Democracy

It's a constitutional monarchy.

A democracy with a Monarchy.

Kuwait is the top ranking Arab country with freedom of speech and the only Country in the Arabian peninsula with a Parliament and elections.

We won't know without trying. Switzerland, the only country with regular votes, 4-7 times a year, on national as well as Cantonal and local issue, "runs like a clock." It has 4 official languages, which shows that although small, it is quite diverse, with every valley being pretty distinct. One result of all that democracy is the Swiss read more news than anyone, because they share responsibility with Parliament. This also keeps Parliament more representative: if they don't represent fairly, people will pass ballot initiatives they want, themselves, and the Parliament is ignored.

It takes place in different countries and can be any where or every where

In a direct democracy, such as in Ancient Greece, the citizens have all power, and everything is done by majority rule. The problem with this is that the over-excited mass often overrules the minority's rights.

In a representative democracy, or a republic, the people's power is balanced by allowing the representative to fight for their constituency's interests while protecting the minorities.

Not until 1994. Before that it was ruled by a minority racist whites under the apartheid.The white government made sure since 1910 in rule that 80 - 90% of all the countries wealth s is centralized and allocated to the minority 10% white race while marginalizing the Bantu majority race.

It depends entirely what you mean by "position".

If the question is asking how you become a member of the political leadership in a parliamentary democracy, it depends on the type of parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy where people vote for individuals, like the UK, it is as simple as running and winning a campaign to represent your district. In a parliamentary democracy where people vote for parties, like Israel, you need to get on the party list and for there to be enough seats granted for you to sit in one.

If the question is asking how to get into politics in a parliamentary democracy, the best way is through an internship with your local parliamentarian.

If the question is asking how to get a job in general (apolitical), there is no real difference between a parliamentary democracy and any other type of government. You send in your resume, talk to the owner, and get hired.

Rome & Greece

A democratic government, or democracy, is a government whose decisions are made by the people, rather than by a single person (as in a monarchy), or by a small group of appointed people (as in an oligarchy). A democracy can be direct, where all citizens vote for every decision, or it can be representative, where citizens vote for representatives who make up a congress or parliament that make the decisions. A representative democracy is also a type of republic in which all citizens get to vote for their representatives, as opposed to just an elite few. The United States is a representative democracy, which means it is both a type of republic and a type of democracy. The Founding Fathers wanted to make the U.S. a representative democracy because they wanted all people to have a say in what happens, but they didn't believe that every citizen had the time and ability to make complex decisions and compromise effectively while still living their normal lives.

I' m not 100% positive but I think that any person with an Ostracism.

Without it, politcal leaders have no way of representing the people's views.

One inherent problem in direct democracy is tabulating the votes of the entire populace. There is no way to have a direct democracy without having a mechanism to tabulate and measure the votes.

chalanges to democracy?

It's not. Democracy is a system of government owned and controlled by the will of the majority of the governed. The will of the people of a democracy would be the supreme law of their land. Unless the people officially choose to endow "representatives" with their rightful power to choose their destiny, any true democracy would necessarily be a direct democracy, because the true will of the majority of the people could only be acertained from a publicly owned, votable forum system capable of perpetually establishing truth about every issue, gradually and peacefully, in real time. There has never been a full-fledged democracy on Earth, for two main reasons. First, humanity only recently developed the computative, interactive and connective technology to define the true will of a population, a task that couldn't be done by horseback. And secondly, the small group (now the CFR) who enjoyed wielding Our power for generations has made a science of convincing us that We hold the power, in order to prevent losing their illegal reign over us and all we produce and own. But, it's obvious to all that our majority never voted for our current conditions of corrupt government, perpetual war, war profiteering, hunger, starvation, officially acceptable genocide, widening cultural divides, ever-widening gap between the rich and poor or ecological devastation of proportions that now threaten our extinction ~ myseries that none of us ever wanted ~ that could only benefit a psychologically unstable few. Countries which have been deceptively mislabeled as democracies by that tiny minority have equally tiny "degrees" or "aspects" of democracy: the vote. Some call them demockery, because they make a mockery of the very concept of democracy. It's a generational global deception of enormous magnitude. Having ballot boxes does not make a country a democracy. And, negative reality is a natural product of demockery. Direct democracy would be a political system which is owned and "directly" controlled by those it governs. Those affected by and/or with special knowledge of a particular public issue would raise the issue, then participate in the formulation of the most popular solution to that issue. Since the vast majority of people want peace and prosperity, that is what a direct democracy would produce. "Representative democracy" is a either just a deceptive misnomer or the name of a form of government yet to exist. America is a representative republic: Not a democracy by definition, as you were taught in public school. So, a representative democracy would require that each representative have a local votable forum system in which only his or her constituents could participate.

The purpose of creating a democratic government is to allow its citizens a say in how the government operates. It's essential that the citizens of a democratic government vote, hold public office and interact with foreign governments. The term "democracy" does not apply in today's world. The world is a complicated place and citizens vote for people who will help the nation grow and prosper. By voting, people select candidates for public office who are charged with making fair & just laws. People do not vote to establish laws per se. They vote for people whose job it is to make the laws & regulations. In a free nation, the citizens can vote poor office holders out and replace them with more competent ones.

That depends on exactly how you define the word. They certainly intended to create a government in which the people were the ultimate authority and which was answerable to their will. However, that was not what they would have meant by the word democracy. To them democracy meant a government on the model of ancient Athens where the populace as a whole, all the free men of the nation, met on a regular basis to debate policy and act as the legislature and supreme court. Obviously such a government is simply impractical for any state larger than a small city. Thus the founders created a representative republic. That is a government where the people elect representatives to conduct the legislative and other business of government and must stand for re-election on a regular basis so that the people can pass judgment on their actions and retain control of them. Over time, as the franchise has expanded and elections have become more direct, the meaning of the word democracy has changed to be essentially synonymous with republic. Thus, if you mean democracy in the sense it was understood in the 18th century the answer is no, but if you mean democracy in the sense we use it today, the answer is reasonably yes.Michael Montagne

They have very little in common. They are both ruled by people.

Democracy is good for resolving disagreements between powerful groups in society, without resorting to physical fighting and civil war.

But democracy doesn't necessarily lead to social justice. Because it's the majority who makes the laws and the rules, regardless of whether weak minorities like these laws and rules or not. In a divided democratic society, quite often there is nothing weak minorities can do to protect their rights.

A good historical example of that is USA. USA has been a democracy right from the day of its independence. And in that democracy first slavery for the blacks existed, and then racial segregation and discrimination for millions of blacks.

Things are better in USA now. But democracy is no guarantee that things will stay as good as they are now.

You only need to remember that Hitler and the Nazis gained popularity and power in a reasonably democratic country of their time. And then they used their power to declare martial law for everyone.

Democracy is good for resolving disagreements between powerful groups in society, without resorting to physical fighting and civil war.

But democracy doesn't necessarily lead to social justice. Because it's the majority who makes the laws and the rules, regardless of whether weak minorities like these laws and rules or not. In a divided democratic society, quite often there is nothing weak minorities can do to protect their rights.

A good historical example of that is USA. USA has been a democracy right from the day of its independence. And in that democracy first slavery for the blacks existed, and then racial segregation and discrimination for millions of blacks.

Things are better in USA now. But democracy is no guarantee that things will stay as good as they are now.

You only need to remember that Hitler and the Nazis gained popularity and power in a reasonably democratic country of their time. And then they used their power to declare martial law for everyone.

The US is a Constitution Based Federal Republic, with a long and strong

Democratic Tradition. With all of its errors, it seems to work. It works only as far as a man will go. If the senate has a motive against the wishes of the public we can't do a thing about it.

It is likely that History does not record the origin of Democracy. The Greeks and Romans were known to have elections yet the eligible voters of these societies were only a small percentage of the people.

Machiavelli in "Discourses on Livy" suggest that democracies have existed for as long as history was recorded.

John Lock in his "Second Trieste on Government" suggest that democracy may be the oldest form of government outside of a Patriarchy.

No. For example China has become a much more capitalist oriented economy, however their government is communist.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the economy is controlled largely by private and corporate consumers and produces of goods and services.
Democracy is a political system in which the people have direct control over the government.

Representative democracy, since a large civilazation would make it impossible to control a direct democracy. Choosing representatives and trusting that they will make the correct decision is much easier than trying to listen to everyone's oppinion. Especially when there are 900 million + people.

Athens greese

do sex and send photos