True democracy is better than other systems, as it gives people real control over their lives. But establishing true democracy will mean getting rid of the undemocratic, oppressive and exploitative system of capitalism.
That depends on how the system is run.
Autocracy can be made to work far better than democracy in some situations; that is why the Romans invented the idea of Dictatorship.
DEMOCRACY IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN AUTOCRACY OVERALL
DECIDING BY ONE PERSON IS EASIER THAN MOER PERSONS
IT DEPENDS ON THE BELL-LEADER WEATHER THE COUNTRY WILL GO AHEAD
(Not according to Robert Heinlein :-) [see: Starship Troopers, the BOOK, not the movie]
Seriously; military rule has a fatal flaw, from a modern philosophical standpoint: it derives its "legitimacy" from raw force, and thus, is responsible to nothing other than itself. That is, there is no reason to care about the needs of the populace, especially since a military rulership has an almost complete monopoly on force inside the country.
While there are serious problems with most democratic systems, they are all responsive to public opinion and desires - that is, democratic systems both derive their legitimacy and their actual continuance from the governed populace. So, a democratic system is designed in such a way as it really, really does care about satisfying the desires of enough of the populace to keep itself functioning.
In terms of "getting stuff done", an authoritarian military rule is of course much more efficient in completing projects (and making decisions to do, or not do, a project) than a democracy. However, democracies have a consistently better track record of both developing new ideas, and evaluating whether those ideas are good for the country.
Of course: true democracy gives people control over their lives. But real democracy is not possible under capitalism.
No. They are exactly alike in every single way possible. Freedom is Slavery.
Democracy is majority of the people rules. Autocracy is rule by the "chosen families", the elite, the rich.
who said that '' no better way of social development than democracy
Yes
Because a Democracy is the best form of government hands down. In a Democracy, people have freedom, people can speak freely, people have rights. Unlike in other countries where they have to believe what everybody else believes and they can only have one child and everything.
The history of "Democracy" started thousands of years ago in Greece, it was used to determine a rule the country with opinions of others, other countries like Canada, has adapted in the concept of Democracy.
The Rome was not a democracy, but a republic. A republic (res publica or thing of the people) is a form of government in which those with a vote elect representatives to act for them in a legislative body.The Greeks had democracies in Athens and some of their other city-states. A democracy (from Greek words meaning rule by the people) is a form of government in which those with a vote meet directly as a legislative body to make decisions and pass laws.
Republicans hate you... Really though, a democracy is the ideal form of government. There is really not much wrong with it. However with out certain guidelines and rule corruption would run rampant.
The undisputed no.1 promoter is , of course, the US. Unfortunately, the endless declarations of the love of freedom and democracy are only words. I cannot think of a single example of the US promoting genuine democracy anywhere where its strategic and economic interests lie, which covers most of the world. It is a case of " Democracy is fine, as long as you do as we say." Much more effort goes into maintaining the illusion of real democracy than actually promoting it, and the line between the two is very blurred. Supporting brutal dictators is a much better way of securing access to cheap resourses, and there is no need here to detail the US's long history of doing just that. The events in Egypt are a telling example of the double standards. When the riots started, the Obama administration remained silent, until it became obvious that Mubarak had to go. Then they denounced him as a tyrant and praised the people for having the courage to demand their freedom and democracy, erasing history in the process, such as the 30 years of military , diplomatic, and financial support for the regime. The hypocricy is truly breathtaking.
I would say not really. But the bad democracy can progress where as the military rule will most likely become a terrible dictatorship and the democracy would (obviously) be better. This is my opinion.
civilian rule is better than military rule because there is freedom and peace in the nation better than when the military was ruling us
cilivian rule is better than military because cilivian are more civilized than the military they are more peaceful than military
military rule is better than civillian regime
If you are asking, "Is having a democracy safer and more civil then having the military run the country?" then the answer to that question is yes. From numerous studies, when the military are under control, there is violence, stronger laws and the up heave of "rebels". If the country is controlled by the "government" that is affiliated and sought strongly and solely on the basis of the military, then that is another story.in democratic system,people come to parliament through election by people.it means to say that all people are directly involved in the process of election.and if these parliamentarians will not deliver according to the wishes of the people,then in next election they will not win the confidence of people.and if there is free judiciary then corrupt politicians may be punished for their wrongdoings.so,democracy can be called the best system to run the state.but contrary to it,dictatorship is form of one man government.it is extremely inhuman way to manage the matters of state.worst democracy is even better than martial law.
Yes! Civillian rule is much better cus it is the power of the people while millitary rule is done through coercion.....
Well actually to be a good community you need both because think of segregation. If it were civilian rule black people would still be in separate schools and public places than white people. Military rule is bad sometimes because it may turn into a dictatorship
Well actually to be a good community you need both because think of segregation. If it were civilian rule black people would still be in separate schools and public places than white people. Military rule is bad sometimes because it may turn into a Dictatorship
Its not.
Usually it isn't. Behind the outward show of efficiency, military systems are too inflexible to operate smoothly, and many highly sinister types can be found hiding behind the raiment of respectability. Only when a country is descending into violent mob-rule or rotten with corruption do you have to send for the military. It's a pretty desperate cry for help.
Yes.
democracy