Interesting article, I think there is too much emphasis on government and not on the sectors governed or concerned. Read a lot about good and bad tendencies in government that favor this or that form. As in the real world, little consideration for those who are subject to this government. An educated, moral civil society will thrive in a democracy. While a less organized populous country of “survival of the fittest” would require more iron fist control to maintain order, in a democracy such people would fall into chaos every time. What kind of country? Big continent with various countries or a city-state or something in between? Both of these questions must be answered before the best form of government can be logically attributed. Without this knowledge, there can be only one answer: “It depends on the governed.” Ironically, this IMO article is a microcosm of how people think about these and government-related issues. No thought or consideration for the submissive people or the developed land. The richest and most developed countries were full democracies only after the First World War. The United States is no exception, even though the United States achieved full democracy earlier than most. The only reason they are rich is because of centuries of conquest and domination over the rest of the world, whose people have never received the same rights as the people who conquered them. Sometimes an undemocratic government does not care about the needs of the people.

But it depends on the wishes of ordinary people in the country. If a country`s leaders don`t want to, no one can force them. But leaders must take care of the needs of ordinary people in a democratic country. Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Essentially, this democracy has many shortcomings and problems, but all the others have more problems. Now, authoritarian countries like China can challenge this assumption by proving that authoritarian regimes are better at creating economic growth. Is democracy still the best form of government? Democracy is the best form of government because it is based on discussions and opinions. In China and Sri Lanka, for example, where short-term measures that directly benefited the poor were more visible than in India, the average lifespan in the late 1960s was 69 years, compared to 52 years in India. Asked how long it would have taken the Sri Lankan economy to reach a level of income that would likely support an average lifespan of 69 years if it had invested in capital formation and less in social spending, Sen concludes that it would have taken between 58 and 152 years. True democracy, in my opinion, is the best form of government, the problem is that many so-called democracies use a first-to-post system that rarely produces a result that matches what was voted.

Countries should also encourage participation by teaching civics and politics to children from an early age to increase enthusiasm. People should stop tying systems of government to economic success, I can argue both for and against the question of whether democracies are the best at achieving this, but regardless of that, freedom to choose is certainly the main benefit. Who wants to live in a clear mind in a country where you have no influence on how your country should be run. 5. Control of a country is one of the essential things of democracy. Democracy is stupid. Democracy suggests that people are smart enough to govern a nation (or elect a leader). And that`s not true at all. If the majority of people voted and there were no restrictions on advertising, most people would vote for the guy who promised a free taco for everyone. People are greedy and stupid, and people who are ready and/or wise enough to vote are much less than people who don`t understand or care about politics, which leads to corruption or incompetence. A fair vote would only involve men and women who understand the nature of politics and who are interested and confident in taking matters into their own hands. But that would undermine the fundamental principle of democracy; “The people rule the country.” In this case, the “people” will not rule the country.

The country would be governed by competent and willing people who have control over their nerves, and this is no longer democracy, it is aristocracy The direct implication is that a fairly large percentage of voters will base their choice on limited and false information. .