Is Democracy suitable for all the nation? Explain.
Answers
Answer:
Some people are of the opinion that democracy is suitable only to those countries which are industrialised and economically developed. They are of the opinion that this form of government is not suitable for developing countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They argue that faster and better development is possible only in dictatorship where there is discipline among the people and no time is wasted in the legislatures. In democracy, decisions are taken with one eye on the future elections keeping in view the interests of the voters who are supporters of the party in power.
Explanation:
PLEASE MARK AS BRAINLIST ANSWER
Explanation:
No.
It isn't even the best form of government by a long shot.
For small nations, a hereditary monarchy is often best. Where the monarch is made to work alongside his people and as such understands their needs and can be addressed directly by the populace. If the monarch messes up, he is easily dispatched and replaced.
The more people involved in a government, the more likely it is to be corrupted.
A Republic, like the US is very susceptible to corruption, as can be seen on a daily basis by the gifts and perks given to our leaders by lobbyists. They are not giving these for no reason, it is currying favor for actions that have been done, or are expected to be done. The fact is that this sort of graft is not only accepted, but expected is seen in that they refuse to make it illegal to either give or accept such “gratuities”. We do not have a democracy in the United States, a simple proof of this is that the Carter Foundation refused to help with the most recent election due to the fact that the US didn't meet the most basic requirements of a democracy.
Something that was taught to us in civics class, way back in the day that is ignored or not realized by most people today. The US is also not a country, but a union of countries. Each individual state is a country. Over the years, states have given up rights and functions to this union that could more effectively be handled by the central union government,sometimes willingly, other times, not so much. Most states get more back than they actually put into the union, and are hence reliant on the union. Others put more into the union than they take out, like Texas and California, hence the occasional talk of succession by these state-countries.
Other such unions are the Russian Federation (formerly the USSR, United Soviet Socialist Republic) and the EU (European Union), both to various degrees of sovereignty of the individual countries that make them up. The main difference is that the Russian Federation is considered one country with several states (like the US), while the EU is considered a more loosely based group of countries (like NATO, the Warsaw Pact or the UN). The recent Brexit vote by the UK to leave the EU has caused a great deal of concern, as they, like Texas and California in the US, were heavy contributors into the EU, while receiving much less back out of the deal, as opposed to say, Greece, whose financial difficulties are a constant thorn in the EU’s side.
In the end, democracy doesn't work everywhere and never really will unless it is administered fairly and equitably to all involved.