I'd have to go with a republic. A republic, from what I know, not that I'm any sort of expert in the political field, consists of the populace electing representatives to vote the candidates that they support into power and allowing those representatives to pass laws and, in effect, shape the country. A democracy's only real issue is the problem of 'mob rule,' and that of the time and margin for error that every person in an entire country taking a vote would have the effect of making any election and the passing if any law extremely time consuming. These two though, are very closely intertwined, it's just that, in my opinion, is that a democracy is simply on the more extremist end of the spectrum as compared to its less extreme counter part.
Now, as for a monarchy, no. Just no. A monarchy may have been necessary in medieval times, when power was defined by one's military power, but now a days, it just wouldn't work. Now, one good thing about a modern version of the monarchy is that a nation can have a figure head to rally around once things go south, spreading hope and raising morale, while the head of state discloses the more grim news without the fear of demoralizing the populace to any extreme.
Now, as for an autocracy, which I'm fairly certain is fascist, I don't think it deserves as much heat as it gets. Hitler, besides the whole conquering all of Europe thing and, more importantly, his anti-semetic policies, wasn't a bad leader at all. Germany was on the up and up before the war, and big time. Had Hitler not been trying to be a military general, they Nazis likely would have won World War II before America could have even gotten involved. Mussolini had improved Italy's economy, as well. The only real problem with this form of government is that it's all too easy for a ruler to abuse his power, and that's why it just isn't a system that can realistically work in any modern, first world country any more. I'd have to go with a republic. A republic, from what I know, not that I'm any sort of expert in the political field, consists of the populace electing representatives to vote the candidates that they support into power and allowing those representatives to pass laws and, in effect, shape the country. A democracy's only real issue is the problem of 'mob rule,' and that of the time and margin for error that every person in an entire country taking a vote would have the effect of making any election and the passing if any law extremely time consuming. These two though, are very closely intertwined, it's just that, in my opinion, is that a democracy is simply on the more extremist end of the spectrum as compared to its less extreme counter part.
Now, as for a monarchy, no. Just no. A monarchy may have been necessary in medieval times, when power was defined by one's military power, but now a days, it just wouldn't work. Now, one good thing about a modern version of the monarchy is that a nation can have a figure head to rally around once things go south, spreading hope and raising morale, while the head of state discloses the more grim news without the fear of demoralizing the populace to any extreme.
Now, as for an autocracy, which I'm fairly certain is fascist, I don't think it deserves as much heat as it gets. Hitler, besides the whole conquering all of Europe thing and, more importantly, his anti-semetic policies, wasn't a bad leader at all. Germany was on the up and up before the war, and big time. Had Hitler not been trying to be a military general, they Nazis likely would have won World War II before America could have even gotten involved. Mussolini had improved Italy's economy, as well. The only real problem with this form of government is that it's all too easy for a ruler to abuse his power, and that's why it just isn't a system that can realistically work in any modern, first world country any more. |