Proclamation of the Republic (Brazil)
The Proclamation of the Republic was a military coup d'état that established the First Brazilian Republic on 15 November 1889. It overthrew the constitutional monarchy of the Empire of Brazil and ended the reign of Emperor Pedro II; the proclamation of the Republic took place in Rio de Janeiro capital of the Empire of Brazil, when a group of military officers of the Brazilian Army, led by Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, staged a coup d'état without the use of violence, deposing Emperor Pedro II and the President of the Council of Ministers of the Empire, the Viscount of Ouro Preto. A provisional government was established that same day, 15 November, with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca as President of the Republic and head of the interim Government. From the 1870s, as a consequence of the Paraguayan War, the idea of some sectors of the elite was altered to change the current political regime. Factors that influenced this movement: The Emperor Pedro II had no male children, only daughters; the throne would be occupied, after his death, by his eldest daughter, Princess Imperial of Brazil, married to a Frenchman, Prince Gaston, Count of Eu, which generated the fear in part of the population that the country would be ruled by a foreigner.
The fact that the negroes helped the army in the Paraguayan War and, when they returned to the country, remained as slaves, that is, they did not gain the freedom of their owners. The resentment of the agrarian elite for the abolition of slavery, which they considered to be a personal desire of the imperial family and not of the people; the growth of the positivist and republican idea of Auguste Comte between the members of the Brazilian Army and its resentment with the monarchy by delicate military questions. The Imperial Government, through the 37th and last ministerial cabinet, was inaugurated on 7 June 1889, under the command of the President of the Council of Ministers of the Empire, Afonso Celso de Assis Figueiredo, the Viscount of Ouro Preto of the Liberal Party, perceiving the difficult political situation in which he was present, presented in a last desperate attempt to save the Empire to the Chamber of Deputies, a program of political reforms which included, among others, the following measures: greater autonomy administrative freedom for the provinces, universal suffrage, freedom of education, reduction of prerogatives of the Council of State and non-lifelong mandates for the Imperial Senate.
The proposals of the Viscount de Ouro Preto aimed at preserving the monarchical regime in the country, but were vetoed by the majority of deputies of conservative tendency that controlled the General Chamber. On 15 November 1889, the republic was proclaimed by the positivist militaries supported by the agrarian elite resented for not being compensated for the abolition of slavery. There were many factors that led the Empire to lose the support of its military bases. On the part of the conservative groups, by the serious friction with the Catholic Church. On the part of the progressive groups, there was the criticism that the monarchy had maintained until late, the slavery in the country. Progressives criticized the absence of initiatives aimed at the economic, political or social development of the country, the maintenance of a political regime of caste and census voting, that is, based on the annual income of the people, the absence of a system of universal education, high rates of illiteracy and misery, the political withdrawal of Brazil from all other countries on the continent, which were republican.
Thus, at the same time that imperial legitimacy declined, the republican proposal - perceived as meaning social progress - gained space. However, it is important to note that the Emperor's legitimacy was distinct from that of the imperial regime: While, on the one hand, the population respected and loved Emperor Pedro II, on the other hand, had less and less the Empire. In this sense, it was a common voice at the time that there would be no third reign, that is, the monarchy would not continue to exist after the death of Pedro II, whether due to the lack of political support of the monarchical regime itself or due to the concerns about the succession by a woman, Princess Isabel, in a still misogynistic society; the prince consort, husband of Princess Isabel, the French Count d'Eu, was hard of hearing, he spoke with a French accent, moreover, he owned slums in Rio, for which he collected exorbitant rents from poor people. It was feared. Although the phrase of Aristides Lobo, "The people witnessed bestialized" to the proclamation of the republic, has entered into history, more recent historical research has given another version to the acceptance Of the republic among the Brazilian people.
This is the case of the thesis defended by Maria Tereza Chaves de Mello, which indicates that the republic and after the proclamation, was popularly seen as a political regime that would bring about development, in a broad sense, to the country, Although the common people did not want to change the regime of government. The abolitionist question had been imposed since the abolition of the slave trade in 1850, finding resistance among the country's traditional agrarian elites. In view of the measures adopted by the Empire for the gradual extinction of the slave regime, due to the repercussion of the unsuccessfu
A common definition of separatism is that it is the advocacy of a state of cultural, tribal, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group. While it refers to full political secession, separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy. While some critics may equate separatism with religious segregation, racist segregation, or sexist segregation, most separatists argue that separation by choice may serve useful purposes and is not the same as government-enforced segregation. There is some academic debate about this definition, in particular how it relates to secessionism, as has been discussed online. Separatist groups practice a form of identity politics, or political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice visited upon members of certain social groups; such groups believe attempts at integration with dominant groups compromise their identity and ability to pursue greater self-determination. However and political factors are critical in creating strong separatist movements as opposed to less ambitious identity movements.
Groups may have one or more motivations for separation, including: Emotional resentment and hatred of rival communities. Protection from genocide and ethnic cleansing. Resistance by victims of oppression, including denigration of their language, culture or religion. Influence and propaganda by those inside and outside the region who hope to gain politically from intergroup conflict and hatred. Economic and political dominance of one group that does not share power and privilege in an egalitarian fashion. Economic motivations: seeking to end economic exploitation by more powerful group or, conversely, to escape economic redistribution from a richer to a poorer group. Preservation of threatened religious, language or other cultural tradition. Destabilization from one separatist movement giving rise to others. Geopolitical power vacuum from breakup of larger states or empires. Continuing fragmentation as more and more states break up. Feeling that the perceived nation was added to the larger state by illegitimate means.
The perception that the state can no longer support one has betrayed their interests. Opposition to political decisions. How far separatist demands will go toward full independence, whether groups pursue constitutional and nonviolent or armed violence, depend on a variety of economic, political and cultural factors, including movement leadership and the government's response. Governments may respond in a number of ways; some include: accede to separatist demands improve the circumstances of disadvantaged minorities, be they religious, territorial, economic or political adopt "asymmetric federalism" where different states have different relations to the central government depending on separatist demands or considerations Allow minorities to win in political disputes about which they feel through parliamentary voting, etc. Settle for a confederation or a commonwealth relationship where there are only limited ties among states; some governments suppress any separatist movement in their own country, but support separatism in other countries.
Ethnic separatism is based more on cultural and linguistic differences than religious or racial differences, which may exist. Ethnic separatist movements include the following: Eurasia The Soviet Union's dissolution into its original ethnic groupings which formed their own nations of Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Chechen separatism in the Caucasus the Republic of Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. Serb separatism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. Albanian separatism in Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia Greeks separatism in Northern Epirus region of Albania. Turkish separatism in Cyprus. South Ossetian and Abkhazian separatism in Georgia. Armenian separatists of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. Azeri separatists in Iran want to unite the provinces of East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan and Ardabil with Azerbaijan. Kurdish separatism in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Sorbs separatism in Germany. Silesian separatism in Czech Republic. Basque and Catalan separatism in Spain.
Minor separatist movements in Andalusia, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Galicia, León, Navarre and Valencia. "Celtic nations" in the British Isles have created various separatist movements from the United Kingdom described as Scottish independence, Welsh Nationalism, Irish Republicanism and Cornish Nationalism. France's Basque, Corsican, Breton and Savoyan separatists. Italy's separatist movements in Friuli, Sicily, South Tyrol and Veneto. Bavarian separatism in Germany, despite the Bavarian Land being referred to as the Bavarian Free State. Belgium granting Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia greater autonomy. In the Netherlands, some Frisians covet an autonomous area. Switzerland's division into cantons along geographical and linguistic lines. Russian separatism in Crimea Separatist movements of Pakistan including Balochistan movement and the Sindhudesh movement. Separatist movements of India Jammu and Kashmir Assam separatist movements Insurgency in Northeast India Sri Lanka's ethnic Tamil minority separatism in Tamil Eelam.
Several ethnic minority groups fighting for separate states in Myanmar, including the Chin, Karen, Rohingya
The Glorious Revolution called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III, Prince of Orange, James's nephew and son-in-law. William's successful invasion of England with a Dutch fleet and army led to his ascension to the throne as William III of England jointly with his wife, Mary II, James's daughter, after the Declaration of Right, leading to the Bill of Rights 1689. King James's policies of religious tolerance after 1685 met with increasing opposition from members of leading political circles, who were troubled by the King's Catholicism and his close ties with France; the crisis facing the King came with the birth of his son, James, on 10 June. This changed the existing line of succession by displacing the heir presumptive with young James as heir apparent; the establishment of a Roman Catholic dynasty in the British kingdoms now seemed likely. Some Tory members of parliament worked with members of the opposition Whigs in an attempt to resolve the crisis by secretly initiating dialogue with William of Orange to come to England, outside the jurisdiction of the English Parliament.
Stadtholder William, the de facto head of state of the Dutch United Provinces, feared a Catholic Anglo–French alliance and had been planning a military intervention in England. After consolidating political and financial support, William crossed the North Sea and English Channel with a large invasion fleet in November 1688, landing at Torbay. After only two minor clashes between the two opposing armies in England, anti-Catholic riots in several towns, James's regime collapsed because of a lack of resolve shown by the king; this was followed, however, by the protracted Williamite War in Ireland and Dundee's rising in Scotland. In England's distant American colonies, the revolution led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of the Province of Maryland's government. Following a defeat of his forces at the Battle of Reading on 9 December 1688, James and his wife Mary fled England. By threatening to withdraw his troops, William, in February 1689, convinced a newly chosen Convention Parliament to make him and his wife joint monarchs.
The Revolution permanently ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. For British Catholics its effects were disastrous both and politically: For over a century Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament; the Revolution led to limited tolerance for Nonconformist Protestants, although it would be some time before they had full political rights. It has been argued by Whig historians, that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: the Bill of Rights 1689 has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain and never since has the monarch held absolute power. Internationally, the Revolution was related to the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe, it has been seen as the last successful invasion of England. It ended all attempts by England in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century to subdue the Dutch Republic by military force; the resulting economic integration and military co-operation between the English and Dutch navies, shifted the dominance in world trade from the Dutch Republic to England and to Great Britain.
The expression "Glorious Revolution" was first used by John Hampden in late 1689, is an expression, still used by the British Parliament. The Glorious Revolution is occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately; the English Civil War was still within living memory for most of the major English participants in the events of 1688, for them, in comparison to that war the deaths in the conflict of 1688 were few. During his three-year reign, King James II became directly involved in the political battles in England between Catholicism and Protestantism, between the concept of the divine right of kings and the political rights of the Parliament of England. James's greatest political problem was his Catholicism, which left him alienated from both parties in England; the low church Whigs had failed in their attempt to pass the Exclusion Bill to exclude James from the throne between 1679 and 1681, James's supporters were the high church Anglican Tories. In Scotland, his supporters in the Parliament of Scotland stepped up attempts to force the Covenanters to renounce their faith and accept episcopalian rule of the church by the monarch.
When James inherited the English throne in 1685, he had much support in the'Loyal Parliament', composed of Tories. His Catholicism was of concern to many, but the fact that he had no son, his daughters and Anne, were Protestants, was a "saving grace". James's attempt to relax the Penal Laws alienated his natural supporters, because the Tories viewed this as tantamount to disestablishment of the Church of England. Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence; the majority of Irish people backed James II for this reason and because of his promise to the Irish
Absolute monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the monarch holds supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. These are hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state's authority derives from and is bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature; some monarchies have a weak or symbolic legislature and other governmental bodies the monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Countries where monarchs still maintain absolute power are: Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City and the individual emirates composing the United Arab Emirates, which itself is a federation of such monarchies – a federal monarchy. In Ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh wielded absolute power over the country and was considered a living god by his people. In ancient Mesopotamia, many rulers of Assyria and Sumer were absolute monarchs as well. In ancient and medieval India, rulers of the Maurya, Gupta and Chalukya Empires, as well as other major and minor empires, were considered absolute monarchs.
In the Khmer Empire, the kings were called "Devaraja" and "Chakravartin", exercised absolute power over the empire and people. Throughout Imperial China, many emperors and one empress wielded absolute power through the Mandate of Heaven. In pre-Columbian America, the Inca Empire was ruled by a Sapa Inca, considered the son of Inti, the sun god and absolute ruler over the people and nation. Korea under the Joseon dynasty and short-lived empire was an absolute monarchy. In the Ottoman Empire, many sultans wielded absolute power through heavenly mandates reflected in their title, the "Shadow of God on Earth". Throughout much of European history, the divine right of kings was the theological justification for absolute monarchy. Many European monarchs, such as those of Russia, claimed supreme autocratic power by divine right, that their subjects had no rights to limit their power. James VI of Scotland and his son Charles I of Scotland and England tried to import this principle. Charles I's attempt to enforce episcopal polity on the Church of Scotland led to rebellion by the Covenanters and the Bishops' Wars fears that Charles I was attempting to establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of the English Civil War, despite the fact that he did rule this way for 11 years starting in 1629, after dissolving the Parliament of England for a time.
By the 19th century, the Divine Right was regarded as an obsolete theory in most countries in the Western world, except in Russia where it was still given credence as the official justification for the Tsar's power until February Revolution in 1917. There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European monarchs. Some, such as Perry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the concept of absolutism. In general, historians who disagree with the appellation of absolutism argue that most monarchs labeled as absolutist exerted no greater power over their subjects than any other non-absolutist rulers, these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the absolutist rhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute monarchs. Renaissance historian William Bouwsma summed up this contradiction: Nothing so indicates the limits of royal power as the fact that governments were perennially in financial trouble, unable to tap the wealth of those ablest to pay, to stir up a costly revolt whenever they attempted to develop an adequate income.
Though some historians doubt if he had, Louis XIV of France is said to have proclaimed "L'état, c'est moi". Although criticized for his extravagances, such as the Palace of Versailles, he reigned over France for a long period, some historians consider him a successful absolute monarch. More revisionist historians have questioned whether Louis' reign should be considered'absolute', given the reality of the balance of power between the monarch and the nobility; the King of France concentrated in his person legislative and judicial powers. He was the supreme judicial authority, he could condemn people to death without the right of appeal. It was both his duty to stop them from being committed. From his judicial authority followed his power both to annul them. One of his steps in creating an absolute monarchy in France was to build the Palace of Versailles, where he lived with many of his nobles and other important people, in order to control and watch over them. Absolutism was underpinned by a written constitution for the first time in Europe in 1665 Kongeloven of Denmark-Norway, which ordered that the Monarch "shall from this day forth be revered and considered the most perfect and supreme person on the Earth by all his subjects, standing above all human laws and having no judge above his person, neither in spiritual nor temporal matters, except God alone".
This law authorized the king to abolish all other centers of power. Most important was the abolition of the Council of the Realm. In Brandenburg-Prussia, the concept of absolute monarch took a notable turn from the above with its emphasis on the monarch as the "first servant of the state", but it echoed many of the important characteristics of Absolutism. Frederick William, known as the Great Elector, used the uncertainties of the final stages of the Thirty Years' War to consolidate his territories into the dominant kingdom in northern Germany, whilst increasing his power over his subjects
The Iranian Revolution was a series of events that involved the overthrow of the last monarch of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the replacement of his government with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a leader of one of the factions in the revolt. The movement against the United States-backed monarchy was supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and student movements. Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that included both secular and religious elements, which intensified in January 1978. Between August and December 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country; the Shah left Iran for exile on 16 January 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and Shapour Bakhtiar, an opposition-based prime minister. Ayatollah Khomeini was invited back to Iran by the government, returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians; the royal reign collapsed shortly after on 11 February when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting, bringing Khomeini to official power.
Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979 and to formulate and approve a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979. The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world: it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution, occurred in a nation, experiencing relative prosperity, produced profound change at great speed, was massively popular, resulted in the exile of many Iranians, replaced a pro-Western authoritarian monarchy with an anti-Western totalitarian theocracy based on the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists, it was a non-violent revolution, it helped to redefine the meaning and practice of modern revolutions. Reasons advanced for the revolution and its populist and Shi'a Islamic character include a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah, a rise in expectations created by the 1973 oil revenue windfall and an overly ambitious economic program, anger over a short, sharp economic contraction in 1977–78, other shortcomings of the previous regime.
The Shah's regime was seen as an oppressive, brutal and extravagant regime by some of the society’s classes at that time. It suffered from some basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks and inflation; the Shah was perceived by many as beholden to – if not a puppet of – a non-Muslim Western power whose culture was affecting that of Iran. At the same time, support for the Shah may have waned among Western politicians and media – under the administration of U. S. President Jimmy Carter – as a result of the Shah's support for OPEC petroleum price increases earlier in the decade; when President Carter enacted a human-rights policy which said countries guilty of human-rights violations would be deprived of American arms or aid, this helped give some Iranians the courage to post open letters and petitions in the hope that the repression by the government might subside. The revolution that replaced the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islamism and Khomeini, rather than with another leader and ideology, is credited in part to the spread of the Shia version of the Islamic revival that opposed Westernization and saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the Shi'a Imam Husayn ibn Ali and the Shah in the role of Husayn's foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I.
Other factors include the underestimation of Khomeini's Islamist movement by both the Shah's reign – who considered them a minor threat compared to the Marxists and Islamic socialists – and by the secularist, opponents of the government – who thought the Khomeinists could be sidelined. The Shi'a clergy had a significant influence on Iranian society; the clergy first showed itself to be a powerful political force in opposition to the monarchy with the 1891 Tobacco protest. On 20 March 1890, Nasir al-Din Shah granted a concession to Major G. F. Talbot for a full monopoly over the production and export of tobacco for fifty years. At the time the Persian tobacco industry employed over 200,000 people, so the concession represented a major blow to Persian farmers and bazaaris whose livelihoods were dependent on the lucrative tobacco business; the boycotts and protests against it were widespread and extensive because of Mirza Hasan Shirazi's fatwa. Nasir al-Din Shah found himself powerless to stop the popular movement and cancelled the concession.
The Tobacco Protest was the first significant Iranian resistance against the Shah and foreign interests, revealed the power of the people and the Ulema influence among them. The growing discontent continued until the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1911; the revolution led to approval of the first constitution. Although the constitutional revolution was successful in weakening the autocracy of the Qajar regime, it failed to provide a powerful alternative government. In the decades following the establishment of the new parliament, a number of critical events took place. Many of these events can be viewed as a continuation of the struggle between the constitutionalists and the Shahs of Persia, many of whom were backed by foreign powers against the parliament. Insecurity and chaos created
Nepalese Civil War
The Nepalese Civil War, known popularly as the Maoist Conflict, Maoist Insurgency or Maoist Revolution, was a ten-year-long armed conflict between the Communist Party of Nepal and the government of Nepal, fought from 1996 to 2006. The insurgency period was popularly known as Maovadi Dwandakaal in Nepal; the rebellion was launched by the CPN-M on 13 February 1996 with the main aim of overthrowing the Nepalese monarchy and establishing a People's Republic. It ended with the Comprehensive Peace Accord signed on 21 November 2006; the conflict was characterized by lynchings, purges and autonomous rule, spread of communist teachings, conflicts against the authority and crimes against humanity. The revolution resulted in deaths of over 17,000 people involving civilians, insurgents and police personnels, internally displaced hundreds of thousands of people; this revolution succeeded in overthrowing the 240 years old Hindu Shah monarchy of Gorkha and established secular republican regime which resulted in political and cultural change in Nepal popularly termed Krambhanga.
More than 17,000 people were killed during the conflict, including over 4,000 Nepalis killed by Maoists from 1996-2005, over 8,200 Nepalis killed by government forces from 1996-2005. In addition, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 people were internally displaced as a result of the conflict. Furthermore, this conflict disrupted most rural development activities. On 10 January 1990, the United Left Front was formed, together with the Nepali Congress, was the backbone of the broad-based movement for democratic change. However, communist groups, uncomfortable with the alliance between the ULF and the Congress Party, formed a parallel front, the United National People's Movement; the UNPM called for elections to a constituent assembly, rejected compromises made by ULF and the Congress Party with the royal house. In November 1990, the Communist Party of Nepal, or CPN, was formed, included key elements of the UNPM. On 21 January 1991, the CPN set up the United People's Front of Nepal, with Baburam Bhattarai as its head, as an open front to contest elections.
The CPN held its first convention on 25 November 1991, adopted a line of "protracted armed struggle on the route to a new democratic revolution", decided that the party would remain an underground party. In the 1991 election, the UPFN became the third-largest party in the Nepali parliament. However, disagreements within the UPFN surged. One group, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, argued for immediate armed revolution, while the other group, led by Nirmal Lama, claimed that Nepal was not yet ripe for armed struggle. On 22 May 1994, the CPN/UPFN was split in two; the militant faction renamed itself the Communist Party of Nepal, or CPN. This faction described the government forces, mainstream political parties, the monarchy, as "feudal forces"; the armed struggle began on 13 February 1996, when the CPN carried out 7 simultaneous attacks over 6 districts. The Nepali government mobilized the Nepal Police to contain the insurgency; the Royal Nepal Army was not involved in direct fighting because the conflict was regarded as a matter for which the police would sustain control.
Controversy grew regarding the army not assisting the police during insurgent attacks in remote areas. On 19 July 2001, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala resigned over his inability to tackle the Maoist insurgency, over the refusal of the army to take part in the conflict. On 25 July 2001, the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba and the Maoist insurgents declared a ceasefire, held peace talks from August–November of that year; the failure of these peace talks resulted in the return to armed conflict, beginning when the Maoists attacked an army barracks in Dang District in western Nepal, on 22 November. Overnight, the army was unleashed against the insurgents, mobilizing artillery; the insurgency situation changed in 2002, as the number of attacks by both sides increased and more people died than in any other year of the war. The government responded to the insurgency by banning anti-monarchy statements, imprisoning journalists, shutting down newspapers accused of siding with the insurgents. Several rounds of negotiations, accompanied by temporary ceasefires, were held between the insurgents and the government.
The government categorically rejected the insurgents' demand for elections to a constituent assembly, for fear that it would result in the abolition of the monarchy by a popular vote. At the same time, the Maoists refused to recognize the installation of a constitutional monarchy. In November 2004, the government rejected both the Maoists' request to negotiate directly with King Gyanendra rather than via Prime Minister Deuba, the Maoists' request for discussions to be mediated by a third party such as the United Nations. Throughout the war, the government controlled the main cities and towns, whilst the Maoists dominated the rural areas; this was a result of the fact that all government institutions were located in either the capital city Kathmandu, or the headquarters of a district. In August 2004 Kathmandu came under rebel control, as the Maoists performed a week-long blockade of the city. Under the aegis of the global War on Terror and with the stated goal of averting the development of a "failed state" that could serve as a source of regional and international instability, the United States, United Kingdom, India, among other nations, provided extensive m
Second French Empire
The Second French Empire the French Empire, was the regime of Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870, between the Second Republic and the Third Republic, in France. Many historians disparaged the Second Empire as a precursor of fascism. By the late 20th century some were celebrating it as leading example of a modernizing regime. Historians have given the Empire negative evaluations on its foreign-policy, somewhat more positive evaluations of domestic policies after Napoleon liberalized his rule after 1858, he promoted French business, exports. The greatest achievements came in material improvements, in the form of a grand railway network that facilitated commerce and tied the nation together and centered it on Paris, it had the effect of stimulating economic growth, bringing prosperity to most regions of the country. The Second Empire is given high credit for the rebuilding of Paris with broad boulevards, striking public buildings, attractive residential districts for upscale Parisians. In international policy, Napoleon III tried to emulate his uncle, engaging in numerous imperial ventures around the world as well as several wars in Europe.
Using harsh methods, he built up the French Empire in North Africa and in Southeast Asia. Napoleon III sought to modernize the Mexican economy and bring it into the French orbit, but this ended in a fiasco, he badly mishandled the threat from Prussia, by the end of his reign, Napoleon III found himself without allies in the face of overwhelming German force. On 2 December 1851, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, elected President of the Republic, staged a coup d'état by dissolving the National Assembly without having the constitutional right to do so, he thus became sole ruler of France, re-established universal suffrage abolished by the Assembly. His decisions were popularly endorsed by a referendum that month that attracted an implausible 92 percent support. At that same referendum, a new constitution was approved. Formally enacted in January 1852, the new document made Louis-Napoléon president for 10 years, with no restrictions on reelection, it concentrated all governing power in his hands. However, Louis-Napoléon was not content with being an authoritarian president.
As soon as he signed the new document into law, he set about restoring the empire. In response to inspired requests for the return of the empire, the Senate scheduled a second referendum in November, which passed with 97 percent support; as with the December 1851 referendum, most of the "yes" votes were manufactured out of thin air. The empire was formally re-established on 2 December 1852, the Prince-President became "Napoléon III, Emperor of the French"; the constitution had concentrated so much power in his hands that the only substantive changes were to replace the word "president" with the word "emperor" and to make the post hereditary. The popular referendum became a distinct sign of Bonapartism, which Charles de Gaulle would use. With dictatorial powers, Napoleon III made building a good railway system a high priority, he consolidated three dozen incomplete lines into six major companies using Paris as a hub. Paris grew in terms of population, finance, commercial activity, tourism. Working with Georges-Eugène Haussmann, Napoleon III spent lavishly to rebuild the city into a world-class showpiece.
The financial soundness for all six companies was solidified by government guarantees. Although France had started late, by 1870 it had an excellent railway system, supported as well by good roads and ports. Napoleon, in order to restore the prestige of the Empire before the newly awakened hostility of public opinion, tried to gain the support from the Left that he had lost from the Right. After the return from Italy, the general amnesty of August 16, 1859 had marked the evolution of the absolutist or authoritarian empire towards the liberal, parliamentary empire, to last for ten years; the idea of Italian unification – based on the exclusion of the temporal power of the popes – outraged French Catholics, the leading supporters of the Empire. A keen Catholic opposition sprang up, voiced in Louis Veuillot's paper the Univers, was not silenced by the Syrian expedition in favour of the Catholic Maronite side of the Druze–Maronite conflict. Ultramontane Catholicism, emphasizing the necessity for close links to the Pope at the Vatican played a pivotal role in the democratization of culture.
The pamphlet campaign led by Mgr Gaston de Ségur at the height of the Italian question in February 1860 made the most of the freedom of expression enjoyed by the Catholic Church in France. The goal was to mobilize Catholic opinion, encourage the government to be more favorable to the Pope. A major result of the ultramontane campaign was to trigger reforms to the cultural sphere, the granting of freedoms to their political enemies: the Republicans and freethinkers; the Second Empire favored Catholicism, the official state religion. However, it tolerated Protestants and Jews, there were no persecutions or pogroms; the state dealt with the small Protestant community of Calvinist and Lutheran churches, whose members included many prominent businessmen who supported the regime. The emperor's Decree Law of 26 March 1852 led to greater government interference in Protestant church affairs, thus reducing self-regulation. Catholic bureaucrats both were biased against it; the administration of their policies affected not only church-state relations but the internal lives of Protestant communities.
Napoleon III manipulated a range of politicized poli