Government Leadership Style

[Professor Fann]

Make your pick and reasoning. Crits allowed too, to anyone if I might add. Maybe we can get some debate running too. I made my pick.

[luminous]

One party state.

Firefox browser doesn't agree with the postboard polls... Can't input.

[Nightmare]

I don't know all the fancy term, so I'm not going to pretend I do, but what America's got going now seems to be the best form of Government.

[Fusion]

If you call blatently ignoring the Constitution a good practice, then yes we have a very good government.

I'd say the government should be by the people, for the people. A people's Democracy would work best, because not only would it encompass the values of the nation's will, it'd also make way for interesting changes in the political atmosphere. Put simply, if we had a true people's democracy the Constitution would be more written into law than ever.

Also, I thought "Military Rule" read "Hillary Rule" and I don't trust that Clinton

[viruszero]

I think a good combination of capitalist and communist policies run in a fair and democratic government would be the best. (It's almost like what we have now... except it needs some adjustments like the following...) With the following adjustment ideas to how government ideas are currently handled:

-Eliminate useless positions - No more jobs like Lt/ Govenor (who up here is a massive waste of money) - right now it's 85k to redecorate a mansion for her to live in.
(Also cut back political party sizes. Too many politicians is never a good thing. It makes debates go on longer and nothing gets solved, not to mention wastes tax dollars to pay for these positions.)
And which leads me to my next point

-Eliminate useless spenditure (No more spending for frivolous causes such as the president/prime minister needs a makeup artist or a hair stylist. )

- Cut back spending on wasteful laws - don't spend loads of time/money debating on an issue that hold little to no relevence to people.

- limit debates - there's not point arguing for days, nothing gets solved and it just wastes money. Instead limit the debates to 1 day (2 days for extremely important topics) and at the end of the day have a judge determine which is the best course of action.

- Take that extra funding and put it into useful programs - Such as education (The future genrations are more important than whether someone who makes 400k tax free gets a raise.) And Health care or medical funding, police to protect our citizens.

- Along those lines government must fee itself from the corporate grasp- the government is not a corporation, and making money is not it's prime concern, rather it is for the people. Thus the government should not ally itself with the corporations. It must remain seperate so best to serve the interest of the public it represents.

- Finally with all the readjustments you can cut taxes for the people - By freeing up all kinds of cash by eliminating useless spending, the tax dollars can go where they're needed and thus the tax payers deserve a break instead of charging them more to get the same things done.

S if our current governments were to put these practices into effect, I believe that our current governments would improve substantially.

[Professor Fann]

To vote just stick to Internet Explorer. I dunno about you people but I voted fine.

Viruszero, from your great points, I think you should vote as "Depends accordingly then reform".

Fancy terms, they are not. You can Wiki them up and read them. But anyway:

People's democracy - From the people, for the people, by the people. The extent of this theoretical lead is interpreted in different ways, some are democratic like the electoral system of the US Republicans and Democrats, other nations have a league of coalition forces working together and fighting for votes adn voices, whereas people's democracy can, but difficult to find, occur in one party states. Some nations claim people's democracy but it is best you know your countries' politics to be able to differentiate tyranny and democracy.

One party state - de facto situation or legally, a one party state is a country only ruled by one political party. Concurrently, the best examples are China, Cuba and another 3 more Communist nations, because their Constitutions legally effectively state that ONLY the ruling party gets to rule the country. What I meant is that in de facto situations, there is people's democracy but the opposition has no chance whatsoever to gain power, sorta like Singapore's People's Action Party and Msia's National Front.

Fascist dictatorship - the reason I put this here is because in history, strong nationalistic or religious inspiration has led parties to eitehr enforce people's democracy or one party state - for the state's benefit, but mostly or sometimes for their own good as well. Concurrently there are none now in a pure talking sense, but Hitler's Third Reich is quite a prime example. On a looser speaking term, you may consider North Korea becuase the way of life is focused strongly on Korean reunification.

Military rule - Rule by the military - generals, commanders, lieutenants, whatever. Concurrent Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand are major examples, probably Libya. Previously was Spain adn Argentina, so far the only country is my view prospered under military is Pakistan for thtere is real progress there, despite bombs and all. Most are pure detrimental and/or stagnatory, although Thailand is keen to avoid this.

One man absolute rule - One person holds all the power and rules over everything. In teh old days, you can call it as monarchy under kings and emperors. Some have been shown to benefit, most don't. Stalin's Soviet Union for example. He held power firmly and was willing to do anything for prosperity even if it means murder. North Korea is a prime example too. A wider family extend may be Saudi Arabia or Oman.

Depends accordingly them reform - a flexible means of ruling, applying rough or left policies together with the right based on the economic or political sitaution of the time. A moving concept through time which various persons have embraced, even today.


I chose one party state because the current politics of my country permits people's democracy but it's the people who have been choosing the National Front since independence. The opposition have rare chances to even win municipal elections. It's a matter of psychology and getting used to it trend. And besides, the economy is very good, no major bloodshed since independence (on a violent scale that is) and it's just so peaceful. So I think my coutnry is de facto a one party state.