Democratic based system originates from a Greek word 'demokratia'. In Greek, 'demos' signifies individuals and 'kratia' signifies rule. In this way, Democratic based system actually implies individuals' standard. The greatest prudence of Democracy is that it is government by the general population for the general population. The administration speaks to the perspectives of the general population who choose them and can toss them out if the legislature does things that the general populations don’t care for. Not at all like different types of government majority rules system is about the little man, everybody as opposed to the tip top that are frequently detached from how every other person experience their lives.
Initially, popular government is seemingly the best type of government regarding ensuring the rights and opportunities of the greater part. In the more established popular governments, America, France and Britain, the tallying station liberated society from the intensity of the government and nobility, in 'rights-setting demonstrations of epochal significance. In the twentieth Century, fair developments and thoughts crushed Europe's frontier domains, liberating several millions from misuse. In India for instance, about two centuries of British standard was upset: where outfitted uprisings had fizzled, the dialect of harmony and majority rules system offered an answer. In ongoing decades, numerous abusive fascisms have been toppled by vote based system; in the Eastern coalition, Popular Fronts evacuated ruthless routines, for example, Ceausescu's in Romania, and the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings created a bunch of new just states..
Churchill said 'Majority rules system is the most noticeably bad type of government, aside from each one of those different structures that have been attempted now and again.' Essentially that vote based system has numerous defects and issues however all the others have more issues. Presently dictator nations, for example, China are possibly testing this suspicion by demonstrating that tyrant routines are better at making monetary development.
The most made and most excessive countries are all in all greater part rule governments. While they may well have been developing their prevalent governments in the midst of their fundamental industrialization larger part rule government and the open door it brings is continuously imperative for money related advancement once the country has moved to being commonly penniless upon organizations instead of gathering or basic resource maltreatment for monetary improvement. At the point when this happens then creativity winds up basic and the open doors related with famous government are relied upon to develop this imaginativeness that is required for undertakings, for instance, information advancement, inventive articulations, inventive work thus forth.Well in times where we examine what is less abhorrent, vote based system is ideal. Almost certainly it has various blemishes, and the essential, in my view, is that in popular government we tally heads not shrewdness!! A voter ought to have certain characteristics previously being qualified as a voter.
For example, he should be a college graduate. Individuals with information and genuine comprehension of issues can take preferred choice over the individuals who are uneducated. The standard of grown-up establishment, on which a large portion of the vote based systems are based, isn't right. Aggregate intelligence of the scholarly individuals is superior to the befuddled, offbeat and intense choice of the many. Since the finish of the chilly war, majority rule government's situation as the world's prevailing political belief system has appeared to be unassailable, and today the worldwide number of vote based governments is at a record-breaking high.
Numerous in the West hail another time of opportunity, and an agreement has framed that majority rules system has won the clash of thoughts. Notwithstanding, this accord is progressively delicate: Brexit and the race of Donald Trump have apparently uncovered vote based system's clamorous nature, and some contend that 'individual’s control' is basically oppression of the dominant part. China's domination, state commentators of majority rule government, demonstrates the unrivaled productivity and arranging of an imperious government. Majority rule government is unquestionably defective, however is there a superior framework? Or on the other hand is popular government the most exceedingly bad type of government?
Most would not hesitate to answer affirmatively. But it is in the mind of many that an authoritarian state could take better measures to allow order and development. Pinochet once said: “sacrificing human rights and democracy would sometimes allow strengthening the economic and institutional stability of a country”. If we take into account that many countries such as China and Vietnam have achieved high economic and social growth in recent decades behind democratic systems, we could easily conclude that democracy is not the only system that allows human development, as opposed to what was thought at the end of the twentieth century.
And why do we believe the lie that universal suffrage automatically brings greater human development? Universal suffrage always ignored that behind each vote there would be different levels of knowledge and understanding of the State and its policies, and that the least educated would be the most manipulable.
Unfortunately, we see that the vast majority of citizens are politically malleable, making democracy easy target of populism. The problem is that the latter are controlled directly or indirectly by the large financial and business groups. All this panorama worsens if we take into account that the same leaders can also manage the media through the state advertising guideline. In other words, money controls both politicians and the media, and these in turn influence the majority of citizens; also dominating democracy, which is governed by majorities.
Does it matter that the people choose or decide? Without realising it, we have been calling democracy something that is not. Representativeness does not mean democracy, since choosing is not the same as deciding. We live within representative governments, which means that we choose those who later decide for us, without us having the last word. We elect our representatives, but do we have an impact on what they decide during their terms of office? In The Social Contract, Rousseau claimed that a rule could only be law if the people, not its representatives, decided it.
But then, what would we call a political system that places power into no more than a dozen hands, where the people do not decide and the interests of the majorities are dominated by economic power? We call this democracy? Is it not better described as autocracy? In this way, how can we know if democracy is the best political system if we do not really know it?