It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?
The argument is that they were a democratic republic.
several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
If you’re referring to direct democracy, I suppose we could consider the Athenian democracy, though I think there are other examples from different regions on the planet through antiquity.
Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
Look, Mr./Mrs. iAmATotallyReasonablePersonAndNotAnInsufferableCunt, are you going to provide some evidence of whatever point you’re trying to make, or should we do this tit-for-tat some more?
Either way, no sweat. Happy to yell at the clouds with you until the heat-death of the universe.
Will you provide any evidence for your claims? It’s not me who’s claiming Roman republic was a democratic state (lol). “popular assemblies composed of common citizens” lol, look up centuriate assembly and see how many votes common sitizens had in it (spoiler: 0.5% of total votes).
We await patiently for your demonstration.
What’s the longest lifespan of a democratic state in human history? Now compare it to the average lifespan of monarchies, for example.
The measure of whether a system of government is good or bad is not “how long it lasts”.
It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?
okay russian shill, go back to /ML/.
The ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
There may be longer ones (e.g. Ancient Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese dynasties), but the Habsburg’s rule is listed from 1282-1918. The Habsburg monarchy, also known as Habsburg Empire, or Habsburg Realm (/ˈhæpsbɜːrɡ/), was the collection of empires, kingdoms, duchies, counties and other polities that were ruled by the House of Habsburg.
Roman Republic wasn’t a democracy. It was ruled by aristocratic families. Lol.
The argument is that they were a democratic republic.
If you’re referring to direct democracy, I suppose we could consider the Athenian democracy, though I think there are other examples from different regions on the planet through antiquity.
Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
So you were there and knew everything about it?
Look, Mr./Mrs.
iAmATotallyReasonablePersonAndNotAnInsufferableCunt, are you going to provide some evidence of whatever point you’re trying to make, or should we do this tit-for-tat some more?Either way, no sweat. Happy to yell at the clouds with you until the heat-death of the universe.
Will you provide any evidence for your claims? It’s not me who’s claiming Roman republic was a democratic state (lol). “popular assemblies composed of common citizens” lol, look up centuriate assembly and see how many votes common sitizens had in it (spoiler: 0.5% of total votes).
Evidence I was talking about were links to books about primary historical sources that I could read.
If the Roman Republic, isn’t democratic enough for you, then, as I said, we could talk about the Athenians. Or perhaps the Iroquois League.
But what was your point again? The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts, or something to that effect?
In your words,
and,
in response to (paraphrasing), “other systems of government other than democracy are worse.”
So, educate me and everyone else, then. What are you talking about, and send some links to back up whatever that is.
We’re not so different after all!