0
Well, honey, let me break it down for you. Civilian rule is like having a fancy dinner party with etiquette and democracy, while military rule is like a frat party with tanks and uniforms. So yeah, civilian rule is definitely the way to go if you want a society that values freedom and human rights over marching orders and curfews.
What else can I help you with?
Why is civilian government better than military government?
Civilian government is generally considered better than military government because it promotes democratic principles, such as accountability, human rights, and the rule of law. Civilian leaders are typically elected by the populace, ensuring that governance reflects the will of the people, whereas military governments often rely on force and coercion. Additionally, civilian governments tend to foster political stability and economic development by encouraging civic engagement and participation in decision-making processes. This can lead to more sustainable and inclusive growth compared to the often authoritarian and repressive nature of military rule.
What was the importance of Magellan and and his crew's voyage that they completed?
military rule is better than civillian regime
Support the motion which says civil rule is better than military rule?
Civil rule is better than military rule for several reasons. Firstly, civil rule is based on democratic principles, allowing for the participation of citizens in decision-making processes through elections and representation. This promotes inclusivity and diversity of perspectives, leading to more balanced and fair governance. Additionally, civil rule is generally associated with greater respect for human rights and freedoms, as military rule often involves restrictions on civil liberties in the name of maintaining order and security. Overall, civil rule provides a more stable and sustainable form of government that is accountable to the people it serves.
How many people from each country died in World War 2?
Germany military - 3,250,000 civilian - 2,350,000 Italy military - 226,900 civilian - 60,000 Japan military - 1,740,000 civilian - 393,400 US military 405,000 civilian - 68 (Pearl Harbor) France military 122,000 civilian - 470,000 England military - 305,800 civilian - 6,700,000 Russia military - 11,000,000 civilian - 6,700,000 China military - 1,400,000 civilian - 8,000,000 Poland- from 5.5m to 6.5m all together (not caunting many soldiers who fleed the country and joined army in other countries)
When does civilian law supersede military law?
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
Are military rules better than civilian rules?
there are more rules in military than civilian
Is military rule better than civilian rule?
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
Is civilian government better than military government?
Yes! Civillian rule is much better cus it is the power of the people while millitary rule is done through coercion.....
Civil rule preferable to military rule?
civilian rule is better than military rule because there is freedom and peace in the nation better than when the military was ruling us
Why is civilian government better than military government?
Civilian government is generally considered better than military government because it promotes democratic principles, such as accountability, human rights, and the rule of law. Civilian leaders are typically elected by the populace, ensuring that governance reflects the will of the people, whereas military governments often rely on force and coercion. Additionally, civilian governments tend to foster political stability and economic development by encouraging civic engagement and participation in decision-making processes. This can lead to more sustainable and inclusive growth compared to the often authoritarian and repressive nature of military rule.
Why is civilian rule better than military rule?
The military rules by force and not by the will of the people. Military rule is seldom for the good of the people. Civil rights, in fact basic human rights are often none existent under military rule.The military are AUTHORITARIAN in nature.The civilians gives room for public opinion which is lacking in military
Why is military rule better than the civilian rule?
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.
Points on the topic military regime is better than civilian regime?
the answer is simple its not even better than civilian rule why do you think that the civilian governors are the ones ruling us now because nobody wanted military governors
Points on Military government is more suitable for Nigeria than Sivilian government?
Points on Military government is better than Civilian government
What was the importance of Magellan and and his crew's voyage that they completed?
military rule is better than civillian regime
The worst democracy is better than the best military rule?
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.
What does civilian of the military mean?
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in militaryand political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers.
