Although many people believe that democracy is the best and successful form of the government. However History tells us that many times Dictatorship has proven to be successful. For example in France( when lead by a dictator Napoleon) and in Germany (when lead by Hitler) . Dictatorship also has proven to be successful in Pakistan. Dictatorship is much more effective way of running a government as it establishes peace, and has less room for the corruption. It provides economic stability to a country. Moreover Dictatorship is much flexible than that of democracy. P Pakistan is better of being ruled by dictatorship than that of democracy. Although in democracy people have a right to choose their representatives but when you consider a country like Pakistan about 43% of the people are illiterate so they are not qualified enough to choose their representatives. They do not understand the economical and political issues. On the other hand dictators are not elected by the people. In democratic country like Pakistan there is a lot of political violence which leads to the disruption of the peace. On the other hand in dictatorship one person or a small group of people have absolute power resulting in no political violence. In Pakistan people want peace and this can be achieved through dictatorship. In many countries dictatorship is successful then democracy. I...
... middle of paper ...
... Shah, Haider Ali. "Democracy Vs Dictatorship: Pakistan's Economic Perspective."Democracy Vs Dictatorship: Pakistan's Economic Perspective. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/haideralishah/democracy-vs-dictatorship-pakistans-economic-perspective
Anonymous. "Benefits Of Dictatorship | Benefits Of." Benefits Of Dictatorship. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-dictatorship/
Ali, Hassan. "Pakistan Today." Pakistan Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/01/20/comment/editors-mail/poverty-in-pakistan/
Naeem, Hamza. "Democracy Vs Dictatorship: Pakistan's Economic Perspective." Democracy Vs Dictatorship: Pakistan's Economic Perspective. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
http://www.slideshare.net/hamzanaeem161/democracy-and-dictatorship
Reich, R. (2007). How capitalism is killing democracy. Foreign Policy, Sep/Oct2007, 38-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
177-192 Street, P. Capitalism and Democracy "Don't Mix Very Well": Reflections on globalization, February, 2000. Z online Magazine: http://www.iefd.org/articles/capitalism_and_democracy.php UNDP (2004), Arab Human Development Report 2004: Towards Freedom in the Arab World . Pp. 12
a few ways a dictatorship has advantages over democracy it's more efficient. A dictatorship is a
Many authors argue that capitalism and democracy are always complimentary, and go hand in hand, it is impossible to imagine one without other. All these arguments do not match with reality. Capitalism and democracy can clash in different fields (Delanty, 2012).
Diamond, L. (2004, January 21). What is Democracy. What is Democracy. Stanford, California, United States of America: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm
Since the initiation of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, securing democratic freedoms in developing countries has become a major global-political concern. As a result, various donor nations have implemented good governance conditionalities in their financial aid policies, emphasising the establishment of fair democratic elections in recipient countries. However, efforts to reinforce legitimate democratic governments in developing states have been largely unsuccessful. In the book Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places, economist Paul Collier examines how the international community’s obsession with democracy and elections has hindered the developmental process in what he has termed as the bottom billion countries. By employing economic methods of analysis, Collier demonstrates how current international development polices have exacerbated rather than diminished existing issues impeding reconstruction efforts in low-income states. In order to help remedy the harmful effects of these policies, Collier proposes several innovative solutions he believes would better support political and economic development in bottom billion countries. However, Wars, Guns, and Votes is not without its limitations. Although Collier offers a new economic perspective to topics previously dominated by other social sciences, he fails to define key concepts relevant to his argument. Furthermore, Collier’s writing style is extremely convoluted. Therefore, one can see that although Wars, Guns, and Votes provides a new economic based approach to development, the book is limited in terms of comprehensiveness and accessibility.
Firstly, K. Isbester mentions that democracy has a different meaning for everyone, as some can define democracy as a good aspect for development, on the contrary other believe that it is nothing more than voting after several years. Although, Latin America see democratic g...
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
...a voice and a choice. They have the feeling of being secure and free something which is only achieved through national security. Democracies also share similar beliefs and political ideologies which prevent them from engaging in warfare in the event of an arising conflict. The democratic peace theory states that democratic countries do not engage in interstate wars against each other. This theory has been proven true from time and time again in history. There has never been a case of an independent democratic country raging war on another democratic regime. So definitely when it comes to solving conflict through war regime type does matter since democratic states are 99 percent less likely to engage in a fight with autocracies and 100 prevent less likely to declare war on fellow democracy. Democracy is a preventer of conflict on all levels of human interactions.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
Democracy is not bad or harmful but we must be careful when talking about democracy, whether we actually mean giving power to people to or making those in power more representatives of the people views. Because it all up to us as individuals to how we are using our democracy that gone reflect whether it’s the worst or best form of government. Through democracy we can either build or break our country to how we responded to the situations going on around us, if we stand together and fight for our democracy that we were told about or we sit down and relax watch other people using our democracy to their own good
A democracy could only survive if people voice their opinions, ask questions, and if the society is educated. Disobedience leads to some of the most unfortunate of things, such as death. People either believe that the above information is 100 % spot on, while others believe none of it is true. Part of this is because people come from different places in the world and have many different opinions. The opinions may be about what allows a democracy to survive and why some of the most terrible things happen. A democracy is only one of the forms of government that allow a society to survive, whether or not it is the best one.