Montesquieu - Rational Democracy

Do you agree? Is democracy better suited to some places than other? Or is it best for the progress of the world that all governments move towards elections and checks on governmental power?

I believe a Rational Democracy can either be very good, or very bad in a country. It cannot be said whether it is a ‘good or bad’ thing because it really depends on what state the country is. 

Rational Democracy can be good for a country, unlike what Montesquieu said.  This is because what he stated in his works was true, if you give someone a large amount of power, they will take advantage of it. To establish a democracy in every country, where each branch is limited is the best choice. People would finally have a say and get to vote for their leaders. Also, no branch, except the Legislative branch, a group of people, can overthrow the other, which happens if completely necessary. Overall, it is a good idea since it limits the power of each person, yet there is still a sense of power in a minimal way. 

But, then again, Rational Democracy is not for everyone, as Montesquieu said. As stated, a government should be dependent on the religion, cultures, and laws the country has established. Of course, a government should support their people and give them their basic human rights. But when the country has a law of cruel punishments, such as torture or death, it isn’t good for the people. Furthermore, as Montesquieu writes in his book Sparks and Isaacs, “The bottom line for judging whether a social order is acceptable is not whether any other society’s customs are similar to European ones, but whether they attend to people’s basic human requirements – for security, and for a degree of stimulating pleasure.” The government serves the people, and when the people dont have their basic human rights, as Locke stated, then it is no use to put in a democracy. 

In conclusion, either way can be good or bad, but certain aspects of the democracy are good, while others will not work with other countries. 

Differences in Colonies

Thesis

There are many things that differentiate countries from each other: climate, economy basis, location. There is only one main difference between the Northern, Middle and Southern colonies that effected their society as a whole: the colonists' goals and motivation. This is because the beliefs each of the colonists had influenced the way they lived and the conflicts they got into.


Northern Colonies

The Northern Colonies, made up of hard working Puritans, came for religious freedom from England. Coming with families, the Puritans were there to settle. They not only wanted to settle there permanently, but they wanted to come to build a model society or The City Upon a Hill. This was because England would have to look up to see their colony. Furthermore, because they wanted to establish a model society they built an education system. They made education accessible to all so everyone would be 'equal'. On the other hand, because they wanted to build a model society they had strict standards. If anyone was to do something delinquent, they would banish them immediately. Since they had a strict way of life they did not tolerate Indians. They ran into many problems with the Pequot Natives which even caused one of the largest wars between colonists and Indians: the Pequot War. Overall, their behavior and beliefs caused many improvements and deteriorations to their society


Middle Colonies

The Middle Colonies, made up of open minded Quakers, came for religious tolerance. William Penn, who was banished, established Pennsylvania as a place we're anyone was free to have faith.  Quakers believed anyone could reach God which caused a lot of problems between Puritans, who believed certain individuals were able to reach God. Furthermore, Quakers believed everyone was equal, including the Indians that they ran into. Because William Penn believed in buying rather than taking, he created a treaty between the colonists and the Indians. In this treaty he gave some wilderness land to the Indians - land that was an owed debt from King Charles II. Because of their open minded beliefs, they created a safe haven to many Quakers who had problems with church before.


Southern Colonies

The Southern Colonies, made up of young single men, came for because of economic motivation. They came for Gold that was supposedly in the New World. They originally came to the New world because they were the second sons of rich families, where the first son received the large sum of money instead. When they heard about the Gold filled new world they couldn't resist. Because they lacked many skills, they had many problems with starvation, and even had a 'Starving Period'. They did not want to put effort into creating a society because they believed they would be in the New World for a short period of time. Also because they did not want to work, they hired Indentured Servants who were promised land after years of work. After they were done with their work they would receive their land, except outside of the city walls where the Indians lived. The Indentured did not believe this was fair because they gave years of their life for this moment, and they were only lied too, which then caused Bacon's Rebellion. After the rebellion, they then shipped slaves from Africa to do labor instead. After many years of living in the colony, they then realized that tobacco was an easily grown plant, therefore basing their economy on that. Powhatan, the local Indians there, did not like that colonists were on the land. Also since the colonists viewed the Powhatan as heathens they did not want the Natives on their land. This created many different violent wars between the Powhatan and the Colonists. Overall this colony was successful in terms of their agriculture, except their discouragement did not benefit them.