Comparisons of Athenian and Spartan Governments Essay

Comparisons of Athenian and Spartan Governments - Essay Example There were two prominent cities in ancient Greece that possess distinct and contrasting governmental systems. Athens and Sparta were the two most powerful city states then and their influence, especially in the field of governance, was widespread in the region. Since the two states have different systems of government, both are worth studying and comparing for the purpose of deriving ideas and lessons on modern states should be run. Sparta’s government has often been construed as similar to the modern autocracy. This impression is brought about by the structure of the government itself. At the helm are the Ephors who were elected yearly by the people. The Ephors were composed of five individuals who did not belong to the royalty. They enjoyed unlimited power when it comes to executing the laws of the state. Due to the blanket authority that the Ephors practiced and also because of their small number, the Spartan government may at best be considered as an oligarchy. Oligarchy l iterally means the rule of a few. However, it must be noted that while the Ephors may have unlimited power and while they may be on top of the governmental hierarchy, they could not actually monopolize political power for several reasons. First of all, being an Ephor is not a birthright and it is also not a position that one can held on to for life. As pointed out, there is a clear length of time that an individual can rule as part of a collective, which is one year. An election would be held every year, which means that an individual may no longer retain his seat as Ephor. The thought of becoming an ordinary citizen after a year of being on society’s highest power structure might discourage an individual Ephor from committing abuses. Since the rule is collective in essence, there was already a degree of check and balance from within the ranks of the five Ephors. If the Spartans are not satisfied with the way the Ephors are managing the affairs of the state or with how they a re treating the citizens, they would just wait for the next elections and the individual Ephors could be subjected to removal or replacement. Under such setup, it is clear that autocracy may not be the most accurate term to describe Sparta’s government. An oligarchy, notwithstanding the fact that it is just for a year, may be the best description. While the Ephors controlled all the executive functions of the Spartan government, there was also the Council of Elders, which may be considered as the equivalent of the senate. The Council of Elders was composed of 28 members who are aged 60 and above. The age requirement definitely borne out of the belief that one’s life experience is reflective of his wisdom. Aside from the 28, the Council of Elders also includes the two kings who, upon the increased powers of the Ephors, have been relegated to figureheads and their only actual governmental function was to become part of the Council. The Council of Elders is responsible fo r making the laws as well as deciding on important issues that affect the state and society. However, whatever decision that the Council of Elders arrive at would not be deemed as a final governmental policy unless this has been approved by the General Assembly. The General Assembly was composed of all male citizens with ages 30 and above. This much larger body, however, â€Å"did not debate but only voted on the issues put before it by the Council of El

Did the Constitutional Treaty Answer the Laeken Questions Essay

Did the Constitutional Treaty Answer the Laeken Questions - Essay Example The main matters dealt with during the Laeken Council held in Belgium included new measures in the area of Justice and Home Affairs which emphasized on the European Arrest Warrant, a common definition of terrorism, and the European Justice the seats of 10 new EU agencies. As a guide for the citizen's expectations raised in the summit, poll evidence in other countries suggest that the citizens want a more effective EU in terms of foreign and security policy, environment and a more clear fight against organized crime. September 11th has stretched the pace of integration of external and internal security. The treaty's provisions in the internal security policies is the "affirmation on the respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, the rule and respect for human rights including minorities, non-discrimination and equality between men and women"3. Common policies on border checks; asylum and immigration are provided under the treaty where cooperation is expected on judicial matters and police implementation scheme. Under this power, the Commission will have the power to take the member states to court for "failure to implement legislation on most justice matters like infringement procedures"4. The treaty is aiming to facilitate recognition of judgments and judicial decisions in criminal matter having a cross-border dimension. Such rules may cover mutual recognition and admissibility of evidence between member states in their criminal procedures. The Council acting by an unanimous vote with its members intends to specifically address crimes like terrorism, trafficking of humans and sexual exploitation, drug trade and arms, money laundering, corruption, counterfeit, computer and organised crime. The concerns specifically expressed regarding security measures were catered for in the treaty. The Constitutional Treaty has addressed the several questions raised during the Laeken council but the new solidarity clause specifies that any member state which becomes a victi m to a terrorist attack or other disaster will receive assistance from other member states. The question on the clear distinction on the exclusive competence of the Union and the member states and the particular the powers assigned by the treaties to the union was raised. The European convention in answer has submitted a proposal that underlines "a catalog of competences is not the aim of the exercise and that the five countries prefer a flexible approach to the issue of competences, but explicitly stating that the Union has no competences other than those conferred on it by the Member States through the treaties"5. More precisely, the powers of the EU may be widespread but is also narrow where exclusive competence is nowhere defined. There is no rigid demarcation line between the EU and its member states. Where EU and its member states have a more forceful power in trade and monetary policies- in other aspects it is playing second fiddle to the member states. Where EU enjoys no general competence and nobody is arguing that it requires one, "the five member states propose t he creation of a new political body, consisting of national parliamentarians mandated by the council, to ensure scrutiny of proposals by EU institutions"6. For the most part, as a proposing body a