Democracy in 19th Century Western Europe

Democracy in 19th Century Western Europe Democracy in 19th century western europe â€Å"How democratic were France, Germany and Britain by 1900?† Table of contents: Part I: Summary; Part II: Outline; Part III: Limitation of this study; Part IV: Democracy in France; Part V: Democracy in Germany; Part VI: Democracy in Britain; Part VII: Conclusion. Part I: Summary: Just over a century ago, the kind of government that existed in these frontline western European states was a far cry from what is seen today. The political earthquake called the French Revolution had its epicentre in France, but its rumblings were felt through most of the continent, as well as in faraway colonies, leaving the politics of most European countries in a state of flux. But the intended harvest of this revolution, an obliteration of monarchy and the rule of law, the indispensable elements of a democracy, took its time to get ingrained in the political systems of these countries, and evolved as a form of government very differently in each of the three countries taken up in this paper. If the advent of Napoleon affected these three countries, and the Vienna Congress stunted France and Germany’s graduation to democracy, the internal political dynamics in all these countries were different from each other’s. In Britain, whose brand of democrac y was mixed, the Reform Acts turned out to be milestones on the road to democracy. Such serious and well-intended steps to democracy were not taken in the other two countries. This is mainly because France kept seesawing between monarchy and autocracy through most of the 19th century, while Germany was a disparate state for most of that century. In sum, in Britain, by the end of the 19th century, a parliamentary democracy, which the nation had been having for a long time, was fairly well established, although under a monarchy. The same was not the case with the other two; in all, Germany enjoyed the least democracy. The reasons for this discrepancy form the backbone of this paper. Part II: Outline: This paper takes up separately the extent to which democracy was ushered in into these three countries. In each of these cases, a narration is made of how democracy developed. Since the nature of this paper is analytical, too much detail is not made of this aspect; this explanation is given only to reinforce the thesis question. The starting point for the evolution of democracy in each of these countries is taken up separately. This is for the simple reason that while the French Revolution happened in France, such an event did not take place in the other two countries. For these, appropriate historically important dates or events are taken up. Part III: Limitation of this study: While 1789 may be termed a signal event for modern democracy, no event of such importance concerning democracy happened in 1900, the cut off date for this paper. However, since this is the period up to which this paper is concerned, it restricts itself to developments in most parts of the 19th century, in which the major themes were unification for Germany, political uncertainty for France, and the reform of the parliamentary system in the Victorian Era for Britain.    Part IV: Democracy in France: France was home to one of the watershed political events of modern Europe, the French Revolution, in which the people rose in revolt with the slogan, war to the chà ¢teaux, peace to the cottages. The gravity and repercussions of this event are far too great to bear banal repetition; however, while the essential aim of the Revolution was to bring an end to the autocratic and inept regimes that misruled the nation, (Frey Frey, 2004, p. 57) the result it sought to instil, democracy, did not have a smooth inception or development, either, suffering from several long and enduring birth pangs. Strangely, for most part of the 19th century, it seemed as if the great revolution had turned out to be no more than an isolated, standalone event. The dividend the Revolution sought to pay, democracy, had to wait for a seemingly interminable period of time to fructify and get implanted in the nation’s political system, because the succession of governments it brought were anything but democratic. Leading political figures of the day, such as Robespierre feared that the system the revolution put in place was one which had a penchant for forgetting â€Å"the interests of the people†, would â€Å"lapse into the hands of corrupt individuals†, and worst of all, â€Å"reestablish the old tyranny† (Cohen, 1997, p. 130) Later decades showed that his prognosis was not far off the mark. The decades following the Revolution saw a chain of events, none of which took the country anywhere near democracy, the avowed aim of the Revolution. The years from the Revolution to the Franco-Prussian War saw political fissures of one or another kind, which had no semblance of democracy, starting with the ascent of Napoleon, perhaps the most powerful dictator the country had ever produced. His defeat was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy; this gave rise to the Revolution of 1830, and the rule of Louis Philippe, till 1848. It took another revolution to bring down his regime, this time in 1848. Finally, this heralded the era of the Second Republic, and the tenure of the fickle Napoleon III, leading to another event of seminal importance for the nation, the Franco-Prussian war, to be followed by yet another Republic, the Third. (Haine, 2000, p. 97) This regime, too heavily weighed down by palace intrigues, scandals, wars and renewed national pride in the wake of a highly rec harged and resurgent neighbour, Prussia, (Wright, 1916, pp. 2-4) was left with little room or time for democracy. Nothing of import happened in the period till the end of the 19th century to necessitate the emergence of a democracy. Part V: Democracy in Germany: Germany’s tryst with democracy in the 19th century needs to be seen in circumstances that were peculiar and unique to the nation’s history. This was when the German people united as a nation for the first time.   They had been a loosely knit confederation of princely states that owed its allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire by the time of the French Revolution; yet, in about a century of this event, they had been cobbled together almost magically under the Prussian banner. A series of moves replete with uninhibited daredevilry, gamble, deceit and sheer diplomatic astuteness on the part of its Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck had united the German people, ridding them of the yoke of Austrian domination of its peoples. (Snell, 1976, pp. 3, 4) However, Germany had only been united, resulting in the realisation of a long-lasting and cherished dream of a German nation; this did not in any way mean that a democracy had been put in place. Even so, the newly-knit entity did not have the prerequisite groundwork for democracy, suffering from a basic flaw –it â€Å"was constructed by its princes, not by its people. That important fact distinguished Germany from nations like England, France, and the United States, where the constitutions were designed with the consent of the governed. The German Empire was a federation of sovereign states, its constitution created by a treaty among the hereditary rulers of those states. The wars of unification were not revolutionary popular movements; they were narrowly focused international conflicts designed by Bismarck to help Prussia eliminate Austrian power within Germany and to create a new Prussian-led German nation within Europe.†Ã‚   (Turk, 1999, pp. xvii-null22) Whatever spattering of democracy the nation had towards the fag end of the century was limited to social democracy, in which it was confined to labour unions. (Berghahn, 1994, p. 160) Part VI: Democracy in Britain: The year 1815 is considered a benchmark for the politics of Britain, as it was for several other European countries, for the simple reason that this year saw the end of the power and influence of one of the greatest nemeses it ever saw, Napoleon. However, while this was the major issue for the nation externally, Britain had its share of internal problems, as well, during this century. The Industrial Revolution brought in its wake dramatic changes which the nation had to ingest, with both the promises and the pitfalls it spawned. Among the most important social effects the Industrial Revolution had on the nation was a near-explosion in population, and the drawbacks of nascent industrialisation, at which it had no forerunners from any part of the world. Thus, the greatest priority at that time was a set of policies that gave the country social solidity and some element of peace. (McCord, 1991, p. 1) With the high rates of population growth and their atte ndant problems such as high infant mortality being great priorities during the early part of the 19th century, (Brown, 1991, p. 30) the air of politics was abuzz with the question of which of the institutions the British had so assiduously built up over the previous centuries was best suited to give coherence to the society that was changing at a feverish pace. In this milieu, the emphasis for British politics was more over what kind of reform was suited and needed for the society, polity and the economy, rather than which form of government was best suited to carry these changes out. Opinion was sharply divided among the Conservatives and the Liberals about which of its institutions could carry the day for Britain. The unshakable British faith in the monarchy was as firm as ever, not diluting or eroding even slightly on account of these changes. (Park, 1950, pp. 3-5)   In essence, the 19th century, during whose most part Britain was under the rule of one of its longest-reigning monarchs, Queen Victoria, saw the emergence of a peculiarly hybridised, yet often contradictory system of governance. Quintessential democratic institutions, such as the parliament, the judiciary, the cabinet and the local government were alive and well, but functioned under a monarchy. On the one hand, fair and free elections, the ultimate identifier of a democracy, were being held with amazing regularity; on the other, it could not be denied that participation in these elections was limited to the handful of rich and powerful. It was to correct this set of imbalances and to draw more people into the electorate that the Reform Acts were passed. The basic intent of these sets of legislation was the promotion of greater democracy, by drawing the excluded and marginalised sections of society into the electorate. (Pugh, 1999, p. 20) The nation went through three Reform Acts, passed in 1832, 1867 and 1884, whose central aim was increasing the numbers of the electorate. (Hammond Foot, 1952, pp. 212-214) At about the time these Acts were passed, a parallel social and political reform movement, Chartism, was very active. The basic demand of this radical, unionised movement was greater political participation for the working classes, so that the fruits of the Industrial Revolution percolated down to the labour class, too. (Maccoby, 1935, p. 33) However, in the light of the needs of the day, and the priority these Acts had, they met with little success in actually bringing in democracy to the country. What has been said about the Reform Act of 1832, perhaps holds good for the other Acts, too –that they were â€Å"†¦an excellent example of the British skill of muddling through. An aristocracy muddled through to a democracy, taking many of the aristocratic virtues with them; and they muddled through from an age of privilege to an age of numbers. The democratic implications of the act(s) were not in fact revealed for more than a generation†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Smellie, 1962, p. 164) As a result, through most of the Victorian Era, although efforts were made haltingly towards bringing in more democracy, there was no more than a sprinkling of democracy; even this happened at the grassroots level, being restricted to the municipal level, as a series of Acts were passed at the local government level. (Harrison, 1996, p. 20) Part VII: Conclusion: A study of the thesis question throws up a mixed picture. Overall, democracy, so essential a feature of these countries today, had had to make a bumpy and potholed journey. In all these countries, democracy was nebulous and uncertain in the 19th century, albeit in varying degrees. In Britain, a parliamentary democracy was very much in full bloom, but the inherent love and pride of the British people for their monarchy pre-empted a switch to a full-fledged democratic form of government. As a result, these democratic institutions functioned under a monarchy that controlled the largest empire of the day. In France, the scene was different. In the absence of democratic institutions of the kind Britain had nurtured, the governance the French Revolution brought about vacillated between various kinds, with the result that democracy took a backseat. In Germany, the struggles inherent in a newly unified nation, coupled with its naivety in running its newly developing imperialism resulted in too many squabbles and bottlenecks for democracy. The nation that Bismarck had welded together had the ingenuity to only work under a newly consolidated empire, not having been inculcated the necessary mindset for a democracy. It was never going to be easy for these fissiparous peoples to be administered a sudden dose of democracy, as by definition they had been inured to centuries of localism. By the end of that century, democracy was nowhere registered in the average German psyche. Of all these nations taken up for this study, it can be said that Britain had the highest form of democracy by the end of the 19th century; yet, here too, despite the Reform Acts, which could not be termed a great harbinger of democracy, it was nowhere near what may be termed a pure democracy, something that came so naturally to some of its colonies, principally America.

Module Five: The Sacraments Essay

Trace the development of the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the early church with special reference to how it is understood and celebrated in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Assignment: 3. Trace the development of the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the early church with special reference to how it is understood and celebrated in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. We all have experience of ‘celebration’. When I think of a celebration what comes to mind are the external factors, the cake, candles, and the food. Sometimes we forget the real meaning of celebration, the story behind the festivity. The celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist is where we find our story. This essay will outline the development of the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the Early Church, paying particular focus on how the Eucharist is celebrated in the church since the Second Vatican Council. Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church celebrate something, and that something is to do with God’s love and grace, experienced and related to one’s own story. (CCRS notes). Vatican II’s desire was to restore the sacraments back to the centre of Church life. The earliest celebration of the Eucharist were home Masses (Acts 2:46 says ‘they broke bread at home’) even with small numbers these early Christians were establishing the traditions for the future. There is clear evidence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is clear evidence of his unconditional love. What makes the bread sacred is not magic but the reality of the words. (Huebsch 1989). â€Å"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, â€Å"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.† In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, â€Å"This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.†(Corinthians 11:23-30) The bread and wine for the early Christians was much more than a meal, it was a coming together of the  community of God, each time a reference is made about the bread or the wine it is a reference to the people of God. For Huebsch the early Christians like us today are accepting the whole community of God when receiving communion, all his people with their strengths and weakness. An important development for the celebration of the Eucharist was the movement from the ‘home Mass’ of the very early Church to the Eucharist of the larger p ublic buildings. The large basilicas allowed for processions. Sunday became a holiday, giving more time for Christians to celebrate. Liturgies became longer and more elaborate. In these early days, the celebrant at the liturgy had considerable freedom to compose their own prayers for the Mass. Soon, however, standardisation set in, as the various communities began to adopt the prayers of their more articulate celebrants. (Kellly:1998) In the Fourth century, Constantine’s toleration of Christianity (313) led to its rapid spread throughout the Roman Empire. This led to significant changes in the celebration of the Liturgy. Latin became the standard language of the liturgy. At first, the assemblies met in basilicas later they built and dedicated churches and the clergy grew in numbers. During this era, they began to wear special clerical clothes. The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist grew in importance, while the meal symbolism faded into the background (Kelly: 1998). This period stressed Christ’s divinity; this led to the people feeling less worthy to approach the Lord. As a result, there was a decline in the reception of communion. Theologians in the Middle Ages debated the meaning of the â€Å"real presence† of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine. They used the term transubstantiation to describe the mystery of the bread and wine being changed into Jesus’ risen body and blood. The stress was on the sacrificial nature of the mass. There was a growing sense that the laity were spectators to a drama unfolding on the altar. This led to a feeling that the consecration was the high point of the Mass. Emphasis fell, not on receiving Jesus in communion, but on seeing and adoring the Eucharistic Lord. Since fewer laity were receiving communion, a small round wafer (called host) substituted the traditional loaf of bread. (CCRS notes). As so few were receiving Holy Communion, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) passed a law that re quired Catholics to receive communion at least once a year. Practices that focused on Eucharistic devotion began to appear. These included Elevation of the Host  and chalice at Mass. The priest had his back to the people, he had to hold the host and chalice up high. People would sometimes call out, â€Å"Hold it higher, priest.† Some were so keen on this practice they would run from one church to another just to be there for the moment of consecration! (O’Deasss 2013) .The Eucharistic prayer was recited silently by the priest except for the words of consecration which were voiced a little louder but not so loud as to be heard by the people because the people couldn’t hear the Eucharistic prayer, and even if they could they would not understand the Latin, many filled in the time by reciting the rosary or other devotional prayers during Mass. (O’Deasss 2013) The sixteenth century brought about the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) met to correct some of the abuses that had crept into the Church. It also defended some Catholic beliefs attacked by the Reformers. In the area of the Eucharist, the church fathers reaffirmed the real presence of Jesus and the adequacy of the theological term, transubstantiation. They also defended the sacrificial nature of the Mass against the Reformers. Most significantly, Pope Pius V published a Roman Missal (1570) to bring uniformity to the official ritual. The Church then used this for the next four hundred years. (CCRS notes) Since the reform of 1570, a lot more was discovered about the Eucharist of the early Church and this enabled Vatican II to restore the liturgy more accurately to the traditions that had been lost. Vatican II’s key document the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) led to the renewal of all the Sacraments. Important changes that we take for granted today include the following; celebrating the Mass in the vernacular language so we can understand more fully what it means; the Liturgy of the Word has greater importance; Guidelines instruct the homilist to develop the homily based on the readings. The Sunday readings revolve around a three-year cycle; this emphasis has helped Catholics discover the scriptures. The altar now faces the people, this invites a clearer understanding of what is going on at the Eucharist, and it also symbolically opens the Mass to fuller participation by all those present. Today’s Mass includes the Prayer of the Faithful, which links the Eucharistic worship to the whole church, the world, and the suffering in the community. Active congregational participation is an important feature of the post-Vatican II liturgy. Before, we commonly spoke of â€Å"attending Mass.† Today, we emphasise, â€Å"celebrating the Eucharist.† The  Mass is not a private affair. It is public worship in which the community, led by the priest, joins in thanking, praising, and adoring God together. The laity assumes many ministerial roles today, for example, as readers, Eucharistic ministers, choir members, greeters, and gift bearers. Vatican II wished to make the Eucharist a celebration of the entire community. Many of the reforms help us better understand the symbolism and meaning of the mass. They also help us gather together as a worshipping community. (Kelly 1998). Pope John Paul 11 mentioned this vital connection when he stated: â€Å"the Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist.† The council did encourage changes in the liturgy. However, many people have misinterpreted this message and have down played the importance of the Eucharist in the Church and in our personal lives. Some members of the Church will claim that this council stated that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, thus denying the Real Presence. On the contrary, almost every Vatican II document speaks of the Real Presence, and implies that we need to increase our devotion to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. â€Å"Really sharing in the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with him and with one another.† (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) 1963) This essay has traced the development and celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist from the early Christian Church and has demonstrated that the focus at this time was sharing, participating, celebrating and making a personal connection with God. It has also explained that since the establishment and development of the early Catholic Church, the real meaning of the Eucharist was lost and people no longer felt connected to the sacraments. They were observers in the church rather than taking an active role. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church attempted to involve the people and encourage them to experience Jesus’ real presence through the sacrament. â€Å"In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith. Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.† (1327 Catechism) The celebration of the Eucharist is a call, a call of the risen Christ who continues to give himself to us calling us to his banquet, through this celebration we can participate in our faith more richly. As Pope Benedict  explained so passionately: â€Å"I encourage you all to discover ever more fully in the sacrament of Christ’s sacrificial love† (Paclva 2013). Bibliography Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Geoffrey Chapman.1994. CCRS notes Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) 1963 Good News Bible, Second edition 1994 The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) 1963 O’Deasss,F: http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/the-author/ Eucharist the basic spiritually, 2013 Huebsch, B: Rethinking the sacraments, London, 1989 Pacliva, M: The Eucharist: A Bible study for Catholics, USA, 2013 Kelly, L: Sacraments Revisited, What do they mean today, 1998

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Reaction Paper

My Reaction to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Maya Angelou once proclaimed in an interview, â€Å"All my work is meant to say, ‘You may encounter many defeats but you must not be defeated’† (Anthology). This statement holds especially true in her autobiography I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Her inspirational coming of age story is filled with many defeats that shaped her into the independent and compassionate woman she became. After reading this book, I found there to be many meaningful areas that opened up my eyes and made me think again about my own personal and professional development.In addition, it allowed me to inquire more questions and wanted me to learn more about Maya Angelou’s path to greatness. There were many significant parts in Angelou’s autobiography that dealt with the issues of racism, sexism, violence, and loneliness. In my opinion, the parts that dealt with these various issues were most meaningful because they are controversi al issues that Angelou was courageous enough to write about. From the start of the book, Angelou expresses her racist views when she is in church and fantasizes that one day she will wake up out of her â€Å"black ugly dream. This part of the book foreshadows the rest of the racist events that will occur throughout the novel. For instance, the time when Angelou goes to the dentist with her Momma, the dentist says he would rather stick his hand in the mouth of a dog than in her mouth. Later in the book, Angelou discusses how she is raped by her mother’s boyfriend. She does not speak for five years because of this sexual assault. Later on, when her silence is broken, Angelou is involved with a violent attack. This time it is her father’s girlfriend who stabs her with scissors out of pure jealousy.Throughout the book Angelou feels alone because she has insecurities about the way that she looks and the color of her skin. Her loneliness is drawn out more after she is raped because she puts the blame on herself. All these monumental parts of the book are most meaningful because it shows Angelou’s endurance and how her life is not frayed by the unfortunate events that took place in her life. Throughout her childhood, Angelou experienced things that she should have never had to experience. It is admirable to think that with so many negatives in ones life Angelou was able to become such a successful person.Reading about Angelou’s experiences led me to think about my development as a person. Maya Angelou turned out to be successful even through her harsh childhood. I then question myself about what is stopping myself from developing in such way with a normal childhood. Upon finishing I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, I took away many reasons why this book will help my personal and professional development. I never experienced a traumatic childhood quite the way Angelou did. Therefore, I should be more thankful for the loving family I have, th e non-prejudice community I live in, my safety, and my college education.If Angelou was as victorious as she was all while enduring major hardships, then there is no excuse for me not to be. This book has also taught me, even though I may not see it, that people do go through hardships. For example, when Angelou took a vow of silence after her rape, no one understood why she was doing it. There is always a reason for why a person acts in the way that they do. As a professional, I will do my best not to judge anyone on the outside because I have no idea what goes on in their personal life. As a future occupational therapist, I will try to have my clients open up to me.Therefore, I can find out what is going on in their personal life and not judge them, but help them instead. I may have an impact on a clients life just by giving them an equal opportunity. There are many questions I raised and areas that I would like to learn more about upon finishing the autobiography of Maya Angelou. The novel ends in a positive picture of Maya with her newborn son. I question how much did Angelou’s life change with her newborn son and how she was able to accomplish so many things while taking care of her child?She, after all, was involved with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and published many famous works of literature. Was it hard for her as an African American woman to achieve so much while facing racism and sexism? Lastly, how does her story end? Does Angelou end up with a loving husband whom she could’ve celebrated all her achievements with? My response to this novel is a positive one. The most meaningful part of this book is the way that Angelou was able to find herself while enduring major conflicts such as racism, sexism, violence, and loneliness. In her wn words she did encounter many defeats, but that did not stop her from being the best that she could be. For that reason Maya Angelou is an inspiration and a role model. From reading this book I know now that I am capable of developing myself more personally and professionally. I have not encountered many defeats in my life but if I were I know that I can brave the storm and not be defeated, just like Angelou was not. References Angelou, M. (1997). I know why the caged bird sings. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Douglass, F. (2004). The norton anthology of african american literature. (2 ed. ). New York New York: W. W. Norton and company.

Personal Statements about My Future Career in Business

I would like to re-enrol at MBA this year as I am dedicated to my studies and my future career in business. I failed my year due to unforeseen health circumstances, which are now vastly elevated. I failed the course as I didn’t do well in the exam, due to ill health on my part. Specifically, I had a medical problem causing deafness in one of my ears. This condition resulted in my having frequent headaches, and I was unable to hear clearly; these symptoms interfered severely with my studies and I found it impossible to properly concentrate on my exam. I have submitted a medical certificate to validate these details. I am happy to report that, after some time on medication, my condition is improving. My headaches are subsiding and my overall concentration is much better. Therefore I do not think it will interfere with my studies so detrimentally from this point on, and I will be able to concentrate on the exam next time. My assignments and presentations for this course were all of a good standard. It was only the exam that I failed, due to the above reasons. My enthusiasm was not an issue; I thoroughly enjoy this subject and am confident that I can do well in it now that my health has improved. I am passionate about business and one hundred per cent committed to my studies. If I were allowed to re-enrol this year I would put all of my energy and effort into the course.