A doing do in front of a

A Democratic government offers free-will to their
people with some limitations while Autocratic government limits their people
from attaining the much-needed freedom. The government holds on to power and
decide to rule the country however they please. Therefore, the answer to the
question depends on what government one is been ruled under. When people are ruled
under a government that only wants to control all the power required to make a
country succeed, it makes them very desperate and thirsty for power. When such
power is finally attained by the people they tend to follow in the footstep of
their predecessor. This is because they were not able to attain enough freedom
for them to be content with. It then becomes a problem for them to know how to
control such enormous power given to them. Also, not all Athenian citizens were
allowed to make decisions. Only the wealthy and male citizens were given the
opportunity to vote on all issues that affected the city and serve on juries
but women and children were not provided with such luxury. Therefore, although
democracy existed in Athens, it was not opened to everyone.

yes, there are situations where one’s power is limited in order to serve the
states interest. But in order for a citizen’s power to be limited or for
him/her to forgo even a portion of his/her political autonomy, the state’s interest
must be compelling. A modern-day example is when people who have the right to
protest are prevented from doing do in front of a hospital especially when it
is very busy. This is because it prevents the ER and doctors from getting to
the patient in real time and rushing them for treatments. This may lead to loss
of life if measures are not put in place.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now










          International Relations, like
everything in our existence is affected by our opinions, belief and
philosophies. Political actors approach the international arena with specific
presuppositions and biases about whom they are, who people are, and what the
world is really about. The political strategies of Athens and Melos outline the
challenging hypothesis of Realism and Idealism. Realist have this notion that
conserving power and obtaining more power are and should be the essential
inspirations of States. Questions regarding morality become secondary to this
quest for power. In contrast, idealists, believe that people are naturally
selfless and compassionate and therefore, talks of morality should be an
essential thought in putting together policies of a State. Note that idealists
are peace lovers. An example is when Melos went to war as opposed to
acknowledge Athens’ terms of peace. The distinction amongst Athens and Melos is
the inspiration behind their decision. Athens were spurred by the maintenance
and procurement of power while Melos was propelled by purely moral
suppositions. In the end, picking Realism over Idealism, or vice versa, or even
using both in international relations is influenced by the strength of the States
that accepts each approach or both. This is because in the book, it lets us
know of how Athens had military predominance over Melos, and totally defeated
the little island nation.

          In conclusion, the conflict between
Athens and Melos amid the Peloponnesian War has much to show us about
international affairs and the challenging theories of Realism and Idealism.
Both theories are based on identical human knowledge yet one acknowledges that
experience and the other wants to transform it. In regard to international
relations both approaches work best. Putting these approaches together gives
people a better chance of making better decisions and conclusion than they
would have with one approach.