Aristocrats also include those holding special titles such as Baron, Baroness, or duchess. Certain rulers, such as , tyrant of Akragas in Sicily, who allegedly burned his enemies alive in a bull, were bywords for uncontrolled cruelty and self-indulgence, but others, such as Pittakos at Mytilene, were remembered favourably in later sources as wise and moderate rulers who brought prosperity and peace to their cities. Evolution of the concept For the ancient Greeks, a was not necessarily a bad ruler; in its original form tyrannos the word was used to describe a person who held absolute and personal power within a state, as distinct from a monarch, whose rule was bound by constitution and law. Meaning An aristocracy is a form of government where leaders are drawn from the elite classes of society. Those rulers had certain fundamental features in common.
In 1971 the 26th ammendment to the Constitution of India abolished all official symbols of princely India, including titles, privileges, and remuneration. Aristocracy vs Democracy Identifying the difference between the terms Aristocracy and Democracy is not a complex task. This supreme power is typically exercised by the people either directly or through a representative system. In Athens, the aristocrats would remain wealthy citizens when the democracy began as a rule , but they would no longer rely solely on politics to provide for them. Now, we'll have a look at the various pros and cons of an aristocracy government. In part that reflects a genuine change in political circumstances.
Aristocracy, literally 'rule by the golden', refers to government by the best people. The longest lasting, widest reaching and most prominent monarchy in India was the Mughal Empire. In it, Plato discusses aristocracy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy and timocracy, but he makes clear his opinion of aristocracy as the superior system. These states were politically aligned with the British. In the beginning the tyrant figures in the poetic sources as an enviable status, something to which an aristocrat might aspire.
So the idea of an 'aristocratic republic' is a contradiction. Far too many people in Britain were snobs and gave the aristocracy respect it didn't deserve. As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist. Some tyrants were usurpers who came to power by their own efforts; others were elected to rule; and still others were imposed by intervention from outside. Well, the real name of such a government is aristocracy, which is explained below, with its advantages and disadvantages. Most notably, he was succeeded by his two sons, and Hipparchos, turning the rule into a hereditary one. Democratic states may have elements of both representative and direct democracy.
Impoverishment and an increase in foreign interference meant that constitutions tended to become unstable, and hence many of those classical tyrants came to power on a platform of economic reform to benefit the lower classes, offering the cancellation of debts and redistribution of land. But as absolute rule became established in the Roman Empire, the terms of debate shifted, focusing on the question of when monarchic power became tyrannical in nature. It's contrasted from a democratic republic because it does not allow the ordinary citizens to vote for their representatives. While Aristotle favored aristocracy as a way to ensure that society is ruled by those who are best suited to the role, historian John Cannon notes that, today, democracy is considered by Western nations to be the best form of government. Another View: Republic and Aristocracy are two quite different words. In view of the huge time-span involved the details of the privileges … varied over time.
Additionally, it was thought that the members of such privileged classes possessed the valor for battle in their youth, and the ability to give valuable advice in old age. Clear limits were set to the amount of power any one individual could command. That is, it is not run by a king or any other sort of monarch who inherited the job from his or her father or mother. From 1714, when the House of Hanover ruled England, until the 19th century, England had a king and parliamentary form of government but was actually run as an aristocracy. Every representative has equal rights together with the people of the nation. The people in an Aristocratic government are not elected but instead are automatically appointed owing to their rank, status or hereditary nobility.
One view sees rivalry between aristocratic families who vied to take all power into their own hands; the other suggests that tyrants were representative of a newly politically conscious dēmos people who supported their rise in the hope of improving their position within the state. In some places, age and experience plays an important role, resulting in councils formed by the senior-most members of society. But some tyrants were chosen by the state to rule with a specific purpose: to put an end to civil war, to impose a new code of law, or to offer leadership in a time of danger. During this time from the mid 1800's to 1947 , the British controlled much of the country, while there were a number of semi autonomous Princely States in existence which were ruled by Maharajahs, Nawabs, Nizams etc. In antiquity the word tyrant was not necessarily and signified the holder of absolute political power. A modern-day example of an aristocratic state, according to Michigan State University, is Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by a monarch and all of the important political roles are occupied by the royal family or people the monarch selects himself. Well, depending on the individual city states, a couple different things could have happened.
In some city states, the aristocrats themselves took power, and formed oligarchies, which are forms of government in which small groups of upperclassmen control the city state. This was because, only members of the upper social classes were allowed to rule, and they could pass whatever laws they wished, leaving citizens at their mercy. Paradoxically, then, an excess of democracy renders free the terror of tyranny only to be pacified, atrocities later, when true aristocracy is reborn. Kingship, according to Roman historians, could all too easily turn into tyranny, and the later kings are depicted as tyrants of the negative type—cruel, exploitative, and self-indulgent—so under the republic, the Romans set their faces against monarchy of any kind. Under those circumstances the idea of tyranny changed from a constitutional issue to an one, and tyrannos, rather than indicating a ruler who was not a , came to be used to describe a particular type of king: one who put his or her own interests before those of the citizens and acted without restraint by the law.