'Is Democracy the Best Form of Political System?\r'

'Although there atomic number 18 many virtues to enjoy about state and republi freighter bring ins of government and governmental systems, this form of government has compose many impending ch exclusivelyenges yet to be accomplished. In that sense, I agree with Winston Churchill, on the grounds that â€Å" nation is the worst form of government except all the opposites that shoot been tried” (Churchill). Looking at democracy through both its weaknesses and strengths in comparison to early(a) forms of government makes it evident that it is the best form of governmental system we take a leak, democracy has been subject to problems with, tyranny of the minority, and corporal perform.Despite all the participatory weaknesses of this form of government, democracy is tranquilize naughtyly consistent in call of uncertain outcomes, managing diversity. Lipset, in Political Man, described democracy as â€Å" a governmental system which supplies regular essential op portunities, and a social mechanism which permits the largest possible spokesperson of the population to do work major decisions by choosing among contenders for governmental office”(Glazer). This definition is generally accepted in a egalitarian heaven in which the supernal chorus does non sing with a signifi jakest upper-class accent (lecture), but this is non ever the case.Despite the democratic institutions based on the principle of pertain opportunity, political power is not always distributed both bit in a democracy. This is clearly seen in India where the â€Å"high court of campaigning and the opaque system of resource finance progress to titled the electoral betting odds heavily in favour of the very profuse or the easily corrupted” (Ronjoy Sen 90). Although, similar problems can be found in other forms of governments and political system, what differentiates democracy from other regimes is how it manages to deal with those problems.For instance , in Germany’s authoritarian fascistic regime, â€Å"Hitler was very much his profess master” (Henry Turner), and his war aims level(p)tually led Germany to a terra firma war conflict. By comparing fascistic Germany to India’s corrupt democracy, it is clearly demonstrated while, â€Å" secondary assorts of leader have the final say in all important matters”(Sen), democracy is still a political system which allows the largest part of the population to influence major decisions. This is best illustrated when â€Å"India’s unpopular BJP troupe lost power nationally in an preference” (Nathan Glazer 18).Not every democracy will entertain up in traffic with challenges of tyranny of minority and corruption, but democratic forms of government have institutions which offer cognitive content to change leaders in response to usual discontent without changing the system. Collective action is a classical challenge in democracy and democratic f orms of government. According to Blais, one of the main criteria for assessing electoral systems is representativeness. â€Å"This guarantees an electoral system in which the vote reflects as incisively as possible citizen’s preferences” (Blais 5).However, one of the challenges of a democratic electoral system is even if we have the right to express our views; we would not instruct reinforcement of it. As Olson in the article A possible action of Groups and Organization, notes, â€Å"Individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to free ride if the group is working to provide public goods”(Olson). This is because the information cost of researching different expectations makes voting irrational, since the benefits of voting ar not entirely clear.As a result, this promotes free riding, and a democratic government which vote does not reflect citizen’s preferences. If… then not only it will be difficult by large grou ps to achieve their interests in common, but situations could travel by where small groups can take over the majority’s incentives. However, what differentiates a democratic form of government from a totalitarian communistic a regime is how it deals with the collective action problem with the help of institutional features such as courts.Courts are important political players in democracy. They are evaluate to moderate, and deal with challenges of democratic politics, not a move for Stalin’s show trials. As Nathan Glazer baffle it, â€Å"Courts are accepted as ultimate arbiters not to be irresponsibly challenged. They can take unpopular positions that elected representative bodies cannot or do not, and in doing so they sustain the liberal objectives of democracies” (Nathan Glazer 19). country is mainly about unpredictable outcomes.What makes democracy super consistent is not knowing what the next option turnout will be, but having confidence that the can didate with a majority of votes would be elected. The essential terminus of democracy is to provide a fair class of uncertainty. What makes this form of government unique in assembly line to China’s authoritarian regime is its power to allow an alternation of power. For instance, in a democratic election, as Andre Blais had noted, â€Å"Losers believe that even though they may have lost this time there is a certain possibility that they will win another time.Because, even though they do not the wishs of the outcome, they sleep with that the procedure is legitimate” (Blais 3). This raises the question under what conditions; losers peacefully accept the outcome of the election? One can argue that it is due to the fact that democracy is have-to doe with on the rule of the law as conflicting to the rule of man. Democratic forms of government and political systems are structured by institutions and these institutions direct how political parties function.In example, they set apart how legislation passes through parliament or when a citizen is eligible to vote. Therefore, what makes democracy unpredictable in terms of outcome is the perception that each vote counts the alike(p) since laws are submitted to all citizens and are protected by the constitution. But in the case of China’s authoritarian regime, as premier Li Peng vomit up it, â€Å"to allow the demonstrating students to negotiate with party and government as equal would be to knock off the leadership of the CCP and negate the entire socialist party” (Andrew Nathan 39).This makes it more in all probability the alteration of power in China, should it come, will occur through a rupture, since an authoritarian â€Å"regime is slow to relax the ban on autonomous political forces” (Nathan 39). We live in a diverse world and globalization has only made diversity indoors nations and states more prominent. Democracies and democratic forms of government perform a bett er job of administrating and managing diversity. This is best exemplify when Nathan Glazer, in the article Democracy and Deep Divides, states, â€Å"Not every democracy will succeed in dealing with its deep divides.But democracy has institutional features which offer the promise that every part of the population will scent part of the whole” (Glazer 19). What differentiates democracy from Hitler’s anti-semitic regime or China’s repressive government is how it deals with managing diversity. Democratic forms of government â€Å"promise to address deep divisions more successfully than any secondary”(Glazer) because there are often times characterized by their moderating power.Democracies function to maintain moderate accesses and radicalism, by adhering to norms of inclusion; this ensures citizens are included in a political process whether in terms of voting, attractive in a genteel society effort , or having the rights to express ideas in terms of li berty of press and assembly. However, in a non-democratic government like China’s authoritarian regime â€Å"civil society organization and religious groups have to keep a low profile in edict to avoid repression” (Nathan 38).According to Nathan’s Authoritarian Impermanence, this is because â€Å"the regime has not become enmeshed in the logic of institutions created as safety valves to preserve its rule” (Nathan). As Andrew Nathan at a time remarked, â€Å"Democratic regimes, by contrast, often elicit dashing hopes and frustration, but they confront no rival from that outshines them in prestige. Authoritarian regimes in this sense are not forever. They live under the shadow of the future, vulnerable to empiric challenges that mature democratic systems do not face up” (Nathan 38).Democracy and democratic forms of government and political system have been subject to challenges of tyranny of minority, and collection. Despite the democratic weakne sses of this form of government, democracy is still highly consistent in terms of unpredictable outcomes, and managing diversity. Similar problems can be found in other regime types like China’s authoritarian regime, Hitler’s Fascist Germany, and Stalin’s totalitarian communist regime. What differenciates democracy from other forms of government is how it deals with those problems by the help of free political parties, contested elections, and court.\r\n'