In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
Also, this system tends to hold power longer. No one would want their government to fall apart, do they? With the knowledge of democracies and monarchies, it is very clear that a democratic system is more efficient, and beneficial. To begin, people need to take in account that democracies allow people to have more say. For example, the website “governmentvs.com” states many ideas about the people getting lots of says.
(Arendt, 1951, p.310) In a similar way, with the strong power and attractiveness of the leader, people can seldom discover challenge or criticism towards the leader of a totalitarian country with powerful leadership regime. (Arendt, 1951, p.310) Therefore, the release and enforcement of policies from the totalitarian regime may conduct with a higher efficiency since there ought to be less criticism and opposed opinion raised by the masses in the society than that of the society of a democratic country. People in most of the democratic countries enjoy plenty of freedom including the freedom of speech, which allows them to freely speak out their opinions towards the country regime, the government, or the policy, etc., in both supportive and against side to these subjects. However, the citizens’ enjoyment with the freedom of speech may contribute to an encouraging condition to raise opinions towards the governing regimes, or even involve in social groups and social activities such as posing a strike towards the issue which they are not satisfied with. The democratic government has a duty to respect and listen to the citizens’ voices, which may lead to a slower speed to release a policy in the country.
People seem to lost faith in democracy due to the belief that it is an instrument of immorality. However, the belief is untruthful. Democracy takes the significant part in reducing corruption with only that the process is not happen naturally. In this essay, the argument f how democracy could reduce corruption is to be explain statistically, graphically, and verbally. To demonstrate how democracy reduces corruption, firstly the tool using to indicate the amount of corruption is needed.
Basically, even if we regard such a system as desirable, a number of obstacles for its construction are bound to occur. The first one is the peculiarities of human nature. It is hard to imagine that guardians,people who have the entire political power in their hands, would be satisfied with living in the poorest conditions and avoid abuse. Besides, Platonic Socrates emphasizes that common people would always approve of the government’s actions and the system itself.However, it is possible that the «producers»,especially the ones who have accummulated a certain amount of wealth and become economically influential, would gradually obtain ambitions for political power,leading to the internal conflict. Moreover, there certainly is an inconsistency in educational principle of the state.According to B.Russell 's interpretation, in Plato 's state «culture is to be devoted to making men gentlemen»1.
One of the weak points would include a prolonged process of decision-making. Because there are more people in the government, law making and such would take a longer while. Aside from this, there is the possibility of blindly choosing incompetent, irresponsible, and corrupt leaders to govern its people. Nonetheless, being a democratic nation has several benefits namely, the rights of the citizens, the equality it promotes, the prevention of monopoly of authority, and decrease in revolutions since decisions are based on public will. As aforementioned, people rule in a democracy.
What the government gets from the populist system are votes and people’s like, but would it be possible that this system will give the government a long-term trustworthiness instead of a temporary fondness? The problems about the populist system are that most of the schemes are hard to be succeeded or we can call it “imaginary schemes”. Also the government has to use lots of money from the finance in addition they can’t predict that will the result will be really worth it or not. All of these will leads to the disadvantages of the system that will affect the government later on. When problems show up, surely people will criticize the effectiveness of the government and maybe lose trust.
The majority is most of the times heard and the minority maybe left unheard too. In a democracy the majority may be favoured but a healthy democracy ensures the protection of rights and ideas of the minority. In a large population the importance of the majority opinion is to establish the popular will and desires of the people belonging to the nation. The majority Ideas and opinions is also considered to have a basis to the government’s decision but in this process the minority is not completely ignored. On the basis of how democracy prevails the minorities repeatedly get a chance to voice their opinions and make their ideas be supported by the majority too.
People generally have more freedom compared to other government. However, it is not a perfect political system as it can be slow and inefficient because sometimes decisions are made for special reasons and interests instead of for the people. Monarchy It refers to a political system that rules
However, bureaucratic corruption tends to benefit leaders and occurs on a greater scale in certain politically unstable weak states. There is a general ambiguity regarding that state’s mission and the role of the public offices and institutions in weak states. In most cases, such states are characterized by i) reliance on external factors for internal growth and development, ii) overcentralized governments with little or no opportunity for local deliberation and participation, and iii) politicization of the bureaucracy