Depends for what! Democracy gives the people the power but ends up with lots of bureaucracy causing delays to decision making, lots of waste and costs.
Anarchism is no government so no one is in control and looking out for the people's interests. Doubt many people want that as there is no way of making the country successful or looking after the needy. ie everybody loses.
Fascism worked very well with a dictator. Look at the case of Hitler and Germany, he rebuilt them from the great deprecision following the first world war. Restored them to being a powerful nation, improved the living and working conditions for all German citizens while making the country strong and rich. Only problem was that he could not sustain it and so had to resort to ever increasingly desperate measures to retain his success. Hence reclassifying German Citizens and continuously expanding the country.
Socialists supposedly provide the same for everyone and communists are the extreme versions of those. If we look at China the government took the land from the people and instead said you can work on it's land but you will not own it. The citizens can earn just enough to survive as rural farmers and than hope the government will pay for their retirement. This though prevents the country becoming rich as people can't borrow against what they own (as they own nothing). Hence the wealth of China is soley because of the size of its population nothing to do with money each individual has.
2006-07-28 01:23:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Elliot H 2
·
7⤊
0⤋
Switzerland is the only true democracy. As it's the only country where the population get to vote on every single thing that happens. The UK and US just abuse the word, all we do is just elect a dictator for a few years.
The way Switzerland does it is the fair and proper way a government should treat its people. Many people forget the government are our servants. Switzerland is the only non-big brother country. It's the only country where you have true privacy and freedom.
The 46 members of the Council of States (two from each canton and one from former half cantons) are directly elected in each canton, whereas the 200 members of the National Council are elected directly under a system of proportional representation. Members of both houses serve for 4 years. Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland a direct democracy.
Modern direct democracy is characterized by three pillars:
Initiative
Referendum including binding referenda
Recall
The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.
Other institutions exist which are regarded as being directly democratic in character. In particular, the use of sortition to fill posts in government or decision making bodies and the formation of Citizen Assemblies for collective decision making (Canada used this to come up with a proposal for a new constitution).
Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government.
2006-07-28 07:11:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by MATTHEW A 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, democracies are only what the majority of people want. Minorities can get screwed over. But there's different types of democracy. You have your big representative democracies, where a president or prime minister rules for you in four-year stints, you have your Lyndon LaRouche-style democracy, where the people vote on what they want to do every week, and then you get your democracies like the one in Zimbabwe, where the elections are rigged and the voters for the opposition get their shops trashed by the soldiers.
I don't think it's democracy that's good or bad, it's the way that the democratic government works. You can even get Socialist Democrats these days, so I'd go for a nice, fair democracy that caters to the minority groups as well, and gives everyone plenty of human rights to live by.
2006-07-28 01:30:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Has any country ever actually tried true democracy? I personally cannot think of one although I suppose in modern day politics Germanys electoral system comes closest but is still too far away from anything that could truely be called democratic.
2006-07-28 02:22:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by ivortiger 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the pre-historic hunter-gatherer society was quite cool. Everybody had a job to do, everybody felt valued, and everybody shared everything. I think this is where they got the idea of communism but of course, communism is corrupt and horrible, whereas in the society of stone age hunter-gatherers people really needed to rely on each other because there weren't enough people in the first place!
2006-07-28 01:24:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Luvfactory 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There will be! the millenium when Christ will reign on earth for 1 thousand years and peace will abound- That will be a Theocracy In the next few years all world governments will fail, economies will collapse there will be a coalition of nations into a one world government which will lead to emergence of Antichrist. At the end of that will be Christs second coming. Please prepare to meet your God!
2006-07-28 01:17:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by floxy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.
2006-07-28 01:16:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Philosophical Fred 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
depends who you are.
If you are the ruling elite then democracy is perfect.
If you are a minority then democracy sucks.
Perhaps a quasi-socialist meritocracy with Marxist economic values would suit you better?
As for who follows it, may I suggets that you have a look at who currently controls all the resources and then ask yourself if they would be better or worse off in such a utopia.
2006-07-28 01:15:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by wifi_wanderer 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolute Monarchy. Take a look at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cheap electricity, free education, few taxes. Mind you, this can only work if you have something to back you... like oil (and religion).
2006-07-28 01:18:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Saudi Geoff 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
democracy is not a government and americans don't follow it they just say that so they can sleep at night
2006-07-28 01:15:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by bob 3
·
0⤊
0⤋