What is the opposite or an alternative to an Electoral dictatorship? Top points for the one who helps the most

Question

i know this might sound like a stupid question, but i don't know much about the government. BAsically i'm supposed to do a essay for my Government and institution class, ( i got 6 hours to do this) and i gotta create a essay title, so i was going for "Is the British Government , an electoral dictatorship? (crappy title). SO in short what is the opposite of an electoral dictatorship in the U.K?

I promise top point for the person who helps me the most!!!!!

Answer 1

The opposite or alternative form of government to an electoral dictatorship is one in which individuals vote for a chief leader to represent their country and their voice. From this point on, there is not much that can be done about what a leader does once he's in office. Therefore, individuals basically vote on faith and trust in the leader's speeches, characteristics, background, and so forth.

Dictatorship ruled governments are distant from the people, like parliament or communists governments that represent the elite minority. Because dictatorships are usually ran by tyrants with their interest in mind, working class individuals' needs are often mis-represented. It is the poor who are made to suffer the most, in a government that does not represent the people, but has its own central focus. Dictators can care less about housing, education, and human rights. Their main concern is the almighty dollar.

Alternatively, there is an electoral democracy where individuals vote for a delegate to represent their values and beliefs through a legitimate legalized process. People select leaders base on their strategic plan and organized ideas on what is necessary for the progress of the country and its citizens. There are representatives and local officials who present major issues of the people to the central government, and bills are either passed or vetoed. A democratic government is the best form of government, in its true form. However, all forms of government throughout the various regions of the world is at risk to corrupt leaders, even if the constitution is justly written.

Answer 2

Electoral dictatorships come in many guises.
A majority that votes based on ethnic/cultural identity rather than on economic/social models like the west and who then discriminate against a minority could be one and of course
Iraq is a perfect example of how a democracy in these circumstances rapidly becomes an Electoral D.

Electoral D can also be achieved also by restricting choice of political systems or by restricting the vote itself which is current practice in the Uk.
For example hundreds of thousands cannot vote because they committed a crime there are other groups as well, this is a means to a politically homogeneous group who all vote the same way. Groups that are on top want to stay there that is quite natural primitive behaviour.
Plurality of electable parties is not necessarily a counter to an electoral dictatorship if all the parties wear the same clothes ie situation in the UK at present since demise of John Smith and real Labour.
There is no alternative to the Electoral D in the UK at present.
There was a practical demonstration of a possible alternative to an Electoral D and that was the Anarchosyndicalist movement in Spain just prior to Franco. However to achieve such a movement takes a considerably higher level of social consciousness than could be even dreamed of in the UK at present it is much too materialistic.
The liberals try occasionally to institute proportional representation which theoretically would be a viable method to counteract an Electoral D at least in part but it is never taken seriously in the UK and arguably would not really address the issues I raised above anyway.......

Answer 3

Britain is a democratic constitutional monarchy.

Some officials do have hereditary positions (the royalty, the Lords) but this is now changing. Soon, only the ceremonial head of the state (the monarch) will be hereditary. All other officials will be elected.

Britain in not a dictatorship. Tony Blair is the Prime Minister, and he presides over an elceted government, similar to the U.S. president or French president.

Cuba is considered an 'electoral dictatorship' because the majority votes to elect a dictator named Fidel Castro. Whether the election is free is another debate.

Try planning your class assignments a little better so you don't have to rush. Also, try going to the library some time. Otherwise folks might call you lazy.

Good luck.

Answer 4

I have no facts to back this up but my belief is that dictatorship is dictatorship no matter how it comes about (one party claiming to be the people, two similar parties, one person, an all-powerful legislature (like Parliament was in the 1600s)) and the opposite would be a lack of central government - the anarchist idealology.

Answer 5

a genuin free british dictator. this would prevent infultrators fom outher parties trying to ruin the country. a dictator would just keep overuling the idiots and keep a good lawful free clean and green free country and they would be unassailable for five years.

Answer 6

no ones evolved to an opposite yet.