A dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, limited political pluralism. According to other definitions, democracies are regimes in which "those who govern are selected through contested elections". With the advent of the 19th and 20th centuries and constitutional democracies emerged as the world's two major forms of government eliminating monarchies, one of the traditional widespread forms of government of the time. In a dictatorial regime, the leader of the country is identified with the title of dictator, although their formal title may more resemble something similar to "leader". A common aspect that characterized dictators is taking advantage of their strong personality by suppressing freedom of thought and speech of the masses, in order to maintain complete political and social supremacy and stability. Dictatorships and totalitarian societies employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems.
The word "dictator" comes from the classical Latin language word dictātor, agent noun from dictare In Latin use, a dictator was a judge in the Roman republic temporarily invested with absolute power. Right after the end of World War II, with a more relaxed political and social climate, several studies regarding the classification of various forms of government have been conducted. Among these, has been intensely discussed by historians and political scientists the conceptualization and definition of the dictatorship form of government, it has been concluded that dictatorship is a form of government in which the absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a leader, a "small clique", or a "government organization", it aims the abolition of political pluralism and civilian mobilization. On the other hand, compared to the concept of dictatorship, is defined as a form of government where the supremacy belongs to the population and rulers are elected through contested elections. A new form of government that, in the 20th century, marked the beginning of a new political era and is linked to the concept of dictatorship, is known as totalitarianism.
This form of government is characterized by the presence of a single political party and more by a powerful leader who imposes his personal and political prominence. The two fundamental aspects that contribute to the maintenance of the power are: a steadfast collaboration between the government and the police force, a developed ideology. Here, the government has "total control of mass communications and social and economic organizations". According to Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism is a new and extreme form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated individuals". In addition, she affirmed that ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire society should be organized. According to the political scientist Juan Linz, the distinction between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian one is that while an authoritarian regime seeks to suffocate politics and political mobilization, totalitarianism seeks to control politics and political mobilization. However, one of the most recent classification of dictatorships, formulated, do not identify Totalitarianism as a form of dictatorship.
In Barbara Geddes's study, she focused in how elite-leader and elite-mass relations influence authoritarian politics. Geddes typology identifies the key institutions; the study is based and directly related to factors like: the simplicity of the categorizations, cross-national applicability, the emphasis on elites and leaders, the incorporation of institutions as central to shaping politics. According to Barbara Geddes, a dictatorial government may be classified in five typologies: Military Dictatorships, Single-party Dictatorships, Personalist Dictatorships, Hybrid Dictatorships. Military dictatorships are regimes in which a group of officers holds power, determines who will lead the country, exercises influence over policy. High-level elites and a leader are the members of the military dictatorship. Military dictatorships are characterized by rule by a professionalized military as an institution. In military regimes, elites are referred to as junta members. Single-party dictatorships are regimes.
In single-party dictatorships, a single party has control over policy. Other parties may exist, compete in elections, hold legislative seats, yet true political power lies with the dominant party. In single-party dictatorships, party elites are members of the ruling body of the party, sometimes called the central committee, politburo, or secretariat; these groups of individuals controls the selection of party officials and "organizes the distribution of benefits to supporters and mobilizes citizens to vote and show support for party leaders". Personalist dictatorships are regimes. Personalist dictatorships differ from other forms of dictatorships in their access to key political positions, other fruits of office, depend much more on the discretion of the personalist dictator. Personalist dictators may be leaders of a political party. Yet, neither the military nor the party exercises power
Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world. A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms as it may be a constitutional monarchy or a republic, it may have a presidential system or a semi-presidential system.
Liberal democracies have universal suffrage, granting all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of ethnicity, sex, or property ownership. However some countries regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise and some do not have secret ballots. There may be qualifications such as voters being required to register before being allowed to vote; the decisions made through elections are made not by all of the citizens but rather by those who are eligible and who choose to participate by voting. The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state; the purpose of a constitution is seen as a limit on the authority of the government. Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Liberal democracies are to emphasise the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat, i.e. a state that follows the principle of rule of law. Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure.
Many democracies use federalism—also known as vertical separation of powers—in order to prevent abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between municipal and national governments. Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th-century known as the Age of Enlightenment. At the time, the vast majority of European states were monarchies, with political power held either by the monarch or the aristocracy; the possibility of democracy had not been a considered political theory since classical antiquity and the held belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had been ordained by God and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount to blasphemy.
These conventional views were challenged at first by a small group of Enlightenment intellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided by reason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued that all people are created equal and therefore political authority cannot be justified on the basis of "noble blood", a supposed privileged connection to God or any other characteristic, alleged to make one person superior to others, they further argued that governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed. Some of these ideas began to be expressed in England in the 17th century. There was renewed interest in Magna Carta, passage of the Petition of Right in 1628 and Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 established certain liberties for subjects; the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and liberties.
The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not prevail. This led to significant social change in Britain in terms of the position of individuals in society and the growing power of Parliament in relation to the monarch. By the late 18th century, leading philosophers of the day had published works that spread around the European continent and beyond; these ideas and beliefs inspired the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which gave birth to the ideology of liberalism and instituted forms of government that attempted to apply the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice. Neither of these forms of government was what we would call a liberal democracy we know today (the most significant differences being that voting rights were still restricted to a minority of the population and slavery remained a legal instituti
Kleptocracy is a government with corrupt leaders that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political powers. This system involves embezzlement of funds at the expense of the wider population. Kleptocracy is different from a plutocracy. Kleptocrats may use political leverage to pass laws that enrich them or their constituents and they circumvent the rule of law. Kleptocracies are associated with dictatorships, military juntas, or other forms of autocratic and nepotist governments in which external oversight is impossible or does not exist; this lack of oversight can be caused or exacerbated by the ability of the kleptocratic officials to control both the supply of public funds and the means of disbursal for those funds. Kleptocratic rulers treat their country's treasury as a source of personal wealth, spending funds on luxury goods and extravagances as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers secretly transfer public funds into hidden personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries to provide for themselves if removed from power.
Kleptocracy is most common in developing countries whose economies are based on the export of natural resources. Such export incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are easier to siphon off without causing the income to decrease. A specific case of kleptocracy is Raubwirtschaft, German for "plunder economy" or "rapine economy", where the whole economy of the state is based on robbery and plundering the conquered territories; such states are either in continuous warfare with their neighbours or they milk their subjects as long as they have any taxable assets. Arnold Toynbee has claimed. Contemporary studies have identified 21st century kleptocracy as a global financial system based on money laundering. Kleptocrats engage in money laundering to obscure the corrupt origins of their wealth and safeguard it from domestic threats such as economic instability and predatory kleptocratic rivals, they are able to secure this wealth in assets and investments within more stable jurisdictions, where it can be stored for personal use, returned to the country of origin to support the kleptocrat's domestic activities, or deployed elsewhere to protect and project the regime's interests overseas.
Illicit funds are transferred out of a kleptocracy into Western jurisdictions for money laundering and asset security. Since 2011, more than $1 trillion has left developing countries annually in illicit financial outflows. A 2016 study found that $12 trillion had been siphoned out of Russia and developing economies. Western professional services providers are an essential part of the kleptocratic financial system, exploiting legal and financial loopholes in their own jurisdictions to facilitate transnational money laundering; the kleptocratic financial system comprises four steps. First, kleptocrats or those operating on their behalf create anonymous shell companies to conceal the origins and ownership of the funds. Multiple interlocking networks of anonymous shell companies may be created and nominee directors appointed to further conceal the kleptocrat as the ultimate beneficial owner of the funds. Second, a kleptocrat's funds are transferred into the Western financial system via accounts which are subject to weak or nonexistent anti-money laundering procedures.
Third, financial transactions conducted by the kleptocrat in a Western country complete the integration of the funds. Once a kleptocrat has purchased an asset this can be resold, providing a defensible origin of the funds. Research has shown the purchase of luxury real estate to be a favored method. Fourth, kleptocrats may use their laundered funds to engage in reputation laundering, hiring public relations firms to present a positive public image and lawyers to suppress journalistic scrutiny of their political connections and origins of their wealth; the United States is international kleptocrats' favoured jurisdiction for laundering money. In a 2011 forensic study of grand corruption cases, the World Bank found the United States was the leading jurisdiction of incorporation for entities involved in money laundering schemes; the Department of Treasury estimates. This kleptocratic financial system flourishes in the United States for three reasons. First, the absence of a beneficial ownership registry means that it is the easiest country in the world in which to conceal the ownership of a company.
The United States produces more than 2 million corporate entities a year, 10 times more shell companies than 41 other countries identified as tax havens combined. It takes more information to obtain a library card than to form a US company. Second, some of the professions most at risk of being exploited for money laundering by kleptocrats are not required to perform due diligence on prospective customers, including incorporation agents and realtors. A 2012 undercover study found that just 10 of 1,722 U. S. incorporation agents refused to create an anonymous company for a suspicious customer. Third, such anonymous companies can freely engage in transactions without having to revea
Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. It is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty. It has had different definitions and interpretations which vary based on historical context and methodological approach. Republicanism may refer to the non-ideological scientific approach to politics and governance; as the republican thinker John Adams stated in the introduction to his famous Defense of the Constitution, the "science of politics is the science of social happiness" and a republic is the form of government arrived at when the science of politics is appropriately applied to the creation of a rationally designed government. Rather than being ideological, this approach focuses on applying a scientific methodology to the problems of governance through the rigorous study and application of past experience and experimentation in governance; this is the approach that may best be described to apply to republican thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, John Adams, James Madison.
The word "republic" derives from the Latin noun-phrase res publica, which referred to the system of government that emerged in the 6th century BCE following the expulsion of the kings from Rome by Lucius Junius Brutus and Collatinus. This form of government in the Roman state collapsed in the latter part of the 1st century B. C. giving way to what was a monarchy in form, if not in name. Republics recurred subsequently, for example, Renaissance Florence or early modern Britain; the concept of a republic became a powerful force in Britain's North American colonies, where it contributed to the American Revolution. In Europe, it gained enormous influence through the French Revolution and through the First French Republic of 1792–1804. In Ancient Greece, several philosophers and historians analysed and described elements we now recognize as classical republicanism. Traditionally, the Greek concept of "politeia" was rendered into Latin as res publica. Political theory until recently used republic in the general sense of "regime".
There is no single written expression or definition from this era that corresponds with a modern understanding of the term "republic" but most of the essential features of the modern definition are present in the works of Plato and Polybius. These include theories of civic virtue. For example, in The Republic, Plato places great emphasis on the importance of civic virtue together with personal virtue on the part of the ideal rulers. Indeed, in Book V, Plato asserts that until rulers have the nature of philosophers or philosophers become the rulers, there can be no civic peace or happiness. A number of Ancient Greek city-states such as Athens and Sparta have been classified as "classical republics", because they featured extensive participation by the citizens in legislation and political decision-making. Aristotle considered Carthage to have been a republic as it had a political system similar to that of some of the Greek cities, notably Sparta, but avoided some of the defects that affected them.
Both Livy, a Roman historian, Plutarch, noted for his biographies and moral essays, described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from a kingdom to a republic, by following the example of the Greeks. Some of this history, composed more than 500 years after the events, with scant written sources to rely on, may be fictitious reconstruction; the Greek historian Polybius, writing in the mid-2nd century BCE, emphasized the role played by the Roman Republic as an institutional form in the dramatic rise of Rome's hegemony over the Mediterranean. In his writing on the constitution of the Roman Republic, Polybius described the system as being a "mixed" form of government. Polybius described the Roman system as a mixture of monarchy and democracy with the Roman Republic constituted in such a manner that it applied the strengths of each system to offset the weaknesses of the others. In his view, the mixed system of the Roman Republic provided the Romans with a much greater level of domestic tranquility than would have been experienced under another form of government.
Furthermore, Polybius argued, the comparative level of domestic tranquility the Romans enjoyed allowed them to conquer the Mediterranean. Polybius exerted a great influence on Cicero as he wrote his politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BCE. In one of these works, De re publica, Cicero linked the Roman concept of res publica to the Greek politeia; the modern term "republic", despite its derivation, is not synonymous with the Roman res publica. Among the several meanings of the term res publica, it is most translated "republic" where the Latin expression refers to the Roman state, its form of government, between the era of the Kings and the era of the Emperors; this Roman Republic would, by a modern understanding of the word, still be defined as a true republic if not coinciding entirely. Thus, Enlightenment philosophers saw the Roman Republic as an ideal system because it included features like a systematic separation of powers. Romans still called their state "Res Publica" in the era of the early emperors because, on the surface, the organization of the state had been preserved by the first emperors without significant alteration.
Several offices from the Republican era, held by individuals, were combined under the control of a single person. These changes became permanent, conferred sovereignty on the Emperor. Cicero's description of the ideal state, in De re Pu
Hegemony is the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others. In ancient Greece, hegemony denoted the politico-military dominance of a city-state over other city-states; the dominant state is known as the hegemon. In the 19th century, hegemony came to denote the "Social or cultural ascendancy, it could be used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society". It could be used for the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country over others, from, derived hegemonism, as in the idea that the Great Powers meant to establish European hegemony over Asia and Africa. In international relations theory, hegemony denotes a situation of great material asymmetry in favour of one state, who has enough military power to systematically defeat any potential contester in the system, controls the access to raw materials, natural resources and markets, has competitive advantages in the production of value added goods, generates an accepted ideology reflecting this status quo.
The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view: in Terry Eagleton's words, "Gramsci uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates". In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it consent to and struggle over its common sense". In cultural imperialism, the leader state dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government. From the post-classical Latin word hegemonia from the Greek word ἡγεμονία hēgemonía, meaning "authority, political supremacy", related to the word ἡγεμών hēgemōn "leader". In the Greco–Roman world of 5th century BC European classical antiquity, the city-state of Sparta was the hegemon of the Peloponnesian League and King Philip II of Macedon was the hegemon of the League of Corinth in 337 BC.
The role of Athens within the short-lived Delian League was that of a "hegemon". Ancient historians such as Xenophon and Ephorus were the first who used the term in its modern sense. In Ancient East Asia, Chinese hegemony existed during the Spring and Autumn period, when the weakened rule of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty led to the relative autonomy of the Five Hegemons, they were appointed by feudal lord conferences, thus were nominally obliged to uphold the imperium of the Zhou Dynasty over the subordinate states. 1st and 2nd century Europe was dominated by the hegemonic peace of the Pax Romana. It was instituted by the emperor Augustus, was accompanied by a series of brutal military campaigns. From the 7th century to the 12th century, the Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate dominated the vast territories they governed, with other states like the Byzantine Empire paying tribute. In 7th century India, ruler of a large empire in northern India from AD 606 to 647, brought most of the north under his hegemony.
He preferred not to rule as a central government, but left "conquered kings on their thrones and contenting himself with tribute and homage."From the late 9th to the early 11th century, the empire developed by Charlemagne achieved hegemony in Europe, with dominance over France and Burgundy. During the 14th century, the Crown of Aragon became the hegemon in the Mediterranean Sea. In The Politics of International Political Economy, Jayantha Jayman writes "If we consider the Western dominated global system from as early as the 15th century, there have been several hegemonic powers and contenders that have attempted to create the world order in their own images." He lists several contenders for historical hegemony. Portugal 1494 to 1580. Based on Portugal's dominance in navigation. Spain 1516 to 1659. Based on the Spanish dominance of the European battlefields and the global exploration and colonization of the New World; the Netherlands 1580 to 1688. Based on Dutch control of credit and money. Britain 1688 to 1792.
Based on British textiles and command of the high seas. Britain 1815 to 1914. Based on British industrial supremacy and railroads. Phillip IV tried to restore the Habsburg dominance but, by the middle of the 17th century "Spain's pretensions to hegemony had and irremediably failed."In late 16th and 17th-century Holland, the Dutch Republic's mercantilist dominion was an early instance of commercial hegemony, made feasible with the development of wind power for the efficient production and delivery of goods and services. This, in turn, made possible the Amsterdam stock concomitant dominance of world trade. In France, King Louis XIV and Napoleon I attempted French true hegemony via economic and military domin
Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government with regional governments in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established, it can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status. Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level, it represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation, bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state. Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Mexico, Germany, Switzerland and Australia.
Some today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states. The terms'federalism' and'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning "treaty, pact or covenant." Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore synonyms, it was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new US Constitution as'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both'. In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form established, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word'federalism'. Modern federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments.
The term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world depending on context. Federalism is sometimes viewed as in the context of international negotiation as "the best system for integrating diverse nations, ethnic groups, or combatant parties, all of whom may have cause to fear control by an overly powerful center." However, in some countries, those skeptical of federal prescriptions believe that increased regional autonomy is to lead to secession or dissolution of the nation. In Syria, federalization proposals have failed in part because "Syrians fear that these borders could turn out to be the same as the ones that the fighting parties have carved out."Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test. According to Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State, there are four competing theoretical explanations in the academic literature for the adoption of federal systems: Ideational theories, which hold that a greater degree of ideological commitment to decentralist ideas in society makes federalism more to be adopted.
Cultural-historical theories, which hold that federal institutions are more to be adopted in societies with culturally or ethnically fragmented populations. "Social contract" theories, which hold that federalism emerges as a bargain between a center and a periphery where the center is not powerful enough to dominate the periphery and the periphery is not powerful enough to secede from the center. "Infrastructural power" theories, which hold that federalism is to emerge when the subunits of a potential federation have developed infrastructures. Immanuel Kant was an advocate of federalism, noting that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved by a nation of devils" so long as they possess an appropriate constitution which pits opposing factions against each other with a system of checks and balances. In particular individual states required a federation as a safeguard against the possibility of war. On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia came into existence as a federation.
The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming the unified, self-governing "Commonwealth of Australia" within the British Empire; when all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system. In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles.
The 1937 federal government had the authority to appoint State Governors at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of P
An empire is a sovereign state functioning as an aggregate of nations or people that are ruled over by an emperor or another kind of monarch. The territory and population of an empire is of greater extent than the one of a kingdom. An empire can be made of contiguous territories, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Russian Empire, or of territories far remote from the homeland, such as a colonial empire. Aside from the more formal usage, the word empire can refer colloquially to a large-scale business enterprise, a political organisation controlled by a single individual, or a group; the word empire is associated with such other words as imperialism and globalization. Empire is used to describe a displeasure to overpowering situations. An imperial political structure can be established and maintained in two ways: as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force or as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power; the former method provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons.
The latter method provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion. Territorial empires tend to be contiguous areas; the term, on occasion, has been applied to maritime empires or thalassocracies with looser structures and more scattered territories. An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial ethnic group and its culture; this is in contrast to a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. An empire is a large polity. Definitions of what physically and politically constitute an empire vary, it might be a state affecting a particular political structure. Empires are formed from diverse ethnic, national and religious components.'Empire' and'colonialism' are used to refer to relationships between powerful state or society versus a less powerful one. Tom Nairn and Paul James define empires as polities that "extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, where, in one or more of the domains of economics and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value".
Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign". Sometimes, an empire is a semantic construction, such as when a ruler assumes the title of "emperor"; that ruler's nation logically becomes an "empire", despite having no additional territory or hegemony. Examples of this form of empire are the Central African Empire, or the Korean Empire proclaimed in 1897 when Korea, far from gaining new territory, was on the verge of being annexed by the Empire of Japan, the last to use the name officially. Among the last of the empires in the 20th century were the Central African Empire, Vietnam, the German Empire, Korea; the terrestrial empire's maritime analogue is the thalassocracy, an empire composed of islands and coasts which are accessible to its terrestrial homeland, such as the Athenian-dominated Delian League. Furthermore, empires can expand by both sea. Stephen Howe notes that empires by land can be characterized by expansion over terrain, "extending directly outwards from the original frontier" while an empire by sea can be characterized by colonial expansion and empire building "by an powerful navy".
Empires originated as different types of states, although they began as powerful monarchies. Ideas about empires have changed over time. Empires are built out of separate units with some kind of diversity – ethnic, cultural, religious – and imply at least some inequality between the rulers and the ruled. Without this inequality, the system would be seen as a commonwealth. Throughout history, the major powers of the world seek to conquer other parts of the world. Most of the powers were centralized for example the Roman Empire. During the Age of Discovery, the idea of taking over other nations was brought back in a more modernized way. Imperialism is the idea of a major power controlling another nation or land with the intentions to use the native people and resources to help the mother country in any way possible. Many empires were the result of military conquest, incorporating the vanquished states into a political union, but imperial hegemony can be established in other ways; the Athenian Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire developed at least in part under elective auspices.
The Empire of Brazil declared itself an empire after separating from the Portuguese Empire in 1822. France has twice transitioned from being called the French Republic to being called the French Empire while it retained an overseas empire. Weaker states may seek annexation into the empire. An example is the bequest of Pergamon to the Roman Empire by Attalus III; the Unification of Germany as the empire accreted to the Prussian metropole was less a military conquest of the German states than their political divorce from the Austrian Empire, which ruled loosely over the Holy Roman Empire. Having convinced the other states of its military prowess, having excluded the Austrians, Prussia dictated the terms of imperial membership. Politically, it was typica