Winston Churchill once said "many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Democracy is a form of government that is prevalent in broad categories of presidential and parliamentary systems. The question raised by this paper will evaluate which system is more democratic and why. This paper will examine presidential and parliamentary systems with respect to democracy using the countries of United States of America (USA) and Canada (CAD). Mixed presidential and parliamentary systems will be mentioned as a basis of secondary comparison between the two primary models. This critique will entail a Western Liberal democratic perspective that analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each system. The analysis presented will provide criteria and provide concrete examples for what system in the end is more democratic. We shall define democracy in 21-century terms as representative democracy not the ancient term of democracy where the people rule absolutely. This essay will determine that parliamentary systems are more democratic then presidential systems in the 21-century. Let us begin our analysis by setting up criteria on how we shall judge which system is more democratic parliamentary or presidential system of government.

The criteria that shall be established will fall into comparative models after a precise definition has been provided for issue. The first criteria will be the political structure. The second criteria will be the political systems relationship of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of their country. The third criteria will evaluate the ability of the system to provide a mandate for their government. The fourth criteria are the power and accountability of the President versus the Prime Minister. The fifth criteria will entail access & participation of individuals, interest groups and minority parties. The sixth factor will address the principle & agency dilemma. The last factor will address iron law. Now that the criteria have been established let us evaluate the first system of presidential government.

Let us first formally define what a presidential system is from an USA perspective;

"The President, who is both the nation's chief of state and the effective head of the executive branch of the national government, is elected by the voters through the medium of the Electoral College. The members of both houses of Congress are chosen in direct popular elections."

The political structures in the USA that enable citizens to vote are primarily the Republican and Democratic Party. Political parties are defined as the ability to organize to gain political power and influence and create policy. The American system has lacked more than two party systems. The Republicans represent the right and the Democrats represent the left on the political spectrum. Note that both parties are democratic and liberal in nature with absolutely no traces of communism. There is no viable third party however on occasion independent candidates and parties have emerged. This works well for the USA system, however there is no minority representation with respect to socialist or unconventional political parties. Therefore there is less democratic representation of divergent interests’ vis-à-vis political parties. What about voter turnout?

Voter turnout in the USA is extremely low in comparison to other democratic nations. In fact the voter apathy is so low that "America has among the lowest voter turnout of any democracy in the world based on participation in presidential and mid-term elections." The USA which spends record amounts on campaigning, advertising, promoting has a dismal turnout rate. Voter apathy has increased significantly for example "in 1996 voter participation fell below 50 %, the first time since 1924 and the second lowest since 1824." Therefore the USA has only 2 political parties and extremely low voter turnout rate. What about the Canadian party composition?

The Canadian parliamentary system has a multi-party system. Five federal political parties exist in Canada. The political parties are the Liberals, Conservatives, Canadian Alliance, New Democratic Party and the Bloc. Fringe parties can exist but these are the primary federal parties. Although only two parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, have ever held federal power the opportunity for citizens to vote for alternative parties is still present. Therefore the parliamentary system is more pluralistic and representative as a conduit for citizens. What is the extent of voting in the parliamentary system? According to the last Canadian election in 2000 overall voting turnout was 61.2%. Canadians can have quantifiably higher turnout rates in federal elections than Americans. Voter turnout is an indicator of citizen participation and engagement of society in politics. One interesting sidebar is that the Canadian system has a federally created voting system. The American voting system is not federal but run state to state. This can affect leadership electoral outcomes illustrated by the controversy in the last Presidential race in Florida. Comparatively the European countries have higher voter participation rates. Australia which is a parliamentary system has instituted mandatory voting. Except for mandatory voting this example illustrates that political party representation and voter turnout are generally higher in parliamentary then presidential systems.

The second criterion of evaluation is the ability to control the legislative, executive and judicial system. In the presidential system all three powers are separated to act as checks and balances on the system. Presidential systems are based on the premise of Lord Acton "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Each house is supposed to act as a check on another and the House and Senate act as a sober second thought, with respect to policy formation and legislation. This separation of powers is obviously inefficient and requires a consensus approach to get things done. Presidential systems argue that this dynamic competition creates more democratic policies & legislation. When legislation is finally implemented, the use of consensus may better reflect the will of the people. The American system "often president and congress blame each other for obstructing legislation in a word gridlock." Even for the most critical issues in a presidential system, legislation and policy are very slow to implement. Competition, negotiation, dissention, lack of party discipline are in the public domain for presidential systems. For example the USA Republicans "Congress also completed only two both dealing with defense of the 13 spending bills it must pass to fund federal programs for fiscal year 2003." This example illustrates the current Republican government that controls the House, Senate and presidency, that legislation and policy making are very slow and inefficient during the most pressing of times during a war and recession. It is common in a presidential system for policy & legislation to take years and even changes of governments before something can be done. A unique feature of presidential systems is if the governing party loses a vote on a bill no elections are required. Compared with a parliamentary system in a crisis situations policy and legislation can be achieve in a more efficient and expedient manner. For example when the FLQ crisis occurred in Quebec it was only a short amount of time before the government was able to initiate the war measures act and declare martial law in certain areas. This point illustrates that in a crisis situation parliamentary systems are more efficient and expedient then presidential systems. This allows for greater response to the concerns and issues of citizens in a democratic society. What is the composition of Parliamentary systems?

The Parliamentary system has the judicial separate and the legislative and executive fused together. With the two houses fused, legislation and policy can be more easily initiated and executed into a mandate. In parliamentary systems the competitions, dissent and backroom dealings transpires similar to a presidential system except it is behind closed doors. When the governing party finally decides on an issue it is enforced by party discipline and a unified consensus. This results in more efficient and direct responsibility of a government because if a vote of non-confidence can occur if they fail to pass legislation as a unified party. This results in a "more efficient government with more direct responsibility." This structure also acts as an effective check on parties with majorities who fail to pass bills. For example the Conservative Prime Minister Joe Clark lost a vote of confidence, for a simple budget and was forced to call and election only 9 months into his term. This resulted in the re-election of Liberals back into power. This example illustrates that parliamentary systems are more responsive, efficient and democratic than presidential systems with respect to legislative & executive accountability.

Since both judicial systems are separate they will not be elaborated in further detail. Note the Supreme Court nominations in the USA are recommended by the President and go before a panel to be accepted or rejected. Compare the Canadian system where Supreme Court nominations are determined by the Prime Minister. Clearly the presidential system is more democratic in this case. However few cases ever reach the Supreme Court in either country so its influence although powerful for precedents are similar in both presidential and parliamentary. In this analysis they are generally comparable because the final ruling is absolutely binding on all citizens. Let us discuss mandates between the two political systems.

A mandate is defined as "a command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative." Mandates have often been an issue of debate because of the nature of politics to promise one thing and do another once elected. But which system presidential or parliamentary has a better track record for mandates? Both systems have numerous examples of governments being elected on a mandate and either reversing its position entirely or not completing the mandate. The reality of politics is once a party is in power exogenous factors such as war, international economics or other factors can affect government’s ability to complete its mandate. Endogenous factors can also affect mandates such as party politics, partisanship, ideology and scandals to name a few scenarios. The lists of endogenous and exogenous factors that can change a mandate are virtually unlimited. In addition the institutions themselves may create rent-seeking behavior that gives no incentive or counter incentives to follow mandates.

For example President George W. Bush ran on a mandate of tax cuts before the midterm elections in 2002. President Bush "proposed in December 1999 large scale tax reductions." An example of an exogenous and endogenous factor was the American government did not anticipate a terrorist attack of September 11/02 and a protracted recession domestically. This example illustrates how complex the interplay between mandates and democracy play out in the political arena. Therefore mandates do change constantly and are extremely difficult to enforce. Note citizens can vote the governing party out off power if they don’t fulfill a mandate. The recent midterm elections in the USA illustrate how quickly the citizens can change the political make up of a presidential system. Do governments who fail mandates always get un-elected?

Ironically many governments that fail to complete, break or reverse mandates often get re-elected. Latin America is a presidential system and unusual example of how it was consistently elected to achieve a mandate and did the exact opposite once in power. The systems for rent seeking behavior can be institutionally reinforced which occurred in Latin America. Parliamentary systems have an equally dreadful track record for breaking mandates. The Liberal government for example went on a mandate that they would eliminate the Goods & Services Tax (GST) if re-elected. Once the Liberals regained power they realized the revenues were required to pay down the massive debt and this mandate was clearly abandoned. Therefore this example illustrates that neither system really has a strategic advantage or is more democratic for mandates. Governments require the capabilities to change mandates when conditions justify it. Both types of governments have to operate in the parameters of the laws and unwritten or written constitutions. However one interesting note is that parliamentary systems can change laws more efficiently and effectively than presidential systems. This additional power can create a condition where the mandate could in theory be more easily achieved. Especially in the United Kingdom where the constitution is unwritten, laws can be totally changed or removed with a strong majority in power. Let us discuss power and accountability with respects to leadership.

Power is defined as "the ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority." Power is a central and pivotal function of all political institutions. Power allows the elected leader and party to perform the functions of the government. Let us compare the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister. Which leader is more powerful the Prime Minister or the President? The USA President has set term limits and can only govern two terms with no exceptions. The Prime Minister (PM) "the head of the cabinet and often also the chief executive of a parliamentary democracy" in Canada can be re-elected indefinitely. The "longest serving PM is The Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister for 21 years, 5 months and 1 day." Leader’s with successful track records often over extend there leadership duration. For example Prime Minister Jean Chrétien after 3 mandates was considering a 4^th. However exogenous and endogenous factors such as voters and the internal party conflict have resulted in the Prime Minister on "August 21, 2002 announces he will not seek a fourth mandate." This rent seeking behavior is natural given the nature of politics and the quest for power.

Should the presidential system be given the opportunity to re-elect a president beyond term limits? Term limits is clearly preferred given the nature of politics in presidential systems. These questions are open to debate but are different from the parliamentary system. The Prime Minister selects his cabinet and controls appointments, demotions and elimination from the party caucus. Often the Canadian Prime Minister is coined as "in effect, an elected dictator" because of his significant powers. The PM "answering to no one, the Prime Minister appoints the Governor-General, all judges of the Supreme Court (and all other senior judges), the head of the military, all ministers and deputies, all Senators, the head of the Bank of Canada and the CBC and other boards and commissions." Crossing the PM has serious consequences even for the most loyal Member of Parliament (MP). For example Paul Martin the former Finance Minister who helped win 3 elections was demoted to back bencher status. Rent seeking behavior such as fighting off political rivals is common in all political systems. This example illustrates the significant power of the PM and how pure Machiavellian politics still applies in democratic systems. Briefly let us address the issue of the highest courts.

The leader in a presidential system has less power to influence the Supreme Court then a parliamentary leader. The President of the USA cannot pick who will enter the Supreme Court. The President makes a recommendation and then the applicant goes before a panel for review. Many committees in the USA are elected at different times and are not directly determined by the President. Institutional entities have their own autonomy in the USA. The power of the President "only rarely achieve directive leadership, far more often than not, Presidents are facilitators, articulating, and amplifying a pre-existing disposition." Therefore Presidents in this case are weaker in power than Prime Ministers. This analysis is one of the most important determinants of democracy because without the power to carry out the desires of citizens then democracy will eventually fail. Now let us ascertain which system is more accountable?

Accountability is defined as "liable to being called to account; answerable." Accountability is an extremely complex matter "the great difficulty lies in this you must first enable government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Considering the unlimited wants and desires of citizens, limited resources and outcomes of governments it is amazing that things actually get done. Politicians have their own agenda. Wealth, status, influence, maintaining & increasing power, are extremely important regardless of political system. Politicians may follow closely the polls, perceptions, and desires of the population to ensure that they get re-elected. This facilitates the democratic process in both systems. Presidential systems allow for more individual and personal initiative. The presidential leader is generally considered more accountable and identifiable "because the chief executive is directly chosen by popular vote." , in comparison to the Prime Minister who is selected by the governing party. Here is an interesting question, how do you remove an unaccountable leader?

The removal of a corrupt President is more difficult to achieve than the removal of a corrupt PM. Generally Presidents are elected for fixed terms and removal is often facilitated by a complicated mechanism called impeachment. USA President Nixon "faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974" he would resign. USA President Clinton "was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him." This point illustrates that accountability and removing a president is extremely difficult, whether or not it is in the best interest of its citizens. What about mixed presidential & parliamentary systems for removing leaders?

Attempting to remove unpopular or corrupt President in a mixed transitional presidential system presents more challenges. For example removing Russian President Boris Yeltsin from office was virtually impossible, given his powers of decree and his strong control of the military. Since the late 1990s, "the harassment of political and social activists has expanded in Russia, threatening its fragile democratic institutions. Russian federal authorities have increasingly pushed back advances in civil liberties and human rights." This example illustrates how fragile transitional presidential democracies are generally less accountable, compared to parliamentary and presidential systems. What system has a higher probability of democratic failure presidential or parliamentary?

What is intriguing is that presidential systems "are empirically associated with democratic failure in marked contrast to relative success of parliamentary democracies established between 1945-1979 none of the presidential or semi-presidential systems were continually democratic during that time period." Presidential systems are highly unstable, have resulted in military uprisings and are not always democratic. Even the USA had a major civil war before its democracy emerged. Contrast it with Canada that had no civil war whose democracy evolved slowly and with stability. Parliamentary systems are generally more stable than presidential systems or hybrid systems, thus increasing the probability of democratic participation and ultimately accountability of leaders to the citizens. Let us discuss access and participation.

How accessible are the decision makers and what is the level of participation? Big business, corporations, military industrial complex and interest groups have significant access over average citizens to the democratic process. Unless your part of either the Republican or Democratic Party your probably not going to have access to key decision makers. Therefore without reasonable engagement in the political process the only real recourse for citizens is voting and midterm elections in the USA. They say "money makes the world go round" it could never be more accurate than in politics. American politics is heavily influenced by money. Until the last presidential election campaign contributions were exceptionally high and almost had no limits. New laws in place now restrict the amount of money that can be donated to influence decision makers. If you’re just an average citizen without wealth, expertise, partisanship, networks, education your political influence on the democratic process is very weak. Compare this against a special interest group that represents the military industrial complex.

President Eisenhower once said "his famous warning against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." This interest group has the time, money, expertise, connections and creditability to gain access and influence key decision makers. Citizens may disapprove of military spending over other preferences but who will have more access and participation to influence decision makers is obvious. Therefore special interests versus individual interest often have asymmetrical access & participation in a presidential system.

This analysis does not state that individuals cannot influence the democratic process. In fact single individuals can change the entire course of political discourse. Individuals such as Bill Gates whose net worth is $58.7 billion and Warren Buffet net worth of $32.3 billion can carry more political currency than any majority, interest group or corporation. Individuals can truly make a difference in the political process.

Wealth is not the only criteria that can influence democratic change. For example Rosa Parks started almost by accident "small-scale acts of civil disobedience sparked sustained civil rights campaigns in hundreds of black communities, mostly in the southern states." This example illustrates that people regardless of economic position or expertise can influence the democratic process in presidential system.

Is the Canadian model different for access & participation? In Canada the access and participation is virtually identical to the USA. Big business, interest groups, media, has significant access & participation over majority of citizens. One difference is that only a small percentage of citizens only "approximately 2% participates in a political party." Minority political party’s interests in Canada are better represented politically versus presidential systems. For example there is a Bloc party which platform advocates the interests of Quebec and separation. The NDP party represents left spectrum advocating, taxes, spending, and social equalization programs. The Canadian Alliance is a right wing neo conservative party that favors American style government, religious values and anti abortion. Numerous minority political parties exist in Canada. These examples illustrate that minority groups can be formally represented in the political process that is separate from the government. Some minority groups act as official opposition and some groups act as unofficial opposition. This multi party system in parliamentary systems illustrates that "tyranny of the majority" will take politically into account the democratic rights of minority groups. Minority groups also can shift the governing party on issues if there is growing support or disapproval. Even thought the Liberals and Conservatives have only governed at the federal level. The possibility still exists for the electorate to select a party that will represent the people. This formal representation of minority groups has not formally emerged in the presidential system. Independents such as Ross Perot have had influence but were quickly crushed by the Republicans and Democrats. Therefore parliamentary systems represent minority interests better than presidential systems in certain situations. Parliamentary systems can increases access and participation of minority citizens who would normally have no formal right to be heard in the democratic process. What about the agency & principle relationship?

A classic relationship is between the rulers and the followers. This is highlighted by the agency "public officials are in agency relationship with electors, the voters are considered the principle." This problem has existed during Caius Marcius Coriloanus to our current complex political systems. The interests of the agent are generally different then the principle. Citizens in both systems of government have extremely limited mechanisms once a governing party or leader is in power. This primary mechanism of removal ranges from the spectrum of voting and the most extreme case is insurrection. Numerous theories exist on agency & principle relationship. However the base analysis is all that is required to understand the true nature of this agency & principle dilemma.

Iron Law

Can true democracy exist due to the asymmetrical nature of power? German sociologist Robert Michels has a unique perspective his "iron law of oligarchy" states oligarchy is formed sooner or later in any society and it seizes power. Even though we live in a golden democratic age it is representative in nature and not pure democracy. Critics argue that pure democracy is possible thru technology, education, liberty and equality. Well for the unforeseeable future there will always be a ruling class and a non ruling class. History is replete with examples that quantify this claim. Presidential and parliamentary systems both subscribe to this unofficial law. Strong institutions and mechanisms that create the proper balance of elite and non elites interest maximizations is the best strategy for democracy.

Aristotle once said "the most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes." One day we hope that society will learn this valuable lesson. Until then democracy shall employ such systems as presidential and parliamentary systems of government. Each system has its strengths and weakness with respect to governing a democratic state. However, one must take into account the historical, geographical, cultural, religious, economic and political evolution of each country. This secondary analysis suggests that what works for one or many countries cannot be universally imposed and achieve identical results. Therefore based on the arguments of this specific question provided in this comparative analysis suggests, that parliamentary systems are more democratic than presidential systems for the moment.

Fight the Bias.com Quotes by Winston Churchill <http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/winston_churchill.htm> (Nov, 10, 02)

Cyber Land University of North America Dr. Almond Lee Way Jr. <http://www.poliedu.net/CUNAPolSci201PartThreeA.shtml> (Nov, 10,02)

BBC News "The United States of Apathy" Tuesday, 11 January, 2000, 16:38 GMT <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/vote_usa_2000/597444.stm> (Nov, 10,02)

BBC News "The United States of Apathy" Tuesday, 11 January, 2000, 16:38 GMT <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/vote_usa_2000/597444.stm> (Nov, 10,02)

Statistics Canada. January 4, 2002 Federal general elections, by electors, ballots cast and voter participation <http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt09c.htm> (Nov, 11,02)

Liberty Storys.Net Great thinkers Like Lord Acton <http://www.libertystory.net/LSTHINKACTON.html> (Nov, 11,02)

www.darthouth.edu/~x98/x98counterpoint.html

CNN "Congress struggles to a finish Senate expects vote for homeland security on Monday" November 15, 2002)<http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/congress.roundup.ap/index.html> (Nov, 15/02)

Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems of Governance Nina Davis 1998 <www.darthouth.edu/~x98/x98counterpoint.html> (Nov, 15,02)

Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company<.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mandate> (nov, 16,02)

Citizens for Tax Justice <http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bush0800.pdf> (Nov, 19, 02)

Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=power> (nov, 16,02)

Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prime%20minister%20> (nov, 16,02)

Federal Election Trivia "longest serving PM" <http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/electionsTrivia/electionTrivia.asp?Language=E&Heading=5&Question=3> (Nov, 19, 02)

CBC "Jean Chrétien: timeline CBC News Online | Aug. 21, 2002 <http://cbc.ca/news/features/chretien/timeline.html> (Nov, 19, 02)

Canoe "Chat Allan Fotheringham" Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2001 <http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSNewsmakers0111/07_foth-can.html> (Nov,19,02)

< Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company http://friendscb.ca/articles/NationalPost/np010205-2.htm> (nov, 16,02)

Pg 102 Power & Policy in Liberal Democracies. Cambridge University Press. Martin Harrop 1992

Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accountability> (nov, 16,02)

Pg 1 Democracy, Accountability & Representation. A. Prezeworkski, S. Stokes, B. Manin Cambridge University Press 1999

Democracy & Deeply rooted Conflict. <http://idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html> (Nov, 16,02)

White House "Biography of Richard Nixon" <http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rn37.html> (Nov, 19,02)

White House" Biography William J Clinton" <http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html> (Nov, 19,02)

Democracy & Assistance, Transition in Russia. Sara Mendelson. 2001

<http://80muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/journals/international_security/v025/25.4mendelson.html> (Nov, 16, 02)

Democracy & Deeply rooted conflict. <http://idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html> (Nov, 16, 02)

Young Scott.com <http://www.youngscot.org/channels/money/> (Nov, 19, 02)

Foreign Policy.com "military industrial complex by James Fallows <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_novdec_2002/militaryindustrialcomplex.html> (Nov, 18, 02)

Forbs.com "richest people in the world" 2002 Bill Gates 06/21/01 <http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2001/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2001&passListType=Person&uniqueId=BH69&datatype=Person> (Nov, 18,02)

Forbs.com "richest people in the world" 2002 Warren Buffet 06/21/01

<http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2001/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2001&passListType=Person&uniqueId=C0R3&datatype=Person> (Nov, 18, 02)

30) Standford.edu "African and American Leadership and Mass Mobilization" Clayborn Carston 1994

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_the_project/ccarson/articles/black_scholar.htm> (Nov, 18, 02)

31) Ekos Research "citizens roles in Public Issues" <http://www.iog.ca/policity/CP/Public%20Library/library/13> (Nov, 19, 02)

32) Tocqueville Book 1 CH 15 "UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES "<http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm> (Nov, 19, 02)

33) Pg 133 Democracy, Accountability and Representation Accountability & Authority, John Ferejohn Cambridge University Press 1999.

34) The Systematic of Sociology and Social Dynamics Chapter I. The System of Sociology addendum II <http://www.israel.net/raikhlin/social_dynamics/myengbook/chapterI/chapter13ad/chapter13.htm> (Nov, 18, 02)

35) Brainy Quote: Aristotle 322-384 BC <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q134193.html> (Nov, 18, 02)