What would be a better way to administer a country other than democracy or depotism?

Answer 1

Nothing has beat a Democracy yet.

Answer 2

The best government for a country is one which will bring peace, prosperity and opportunity to its people, with peace and civil order being by far the number one consideration.

Though power corrupts, there are examples in history of even absolute monarchs or dictators who mainly put the interests of their nation first and who are considered "benevolent" As long as the good ruler is at the helm, this type of government works well, but then of course a despot can succeed him.

A better form of government would protect the nation from accidents of birth or the luck of the coup. Some democratic elements, such as an elected parliament which has more than an advisory power, can work to check the arbitrary or self interested exercise of power by a monarch or an unelected leader and are probably best for all nations which have a strong man or a junta at the top. Such a limited or constitutional monarchy can also serve, over time, as a transition to a full democracy, where all major office holders are elected.

Since there are degrees of democracy, a government which has a democratically elected executive and law making body can be best for some countries. However, certain social, economic, bureaucratic and other political institutions must be in place and must work together to make such a government effective and stable.

Back to your question... The best way to administer a particular country is the one which works in a competent way to give people what they want and need from a government: domestic order, security from invasion by other countries, essential public services and infrastructure, and a reasonably good economy such that the average person has adequate housing, food and clean water.

Answer 3

Modern democracy involves all people voting to elect a leader who is then free to make decisions.

True democracy would require all laws to be passed by a popular vote of the people. Some countries do this to some extent.

Anarchy is where there is no law or system, but where people get together to solve their problems when they need to. An example is the free market system western countries use. .

Alternatives are power sharing arrangements, such as those proposed in Northern Ireland or New Zealand (New Zealand must have a certain number of Maori members of parliment).

An interesting one is China's system. The rule communist party is a vast democratic system with limits on what the president and prime minister can do. In popular culture China's system as seen as a dictatorship, but in fact the leaders have very specific limits to their power. For example, the cultural revolution went outside these limits and the organisers went to jail.

China's system has worked since the early 1980s to provide a stable government for a vast country. This system is not that different from the systems used by Athens (where we get the word democracy from) and Rome.

Another system, also used by China, is corruption. Corruption is just another form of government. This is rule by money and influence. Corruption allows things to be done outside of laws, rules and normal government processes. When it works it allows countries like Japan, Taiwan, Korea and China to chance faster than the law would normally allow.

When it fails, the system favours the few and destroys the country (Indonesia and the the Philippines would be examples).

There is also systems of rule by the educated and knowledgable.

Government systems need to match the needs of a country and its stage of development. Democracy has its limitations, in particular in countries where the rich run the election.

Alternative systems to current democracy involve making it reflect the needs and nature of society. For example, democracy was built around where you live. Because most people lived near where they worked. But most people now live in one electorate and work in other. They probably go and visit many other places regularly.

Answer 4

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.

Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
The origins of our contemporary, narrow idea of freedom.
shows how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom. This model was derived from ideas and techniques developed by nuclear strategists during the Cold War to control the behaviour of the Soviet enemy.

Mathematicians such as John Nash developed paranoid game theories whose equations required people to be seen as selfish and isolated creatures, constantly monitoring each other suspiciously – always intent on their own advantage.

This model was then developed by genetic biologists, anthropologists, radical psychiatrists and free market economists, and has come to dominate both political thinking since the Seventies and the way people think about themselves as human beings.

However, within this simplistic idea lay the seeds of new forms of control. And what people have forgotten is that there are other ideas of freedom. We are, in a trap of our own making that controls us, deprives us of meaning and causes death and chaos abroad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap

Answer 5

A constitutional representative republic would be better.