Democracy

it still hasn't received democracy and the struggle is going on..

You're answering your own question, and the key word is invasion.

When there's political unrest in a country, it is usually between two or more factions with different point of view, that can be political, religious, sectarian, etc., and this factions will fight each other so they can control the nation to their will.

What usually happens is that one country (almost always the U.S.) has an interest in this revolting country, this could be money, resources, military strategy, free-trade, among others, and it will be "invited" by one of the factions, almost always it is the most likely to succeed, in exchange for military support direct or indirect and finally this faction will reign.

The problem now is that the enemy is not only the faction which now becomes the government, but also the invading country, and the enemy isn't a single opposing faction anymore, but the gathering of all of them, with a newly acquired sense of nationalism and so starts a war against a foreign invasor and the inviting government.

Worst case scenario: a cycle that continually repeats itself, like in the case of Afghanistan.

Ans: People face various difficulties in a non-democratic country as we have seen in case of Chile, Myanmar, Ghana, Pakistan, Poland, Nepal etc. These difficulties because of the different reasons as mentioned below:

>> In non-democratic countries, the people have no security of life. For example, in Chile thousands of people were killed by military rulers. >> People are not free to express their opinions. Criticizing the government or rulers in a non-democratic country would lead to severe punishments. >> There is no freedom for the people either to elect their government or to be elected. Even if they find any government or ruler not to their benefit or well-being, they can not change it since there is no election. >> In non-democratic countries no opposition parties or opposition leader is tolerated. >> As we have seen in Poland during the regime of a non-democratic government, the workers are not allowed to form their independent Trade Unions. Only such unions can survive which rightly or wrongly support the policies of the government. >> In absence of a democratic government there is no socio-economic equality. Societies in such countries remain divided among privileged and non-privileged classes which result in corruption in every department of the government. Ordinary people can not aspire for any post. People are always at the mercy of the autocratic ruler or the dictator.

yes

Acting through representatives. As in our (the public's) influence is not direct, but through representatives. Dumbed down: we elect them> they do the work (not us).

The Constitution of the United States explicitly details a "Republican Form of Government". The United States is not a direct democracy. By definition, CONSERVATIVES claim ORDER as a priority. Thus, relative to liberals, conservatives are naturally less responsive. However, one cannot definitively state whether or not conservatives support "direct" democracy. Their ideals are democratic, but mostly in support of a strong, representative government: the republic.

what is the phonetic spelling of democracy

moanarchy + democracy

The fragility of democracy hypotheses that democracies, far from being the norm, are actually rare and difficult to maintain.

yes, because they were advocates of direct democracy

Tor a bit of water in them to help prime them and start her up. don't let it run dry for too long as it will be damaged.

freedom of discrimination based on race,, religion, ecthnicity, or sex

No, a direct democracy could always be possible, though largely impracticable in larger states.

usually a constitution that states that power is to be shared by the people.

Corruption is cancer that catches up any and every form of government .

The main reason for the spread of corruption is that the people in the highest seat of power are corrupt .Unless the people at the top rung of power are honest and free from corruption , there is absolutely no possibility of eradicating corruption.If there is widespread corruption in India , it is because the people at the top are really corrupt .No subordinate will have to guts to be corrupt if the people at the top of the administration are honest and take stern action against the corrupt people .They can not be harsh to the corrupt people , since it is through the corrupt subordiantes that the people at the top get their share of the bribes .If one can make a discrete enquiry with the pavement traders in channai, he can find out how much the police and the corporation councillors collect as mamool from the pavement traders .They say that the money so collected is shared by people from the top to the bottom.If the head is corrupt , what will the limbs do?

The term democracy first appeared in ancient greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy.[21] Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[22] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. All the male Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state; citizenship was not granted to women, or slaves. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected

liberal democracy. Democracy altogether. socialist democracy. Democracy elite. A pluralist democracy.

It depends on the kind of democracy you are trying to create.

Someone who supported an American-type liberal democracy would say: TRUE. One of the bedrocks of the American Republic is the idea that while democracy and rule by majority is laudable in many respects, there must also be countermajoritarian human rights that are protected against majority wishes. These basic human rights are necessary for human flourishing, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure, torture bans, and the right to self-defense. The majority can (and often has) come to the wrong conclusions on these questions because of its desire to impose its will on all people. The American Founding Fathers derisively called such a government where the majority rules without the countermajoritarian human rights a "Tyranny of the Majority" or "Mob Rule".

Someone who supported a strict rule of the majority, however, would say: FALSE. The American definition of democratic government, which has caught on in Europe as well, is less popular in the third world, where "tyrannies of the majority" are seen as a legitimate form of democracy to achieve the best result for the most people. These societies prize the collective good over individual suffering. As a result, these governments impose laws that bring death to religious minorities, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and political activists who disagree with these beliefs.

1824

No,reservations are not good for democracy. In a democracy, there should be all rights distributed equally.

His establish of Athenian dominance of 180 Greek city-states after the Persian War, converting the Delian League into an empire of Athens, thereby giving it the money and military strength to spend on a superior navy and on Athens' welfare state.

Oh, by no means. The best people aren't even often on the ballot.

ggg

All differnces