This would essentially be democracy killing itself. Before contesting an election, a candidate needs the approval of the Chinese Communist party. With no guarantee of smoothness at succesion of rule, the incoming government may very well reverse the policies and decisions of the previous one, only to be followed by another administration that reverses that one.
You can notice that in kings rule, the punishments are not only severe but very fast after the crime.
I use what I call the bathroom metaphor: The political parties can even halt the parliaments and senate from functioning smoothly.
When the most votes gets to decide, they can easily rob dissenting groups of rights and privileges. So if someone tries to stop providing it—well, they just made a large number of deadly foes.
According to this theorem, so long as there are more than two candidates, there is no possible voting system that can ensure the satisfaction of three crucial criteria for fairness: Many instances here, Syria situation, Myanmar, Saddam Hussain massacre We are not perfect—and neither are our governments, since they are made by humans too.
Democracy is one where in there is a delay in justice. No form of government can guarantee that. A government is as powerful as it is allowed to be, and if the people choose to allow a government to have unlimited power, then it will have unlimited power.
Further, he also tries to conquer other states and so his riches comprise from other lands as well. Soviet Union support to the dictators in Europe poland led to violent strikes etc There are very few leaders who work for the benefit of the country.
This is fundamental right provided by law. A lot of people recognize the unlikelihood of their peers voting for the same third-party candidate and the unlikelihood of their votes coming in as a majority among the millions of voters who essentially pick their favorite color on election day.
So freedom can seem to more evil.
Since a person is elected by people, people have the right to decide their leader by involvement in voting. But we can see there are also dynastic rules. The leaders are elected by masses for specified term.Okay, here are the rules 1) 1st round for acceptance.
2) Pro will provide points for democracy in 2nd round and elaborate them in the 3rd.
3) Same will be done by Con.(only he will give arguments against democracy). Apr 07, · killarney10mile.comacy is evident only on secret killarney10mile.com should be always known,bare and killarney10mile.com in the very beginning this shows fraudulent originDemocracy can never be any unanimous policy because people are separated by caste,creed,religion and the like so on which make them diverted to one another opposite very Status: Resolved.
Democracy is a form of rule where the people of the nation enjoy at-most freedom of living.
They elect their leader and let them govern. Many nations in the world have democracy. But there are also few disadvantages of democracy. Here are list of bad things about democracy.
Arguments against Democracy Many leaders have criticised Democracy and the Democratic process. The strongest criticism is that of allowing potentially millions of people to have equal voting powers on issues which they are ill-informed.
The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. 3}Democracy at its worst is the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
When the most votes gets to decide, they can easily rob dissenting groups of rights and privileges. This ia one reason our Founding Fathers decided on a republic. Best argument against democracy?
great question, there are couple valid points I am gonna list slow effiency- efficiency is so slow in the west that sometimes it takes forever to complete a simple task.Download