adolf Hitler was a clown they could control, the opponents were divided, confused and ineffective. Aspects of that history are repeating themselves, and the question now is whether we have learned from the mistakes of the past to alter the outcome.

    Matthew Rozsa

    Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.


    Tonton videonya: Pengertian Sejarah: Kronologi dan Periodisasi Sejarah - SBMPTN, UN, SMA