Forums → WEPR → Which type of a Government is the best?
| 80 | 33623 |
Which type of a Government according to you is the best? And why?
1) Democracy.
2) Federalism.
3) Communism.
4) Dictatorship.
5) Monarchy.
6) Constitutional Monarchy.
7) Military Rule.
8) Republic.
9) Democratic Republic.
10) Parliamentary.
- 80 Replies
[quote]None.
Hahaha. The shortest but the most correct answer. Thank you, you just made my day.[/quote]
i wonder if he made a account specially to make that post... =P
In my opinion Dictatorship is the best type of government. It can be seen through out the history that the world rose through the Empires and hence the dictators that dominated the history.
Before anyone replies, nowadays, the democracies all around the world were pressured into becoming one, so in this case America as a global superpower, had exerted its anti-empire influence on countries like Britain. So the dictatorship nowadays won't work due to the fact that all the other countries are democracies and would try to dismantle the dictatorship. Example? Russia vs the entire Western alliance and how they are on about the human rights and stuff like that.
Th advantages of dictatorship are that the leader is strong and can do whatever he needs to do for his own country whilst having the ability to delegate the power to the people/councils/states etc. This gives a more flexible approach. Now take UK for example and its recent elections. The people are not happy with tories yet, they are the ones who voted for them. Is that an example of a good democracy? Democracy impedes the government progress due to the fact that it is too formal and it tries to make everyone happy. Dictatorship can co-exist with capitalism as well as with communism and can always ensure the safety of people, i.e. Soviet Union and Stalin who is only remembered for killing 20 million people and not making USSR the greatest superpower that could match USA at that time (he came to power when country was in ruins but left when it already had its own nuclear weapon). Dictatorship is more flexible because it ALLOWS to have democracy in there, e.g. parliament to propose its suggestions and a leader who is responsible.
Now if the question was Which Type of a government is the most realistic, then Dictatorship is less likely to be successful due to the fact that human nature plays a role here and that sometimes a leader will pursue his own interest. however, it should be noted that happens in democracy too.
Before anyone replies, nowadays, the democracies all around the world were pressured into becoming one, [...]"Nowadays", making a new government involves overthrowing the existing government. The type of government that's put in place is completely irrelevant.
So the dictatorship nowadays won't work due to the fact that all the other countries are democracies and would try to dismantle the dictatorship.In other words, it's the best except where it isn't? Dictatorships don't work because the qualities needed for success in politics are all self-serving and competitive. The precious few dictators that did not display these traits were quickly replaced by ones that did, and only the latter are of concern to the UN.
Th advantages of dictatorship are that the leader is strong and can do whatever he needs to do for his own country whilst having the ability to delegate the power to the people/councils/states etc.Not necessarily, or even frequently. Generally, the leader is head of a militant organization which takes the nation by force and exploits it for the benefit of that organization alone.
Democracy impedes the government progress due to the fact that it is too formal and it tries to make everyone happy.No. It impedes progress because it takes a very long time for age-old rivals to work together or even agree on how to do anything.
Dictatorship can co-exist with capitalism as well as with communism [...]No, actually, it can't. There is no instance of dictatorship (or anything else) ever co-existing with communism, and there most certainly will never be.
[...] and can always ensure the safety of people, i.e. Soviet Union and Stalin who is only remembered for killing 20 million people [...]I'm sure those 20 million felt very safe.
[...] and not making USSR the greatest superpower that could match USA at that time (he came to power when country was in ruins but left when it already had its own nuclear weapon).Possessing nuclear armaments is not the sole requirement for greatness or political or economic stability.
Dictatorship is more flexible because it ALLOWS to have democracy in there, e.g. parliament to propose its suggestions and a leader who is responsible.Well, no, it doesn't.
dictatorship
noun
1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
(from dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship)
Absolute power. Therefore no parliament, no democracy, and no flexibility.
however, it should be noted that happens in democracy too.Yes, and this causes the bickering, bungling, and delay. It does not place the nation in the hands of a self-serving despotic tyrant devoid of all moral obligations. That's the point.
Dictatorships are inherently weak, because they have to rely on the power of their single leader maintain order, which can only last as long as their lifetime. The will of the people, be they the workers mob or the patrician class, wins out in the end. They won out in Rome, they won out in England, they won out in France, and they have won out in Tunisia.
i believe socialism is best, it works great for europe, college is cheap or just straight up free
i believe socialism is best, it works great for europe, college is cheap or just straight up free
europe is not a country....
things are different in the different countries of the subcontinent europe.
if you want more social security, you have to be willing to pay more taxes
i believe socialism is best, it works great for europe, college is cheap or just straight up free
Socialism with capitalism but it mustn't become communism.
honestly? a form of communism would be the best i think.
but in which money is not used anymore.
with how technology developed we pretty much have the power to create a world in which nobody is hungry, and any person can start doing what he wants. (and no, im not talking about laziness).
laziness i think mostly comes from the fact that our life is the way it is. when you have so much time without having to work anymore and can do whatever you do, you will start broadening your horizons. learn things that will develop humanity even more.
i really do believe that its possible to buld such a "aradise" if people will just agree to be peaceful and work towards it together. poor only exists because theres rich. when you know that theres enough for everybody then you take just as much as you really need (or even want, without taking more then you can consume).
im not too much of an expert but theres this movie called "roject venus". if your interested about this give it a watch, its rather interesting.
From my perspective, some of the Scandinavian countries, such as Norway, Sweden, or Finland, seem to have a government system that has worked very well for them. They have been very stable for years, with some of the highest living standards throughout the world, low crime rates, high GDP, etc.
To me, it seems like something is working very well in that part of the world, and I think the government has something to do with it. So I would say parliamentary representative democratic society's may work best. Although it will vary depending on the people you have in leadership too, so it is hard to pin down the "best" government system.
What works very well is the neutrality during WW2. Most of these countries were largely unscathed by it due to this neutrality. With their economy far better off, they were free to reorganize the government systems.
Constitutional Republic.
Democracies always fail, if you review the history of democracies. I've posted before being in favor of a democracy on this thread (page 5) but I've changed my mind.
I also think that central government should be kept small, by a constitution, hence, constitutional republic.
Democracies always fail, if you review the history of democracies.
you do realise this goes to any sort of country/kingdom/government that has ever existed?
time kills everything, things always change. if we use what you said as the main argument, then the best form of government would be a government that has never existed before.
Constitutional Republic.1 Most republics are democracies. The rest tend to be unstable.
Democracies always fail, if you review the history of democracies.
2 We have 400+ year old democracies; most of them replacing failed monarchies/empires. You might as rationally assert that humans are doomed to a premature extinction solely because all the other Homo species are extinct.
if we use what you said as the main argument, then the best form of government would be a government that has never existed before.Altruistic communism ftw.
you do realise this goes to any sort of country/kingdom/government that has ever existed?
time kills everything, things always change. if we use what you said as the main argument, then the best form of government would be a government that has never existed before.
Name a democracy that hasn't ended up tyrannizing the minority.
Or rather, a pure democracy I should say (would've edited post, but the edit button is gone--I posted 38 minutes ago) and not a democratic republic.
You must be logged in to post a reply!