问题 材料题

阅读下列材料:     

材料一 我们的制度是别人的模范,而不是我们模仿任何其他的人的。我们的制度之所以被称为民主政治,因为 * * 是在全体公民的手中,而不是在少数人手中。解决私人争执的时候,每个人在法律上是平等的;让一个人负担公职优先于他人的时候,所考虑的不是某一个特殊阶级的成员,而是他们所具有的真正才能。任何人,只要他能够对国家有所贡献,绝对不会因为贫穷而在政治上湮没无闻。                    ——公元前5世纪伯利克里在阵亡将士葬礼上精彩演说

材料二 (雅典民主政体的根本缺陷)在于它把权力交给所有的公民,不需要国家管理者具有专长,不要求他们具有真知灼见。一个国家应当由既有专业知识又有道德的人去治理,统治不是有王笏的人,不是偶然选中的人,不是攫取财富的人,不是使用强术骗术的人,而是有统治知识的人。    ——苏格拉底

材料三 陶片放逐法,也称贝壳放逐法。雅典每年举行特别公民大会,投票决定民主威胁者的命运。此项行动使用一种特殊的“选票”,即陶片或贝壳。人们把威胁者的名字刻在陶片或贝壳上,投入会场的陶缸中。如某人得票超过6 000,就将被判流放国外10年,但其家人不受牵连,本人亦在流放期满后恢复公民权。 

材料四  铁米斯托克里为公元前5世纪雅典著名政治家,是希腊联军战胜波斯第三次入侵的关键人物,史书记载他曾被陶片放逐。美国考古学家在对雅典遗址的发掘中,发现了刻有他名字的陶片190枚,根据字迹辨认系14人刻写。

(1)依据材料一,归纳伯利克里所阐述的雅典民主政治的特点。

                                                                                                                                                                 

(2)依据材料二,苏格拉底对雅典民主持什么态度?其理由是什么?

                                                                                                                                                                

(3)根据材料三、四,结合所学知识简评“陶片放逐法”。

                                                                                                                                                                

答案

(1 ) * * 掌握在全体公民而不是少数人手中,公民不论财产资格的多少都可以自由参政议政。

(2 )持批判态度。其理由是水平不同的人享有同等的国家管理权,不利于国家管理。 (3 )陶片放逐法是雅典民主制度中,加强对城邦官员民主监督,保护公民利益而实行的重要措施。但该法在手段和程序上有漏洞,存在弊端,如出现了少数人刻写大量陶片的现象。

选择题
单项选择题

Soon after his appointment as secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997, Kofi Annan lamented that he was being accused of failing to reform the world body in six weeks. "But what are you complaining about" asked the Russian ambassador. "You’ve had more time than God." Ah, Mr. Annan quipped back, "but God had one big advantage. He worked alone without a General Assembly, a Security Council and [all] the committees."

Recounting that anecdote to journalists in New York this week, Mr. Annan sought to explain why a draft declaration on UN reform and tackling world poverty, due to be endorsed by some 150 heads of state and government at a world summit in the city on September 14th-16th, had turned into such a pale shadow of the proposals that he himself had put forward in March. "With 191 member states", he sighed, "it’s not easy to get an agreement."

Most countries put the blame on the United States, in the form of its abrasive new ambassador, John Bolton, for insisting at the end of August on hundreds of last-minute amendments and a line-by-line renegotiation of a text most others had thought was almost settled. But a group of middle-income developing nations, including Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela, also came up with plenty of last-minute changes of their own. The risk of having no document at all, and thus nothing for the world’s leaders to come to New York for, was averted only by marathon all-night and all-weekend talks.

The 35-page final document is not wholly devoid of substance. It calls for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission to supervise the reconstruction of countries after wars; the replacement of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights by a supposedly tougher Human Rights Council; the recognition of a new "responsibility to protect" peoples from genocide and other atrocities when national authorities fail to take action, including, if necessary, by force; and an "early" reform of the Security Council. Although much pared down, all these proposals have at least survived.

Others have not. Either they proved so contentious that they were omitted altogether, such as the sections on disarmament and non-proliferation and the International Criminal Court, or they were watered down to little more than empty platitudes. The important section on collective security and the use of force no longer even mentions the vexed issue of pre-emptive strikes; meanwhile the section on terrorism condemns it "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes", but fails to provide the clear definition the Americans wanted.

Both Mr. Annan and, more surprisingly, George Bush have nevertheless sought to put a good face on things, with Mr. Annan describing the summit document as "an important step forward" and Mr. Bush saying the UN had taken "the first steps" towards reform. Mr. Annan and Mr. Bolton are determined to go a lot further. It is now up to the General Assembly to flesh out the document’s skeleton proposals and propose new ones. But its chances of success appear slim.

The author’s attitude toward the UN final document is ()

A. biased

B. indifferent

C. skeptical

D. impartial