2006-10-22 04:06:03 · 13 answers · asked by liketoaskq 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The possible answers to this question are stacked. A true democracy can not be corrupt. If it is corrupt, it becomes facism!
2006-10-22 04:11:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a question that has been bothering the minds of social scientists and philosophers since antiquity. The famous philosopher Pluto in his book Das Republic has conceived of a virtuous democracy. But in a democracy like India, where rulers are chosen on the basis of religion (so called secularism), caste, province or region etc, and where muscle men and money play a major role in deciding which way the voters will vote, and where education or information takes a back seat; we get a govt what we have in India. Because there is no quick or sure cure for the deficiencies mentioned, some countries have preferred sultanate or monarchy, as in west Asia. For example the govt of Dubai is far superior to that of India, that is why most Indians (muslims mainly) want to migrate there. But such efficiencies can work only where the size or population is rather small. This concept is not working in Nepal.(primarily because of lack of resources or wealth). In most European countries and in North America, the democratic system proved more efficient, though most of the govts there have graduated from monarchy. The dictatorship concept (of enlightened monarchy) of Soviet Union failed it got corrupt within 60 years (power has very corrupting influence on ordinary mortals).
As education and information spreads with modern technology, it is the democratic system that is likely to survive, all over the world, in the long run.
2006-10-24 06:59:56 · answer #2 · answered by innocent 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear in any form of government there is room for corruption. In democracy at least you can raise voice against it. There is an independent machinery for rectification of system even though at times the process is painfully slow.
In monarchy or in dictatorship you always told that the machinery is non corrupt and the nation is progressing! Can we forget the days of emergency when loud propoganda was carried out about effecient government but in reality corruption was rampant.
2006-10-24 07:18:48 · answer #3 · answered by concerned citizen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An efficient, Non corrupt monarchy is better, than a corrept democracy.
2006-10-22 04:24:13 · answer #4 · answered by kingofuniverse 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A democracy no matter what is the best option because it offers a chance to people's voice. Corruption, whether we like it or not is an evil in evry society and it's upto the citizens to fight corrupt officials.
2006-10-22 04:34:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that there will ever be power without corruption, at least at some level. Some individuals are morally and ethically stronger than others, but power WILL corrupt over time.
2006-10-22 04:14:42 · answer #6 · answered by wildraft1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither. I am in favor of perfecting the corrupt democracy.
2006-10-22 04:09:39 · answer #7 · answered by djmantx 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would go for the second one but it is very difficult for a monrchy to stay non-corrupt for long ...
2006-10-22 04:14:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
monarchy but their could be a lot of fighting over the power exchange so you would have to tweak it a little
2006-10-22 04:15:10 · answer #9 · answered by animallover 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Benevolent leader ,be it a dictator,monarch,military, is always good for people
2006-10-24 17:31:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋