If the saying is true:"Every country has the government the people deserve!" - Is that true of yours?
96187
I'm from Mexico, and I think that saying is true to a segment of the population, because, unfortunately, there's many people that exchange their vote for money, or for food, and stuff like that... This happens because most of the people that vote have no education, or at least not the necessary level to understand what's better for the country, for example, right now, there's a party which candidate is, I really don't know the word, but he's so bad for our country that, if he wins, we'll be like in Cuba, but the people think that everything that he says is good, because they don't really know what politics are about...\nThat's why that saying is not applicable for everyone...\nSomething good for my country: there are so many things to change and a level of corruption that's difficult to overpass, that I really don't know if there's a solution...
371103
No.  No country will ever rise the expectations of their citizens.  The only thing that can be done is to minimize the evils of the powerful.
8085
The government is made of individual people, so it's individual people of course.
708809
Over 200 years ago, the Scottish historian Alexander Tyler stated that democracies exist only until people realize that by capturing government they can enrich themselves. After that, though the form of democracy may endure, the substance will be lost.\n\nThoreau was an idealist, and like all others of his ilk, he failed to regard the negative consequences of his own propositions. How does the thought strike you that there is no contradiction between the all powerful, all controlling state, and what Thoreau says?\n\nHow does the proposition strike you that what people want (as expressed by the democratic process) is greater security from want, and greater fulfillment of desire? The growth of government power isn't some back-room conspiracy of a few power hungry maniacs -- it's the direct result of politicians giving the people what they're crying out for -- MORE!!!!\n\n[EDITORIAL NOTE: If this concept doesn't quite make sense; please refer to Dostoevsky. His section from "The Brothers Karamatzov," entitled, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor" deftly lays out the chilling argument that people want to get rid of the burden of freedom as quickly as they can].\n \n\nIt is simply the nature of power that any government big enough to give you what you want, of necessity, must also be a government big enough to take from you everything that you have.\n\nIf you really want "limited government" you can have it. But you can only have it if you are prepared to accept total responsibility for every outcome in your life, and not ask for government assistance when things go wrong. And the incontrovertable fact is, the people have rejected this notion. The "power and authority of the individuals" as expressed at the ballot-box has spoken over the decades, and the politicians have simply listened, and given the people what they want.\n\nWhat Thoreau is naively assuming is that people actually want government off of their backs, and are willing to assume the full burdens of their existences. He's wrong. People want the freedom to do as they please; but when things go badly, they want (and indeed, expect) the government to step in to make things right. This duality of desires inevitably leads to decadence and a diminution of the human spirit. This is EXACTLY what the great prophet, Aldous Huxley tried to warn us about in his masterpiece, "Brave New World;" and people still don't get the message. "The People" want to be taken care of; and out of respect for the "Will of the People," the government is increasingly giving the people what they want. But what the people want is ultimately destructive of the very spirit of freedom the people claim they wish to protect. \n\nThe journalist H. L. Mencken once said that Democracy is the theory that "The common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it -- good and hard." He's right.
1093341
The state will always be a reflection of the people. There will never be a universal, man made, working democracy. We'll all see to it with our sterling character and compassionate hearts.
873204
To answer this question, we must delve into the debate as to whether a government is REFLECTIVE of the character of the people governed, or whether it is DIRECTIVE, by which I mean that the government of a people sets its course.  Personally, I tend to believe that the government of a nation is reflective of those governed...at least it eventually gets that way.  While charismatic leaders in government DO affect the mindset of the people, lasting changes don't occur JUST because governments change.  \n\nAs evidence of this notion, look at what just happened in Afghanistan.  The U.S. took out the oppressive regime with had oppressed its people...so they turned right around and established another government: one that executes people for converting from Islam to Christianity.  So did we really help those people? \n\nLook at what happens here in the United States when one of our elected officials takes bribes, involves himself with corruption, or commits adultery.  The word of his indisretions hits the newspapers, a hue an cry is raised, and people start calling for official impeachment.  Often, crooked government officials end up in jail.  That's because at its core, the American people as a whole simply don't tolerate certain things.  True, not EVERYONE feels that way, but enough do that we have an influential trend in our country that hinders such corruption.\n\nNow compare that to the government of nations where government officials (and even cops) take bribes, the poor are exploited by the wealthy, and graft and corruption in government are practically expected.  Those things go on because, at its core, the people of that nation tolerate those things...otherwise, there'd eventually be decisive changes.\n\nSo to answer your question, no, I don't think a change in government is the answer (at least not by itself).  The hearts and minds of a nation are changed by moral trends, awareness movements, religious revivals, and sound thinking authors.  As new generations are encouraged to adopt values rooted in time-honored principles, changes occur, and the governement begins to adopt the emerging philosphy of the nation.  This brings lasting changes.\n\nTroy Fullerton\nPauls Valley, OK
52267
Should be..but even if we had adopted a new government...if people in the position will stay the way they used to, probably we'll remain the same...We are yearning for better. What president and all the government officials are promising to us, never happened in reality. I don't want to expect too much from this country. Everything should be in a new form by now but seeing it with my own eyes, as much as possible I want to be realistic--and this is the reality.
955771
I am one of a dying breed in that I believe that in order to live in a country where you have rights, you sometimes have to fight for them, and while I do believe that everyone is entitled to there beliefs, and has the right to express their opinions there are times when doing so is counter productive for the welfare of the country that you live in. Rights are not without boundaries. My rights stop where yours begin, and the same applies to to yours. If you can't love your country, at least have some respect for it.
272544
No. The idea of a one world government is a great idea in theory, but would only work if we had a perfect leader.  That is not going to happen.\n\nWhile it is true that different countries clash with one another, they also hold each other accountable.  If one country is treating its citizens poorly than other countries can place economic sanctions on that country until the problem is corrected, plead with the leadership to change thier policies, or when necessary remove the leaders of that country from power.  If we had a one world government, it would take a revolution in order to correct a leaders human rights violations.  No one person or one group should have the power to control the lives of the people of the world.
566841
Democracy is people's government.
623025
I would say people of every nation feel they are superior to all other nations.  Are people mature enough to treat men with respect and dignity - have you read some of the questions and answers on here lately - then you would no the answer to that one is a great big no - they can't.
742269
No, the true purpose of government is to do as a collective group what individuals could not do for themselves or what would put an excessive burden on them (e.g. defend the borders, build roads, etc.).\n\nWe have so perverted the purpose of government it isn't even funny.
554880
Haven't you ever heard of limited government?  Do you really want the government inserted into every personal decision?
433425
Thomas Jefferson put it quite succinctly when he said "Government is a necessary evil". However, the important thing to do, is never allow your government to get out of control, such as ours has.
1133425
umm.. is this from the preamble? it is talking about benefiting the whole nation.. by every aspect of life.. as is general, as meaning broad.. and welfare as in well being and stuffness.. and it is everyone because it is we the people of the united states.. blah blah.. ordain and establish the constitution of the united states of America
1115620
No country is perfect.\n\nAnd no country is above criticism.\n\nFunny how so many Americans don't seem to understand that.....
1104857
Nope. I think each government should try to reform their own country instead of poking their noses into the problems of their neighboring countries.