resolve that men can only rule the country?
4912
I don't understand the question.
119547
Traditionally our society has not allowed women to be a factor in politics, the economy etc. In this century it's all changing and women are overtaking men economically and may one day dominate in that area which would naturally allow them to achieve more political power. Someday women may lead society.
629142
Start a new country. But eventually, even that country will fall victim to the same thing. It's the nature of power. Did you ever hear the saying that power corrupts?
1095495
Every country has the government and political system it deserves. That includes the electoral rules and systems.\n\nSo if things are not right (and I agree that they are not right), the people will have to act accordingly.\n\nNo country can be ruled or controlled against the will of the people. However, if the people are too dumb, ignorant or lazy to care for their own future, you get a country like the USA.\n\nThose who don't care will be taken care of.
257378
The only way to topple such a regime is usually war.  Occasionally a successor will be open minded enough to give the people freedom or pressure from other nations will force them to, but usually it takes a revolutionary war or a foreign invader to get rid of a standing government.
816762
You mean there  really is a country where a farmer has to ask permission to farm his own farm. geeeeeeeeee you guys need top overthrow this bum rajasthan, hang him and dem,and freedom.
519425
not all countries have a President so your question is moot.
375629
It is not a matter of the UN so much as it is a matter of the other member states. The rest of the world either cannot or will not "unite" against what much of it sees as an aggressor, America, that ignores its will. This is much like the argument about how much better the world would be if it was ruled by women. It might be, but neither is an inevitability because neither behaves in a way that indicates a true willingness to act. If America is such a male dominated imperialist power, the world should act, not just make pronouncements about how offended it is, and how morally superior, too. As things are now, even if you booted us out of the UN and payed our part in it, you probably would, and perhaps could, still do nothing but negotiate. You might be proud of your restraint, but that will not give you victory.
1059763
I don't think it is advisable nor feasible that one leader over the entire world would be a good idea. While perhaps someone to regulate the sovereign countries may seem smart in all essence you have to remember the human factor. Once you give someone that much power it becomes harder and harder to regulate them and keep corruption out of the top ranking offices. Capitalism started out helping America, but has quickly turned fascist, because the human factor was left out of the equation. A single person in charge of the world I fear would be inviting trouble. While I wouldn't even recommend a committee to be in charge of the entire world it makes more sense than one person.
511132
As long as men are allowed to fight for money, women should also be allowed. what should not be allowed however is for men to stand and hoot at the women like they are animals chasing a female in heat.
146893
islam has no problem with the democracy.the leader in this system is the choice of majority on which he rules .as far as i know the problem from islamic point of view is that woman cant be the head of the state but this is allowed in pakistani democracy
316314
A few rules to rule a country.&#92;\nWho has the biggest guns.\nWho has the most money.\nWho can geographically own the most land.\nHow one uses his or her leadership.
1444
The justification for checking the majority rests in the fact that the majority can not use their power to control a minority. The saying majority rules/minority rights is a good example. The majority is in charge but they can not use their power to stomp out a minority or take away minority rights. Also, the fouding fathers wanted to include this so that a dictatorship/kingship couldn't take form. By limiting the majority it limits their ability to take control in such a way.
17729
In my opinion, no.  Those people have been ruled by force for thousands of years.  The strong man will always come in and take power.  Its just the way things are done there.  Perhaps we will establish democracy for a few years, perhaps a decade, but it will eventually revert to dictatorship.
18122
There is no country that is a pure democracy, meaning every citizen votes for literally every decision. The only place I can think of small enough for this to be practical is Liechtenstein, and they have a constiutional monarchy like Britain. The logistical nightmares of a pure democracy are too difficult to overcome once you get to be the size of even the smallest of nations.\n\nAthens did have a pure democracy in that every citizen was granted the right to vote in the assembly; however, only land-owning men were citizens.
1131588
The situation we are in, and have been in for several generations, is one in which intelligent, representative government is increasingly impossible, simply because of the sheer size and scope of government. If we want a government that is controlled by our representatives, we need a government that is sufficiently limited in size and scope for it to be humanly possible for our representatives to know and understand what it is doing and what is being suggested that it do. For the people's representatives to regain control of the government, its size and scope must be radically reduced.
241762
yes it can. however it depends on the countries law policies. In some countries u have the option of challenging it before the PRESIDENT of the nation.