The politics in the Philippines has been very controversial in such a way that there are a lot of issues from one politician to another. They have been exposed to different kinds of issues, from graft and corruption to mud slinging to controversial laws being passed, budget allocation, political dynasty and many more. In this paper, we will only focus on the problems as to why anti-political dynasty bill has not been passed yet. Political dynasties are very common from local government to national government. We view political dynasty as a threat in the destruction of democracy in our country in, which our fellow Filipinos fought against President Marcos. Up until now, for almost 28 years, we still don’t have the Anti- political dynasty bill (Kenawas, 2015). To name a few of the big political clans in the country, we have the Binays, Estradas, Marcoses, the Aquinos, Arroyos, Revillas and many more. Today, these clans have been running from one position to another and they replaced by their children, spouse and siblings if they reached the term limit. They are very influential in their respective cities and they always get the votes of the people. These political dynasties result to a monopolization of power. Although there are a lot of negative effects of political dynasty, on the contrary, there is still a positive effect such as their children, spouse and siblings are exposed in leading people and their projects for their respective cities will still continue and exist
(Hellman186). The pattern of patronage, clientelism and party loyalty had been perpetuated ever since, it wasn’t until 1972 where activists had challenged the pattern of political control. Unfortunately the new leaders perpetuated the cycle of political corruption. Roberto believes that the SNTE has become a center for corruption and patronage headed by officers selling second jobs to desperate teachers
Frequent leadership changes made it difficult for each new emperor to rule effectively. On a similar note, the Roman emperor allowing his soldiers to stop using armor and not enforcing the draft showed that the government made bad decisions. Lastly, the Roman people believing that they lived better under the Huns and believing that the government was what ruined the state shows how corrupt and untrustworthy it was. People living under a government should be able to trust it to make good decisions on behalf of them. Which is not what was happening in ancient
The two dynasties, the Ming and the Han were both excellent during their period of Prosperity. The two dynasties excelled when it came towards better government education and a whole lot more. I will first give you an example on the Han dynasty, After their previous ruler costed multiple lives of the Han a man named Liu Bang won and he became the new ruler of China and the Han dynasty's first emperor. The Han had helped established a new political system, which basically meant the government administrators took control of states instead of giving the power to a individual ruler. The Han also followed the ideas of Confucianism by believing that their ruler was a father over them and they should not be lead by force.
For decades people have been wondering if the Han dynasty was effective or not. The Han dynasty was the dynasty after the Qin dynasty. Unlike the Qin dynasty that only ruled a short time of fourteen years, the Han dynasty ruled over four hundred years. So with the evidence that I have read, I believe that the Han dynasty was an effective government for a number of reasons.
It is the main system. Whenever there is a problem the people to ask the person who is leading them for help and guidance. So when an empire’s leadership is weak problems start to build and it causes chaos threw out the whole empire. Rome didn’t realize that assassinating each other to become emperor was not the right way until it was too late. The emperor didn’t care about the people in the empire all he cared about was the title of being emperor.
They both lasted close to 300 years each. With strong leadership and strategic land being conquered, they were able to last a long time with power. The two dynasties are responsible for valuable productions in the Asian world such as printing and the fine arts. Both dynasties took a fall after wars and disasters damaged their
We see in document 4 in the writings of the Chinese Philosopher, Han Fei, that leaders can not be selfish or else their empires will not run steadily and have the ability to expand without feuds between the people and the government. We see an example of this when Cicero, a powerful Roman politician, wanted to establish individual rights through the equal distribution of property (Doc 5). Both of these sources show that when a leader can control and unify an empire through their philosophies of leadership, then their empires will work steadily and how they intend them to. Because the empires are running smoothly, the people will be happier and able to expand their empires more efficiently. Also because political leaders have considerate beliefs for their people, their militaries will listen to them and be more
Both Han China and Classical India used social structure systems as a method of political control. The caste or class a person was born into in either China or India, determined your position and status, unless under extreme circumstances would a person be lowered or raised in a caste or class. However, how people were placed into a specific social structure were very different. Han China developed a social structure based upon literacy, and Classical India introduced a caste system based on “occupation”.
Big powerful special interest groups have interfered with politicians’ decision to do what’s right; it appears that the political system has become corrupted and money plays a big role in their decision and money is very influential in getting the legislators to pass bills. One would believe that our politicians are making the battles between the political parties personally; it appear that if the parties don’t agree with another, they resort to drastic measures such as shutting down the government causing more hardship on
The Qin and Han Dynasties were similar in that they both believed in a strong centralized government, which strengthened and unified their empires, but they differed in that the Qin followed the strict Legalism while the Han followed the more flexible Confucianism, and the way they interacted with outsiders; the Qin tended to be more defensive of outsiders while the Han were more interactive and wanted to build relationships with foreigners.
First, the Qin and Han Dynasties believed in a strong centralized government. The implementation of a strong centralized government led to the success and growth of their dynasties. The centralized government creates a pyramid of power and influence, with the main leader, the emperor, on top.
In final analysis, the Ming Dynasty and the Ottoman Empire were great empires while they lasted. Their leaders had a lot to do with their success. The order in their economic and political structure was crucial to maintaining their empires. Their history will always have an effect on the modern day continents of Asia, Europe and
Different periods throughout China’s history have different names, known as dynasties, for the diverse positions within its society. Theoretically, all of the periods are similar, with the government and military officials ranking high in the hierarchy, and the average everyday people being under regular Chinese law. Throughout China’s history, the society has been organized into a hierarchic system of socio-economic classes, known as the four occupations. The four occupations system seems to have become distorted after the commercialization of Chinese culture during the Song Dynasty. Even though the social rankings within the country are not as predominant as they once were, the people living within the country still know their “place” within the society.
In the early sixteenth century there were two people that wrote about political power and the correct way to rule, both of these people would have great influence on their time period as well as future ones. Machiavelli was a secretary who worked for the Medicis, after the Medici family was expelled from the city he would reflect on what he thought of politics and how he thought they should be by writing The Prince, it would become a very famous book even in the present day. His viewpoint on ruling was that a ruler must do whatever they can in order to improve the state no matter what, or in his words “The ends justify the means”(The Prince). Erasmus was a Dutch intellectual and leader of the Christian humanists who wrote a treatise on political
This is a vitally important power source used in politics and is fundamental in order to succeed. This power was even referred to by Lukes (1974) as “insidious” in nature, as it is seen as almost an abuse of power from those in higher positions especially the political elite on those more vulnerable or open to manipulation of working class background in
