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.
Democracy , there is freedom of speech while military rule, is governed by militants there is no say about anything therefore no freedom of speech
Democracy is better than Army rule because with democracy everyone has a say. It is good for people to have a say and an impact on how they will live their lives.
direct democracy is when each person rules and indirect is when people vote for people who rule.
"For the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, that is a democracy. "This is from Politics by Aristotle (Forms of Government Book III, Chapters 7-8, last paragraph).
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.
In a democracy, the people have control of the government; in a Dictatorship, one person has control of the government.A democracy is when the people rule the government and a dictatorship is when one or a small group of people rule the gobernment such as a military leader
Yes...since we are not operating under military rule
'Democratic rule' meant the rule by people who have been democratically elected and whose powers and duration of rule are subject to laws and other restraints.'Military rule' means rule by the army of a country and more specifically, by the army leaders. These leaders have notbeen elected by the people and in most cases military rulers set aside or ignore the laws limiting the ruler's powers.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.
Monarchy was where a single person had absolute rule, like a king. Succession was through the blood line. Democracy is where the public voted for a person to rule, and that person shared power equaly with a senate or congress. Put simply, Monarchy: Blood line, all power. Democracy: Vote, split power.
A "Dictatorship" is power derived through a single source, normally a single person or very small group of people; a dictatorship is a subset government under the Aristocracy definition: unquestionable rule by some right or power. A "Democracy" is rule by mass will of the people, it is sometimes termed as Mobocracy (the will of the majority sets the rule of law).
Two immediate similarities in my mind are that they both possess a bureaucracy to implement their rule and maintain police and/or military forces to control force.
Paradox of democracy
A democracy.