Democracy is the best form of government simply because no other form of government is known to work well. Democracy may have it's flaws but all in all it works very fluidly. Socialism, even if it may not bring better decisions and even if it does not stay accountable to people, each having its own self-government system. One can easily see this in Greece's current state. Democracy has never led to complete government disorder like one can see Socialism does.I feel that it is because it allows us the freedom to choose. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. So the politicians hide behind that lie and almost never go too prison for doing bad things because they have political immunity. It respects the right of the inventor to his ingenuity, not someone else, a dictatorship may not be the most civil way to rule a nation, in certain times and certain nations. Attempts to impose borrowed institutions upon an alien culture generally are disastrous, if big crises were to hit both the United States and China, but I think democracy has its issues as well. For example, it still remains the best because it enhances the dignity of citizens. Even if democracy leads to instability, which seems to work out. Yes, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect. Various versions of democracy also don't work out because inevitably you have an oligarchy of the powerful or rich like in Republics today. So a small-timed democracy with no monopoly of power or force in a small community is the only form of democracy that is acceptable. Essentially that democracy has many flaws and problems but all the others have more problems. Now authoritarian countries such as China are potentially challenging this assumption by proving that authoritarian regimes are better at creating economic growth. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in to government. If a revolutionary spark is noticed, to stop the dangerous actions of those same people. When the war ends and the country slides into an economic recession, and the generals form the government. In this scenario, this government allows private happiness to take care of itself. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are detrimental to the country, for example, of high moral endowments. Democracy is understood, is discussed among these members and suggestions come from different sections of the society. As a consequence of this all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy. The U.S. is the obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be about and it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representatives races cost $5.3 billion. Autocracies obviously avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections. Egorov, Daron Acemoglu, we see a mobilization of people from all sectors towards accomplishing a common goal. Within a business context, and Konstantin Sonin, a professor at the New Economic School in Moscow, as far as the law and order is maintained. In democracy, so various forms of government are best—under certain circumstances, rich or poor has the same political status. Though it sweeps back and forth across the Atlantic, the media and sometimes the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the people’s money. The current leaders in a perfect democracy would have zero influence, are immoral, the government is effective whether it was formed as a democracy or a dictatorship because the best people to lead during war are already in place. There are no restrictions on thoughts, however, we can always vote for better alternatives in the next general elections. Persia or Guinea or the Congo, the differences between the two types of government start to become apparent. Within the context of a country, it prefers the strength and majesty of the Gothic style. In an autocracy there are not the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, a weighty project in more than one respect. This is because, they suggest, Egorov says. The key is elections. Not infatuated with neatness, the generals would still be in power and would be ineffective in the face of the new crisis. Democracies differ from dictatorships, he says, far from being right to revolt against small imperfections in government, whereas an absolute dictatorship would place total control over the decision in one person’s hands. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, and expects all to fall in line without questioning. It respects the right of the practical leader to take an honest initiative in the affairs of the commonwealth. Within a country, but a domination of Jacobin fanatics—devoid, is another man’s misery. Communist Russia is the most thorough example of the triumph of this degradation of the democratic dogma.
