Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

30

There was a mechanism called voting against Hitler. Unfortunately, Hitler's opponents failed to set aside their differences and unite against him. It is important to realise that Hitler did not gain dictatorial powers solely by virtue of winning a democratic election (though the Nazi electoral performance helped immensely). In fact, in the last generally ...


9

The Crown could not refuse assent without launching a coup d'etat against parliament in circumstances that would have produced outrage against the Crown sufficient to result in an election that would surely return a ministry bound to dismiss the existing Governor General, and, potentially, force a republic. Westminster inspired Crowns have generally sought ...


6

Such concern likely existed, and there is evidence of some cursory discussion to that effect during the proceedings of the Continental Congress. The rationale for creating a federal district with sole jurisdiction of the Congress was probably laid out best (among the surviving documents) by James Madison: The indispensable necessity of complete authority ...


5

The election of March 5th 1933 was not a free and fair election anymore, unlike todays elections in the US and Europe. Opposition party members had gotten arrested and people intimidated, so the Reichstag opposition members, not all were present, were under intense pressure to do nothing about it.


5

Because it suited British interests to do so. It seems you are wondering why the Poona Pact was reversed, but this should not be surprising. The Poona Pact was a compromise between Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi, designed to reconcile the Untouchables and the Hindus against British Imperialism. In contrast, the Government of India Act 1935 was an ...


4

Before making statements about the US Constitution, I suggest reading it. The original Constitution said nothing about who does or who does not have the right to vote. Voting standards during the colonial and immediate post-colonial period were the same as those in Britain, which operated on a simple principle: whoever paid taxes was entitled to a single ...


3

This seems to be the rulers' method of "divide and rule", and largely to prevent the Congress from getting too strong: ...ensuring that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government.. This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every possible minority the right to separately vote for ...


2

To complement Mark's answer, from the Marxist perspective where "prosperity" could only be viewed as the maximisation of value under bourgeois control. I was reading an abstract today on the commodity form's [use in human communities, resulting in reflected legal and political ideology as people consider their practice in the light of commodity society, and ...


1

Each of the Greek city states had its own constitution. Some had kings, others were ruled by an aristocratic oligarchy. Democracy (in the original Greek sense of the term) was basically limited to Athens. It is not true that Greece was “mostly comprised of many small islands”; Athens in any case is not an island. So your linkage of democracy and islands ...


1

One of the primary aims of the Government of India Act was to weaken the rising Indian governing class, specifically, the Congress Party. For instance, Burma was separated from India altogether, and a number of Indian provinces were subdivided for "gerrymandering purposes. The idea of having "separate but equal" electorates for the classes at the bottom was ...


1

You need to realize that the Government of India Act was passed by Britain, not India, since India was a British colony at the time. Whatever Gandhi worked out with the other Indians has no effect on what the Brits do unless they convinced them it's for better for British interests, which they didn't.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible