What is the best form of government?
452360
fuedal systems obiding by  the laws of Nature.\nkeeping in mind human nature\nwhich is a local form of self government.\nwith a freemarket system
595725
Consitutional monarchies like japan and the UK seem to work.Absolute monarchies, now there`s (in my opinion) a bad idea.
1015187
The form of government would be  an international parliamentary type whcih would have various subcommittes from all the continents and subregions to look after the interests of various regions and its people and would have a common  charter for the people of world whcih would contain evironmental priorities and would contain terms like freedom of speech and freedom of expression for every individual on this earth and would empower every human being to possess  property in any  part of the world , of course by legitimate means. Common laws for every individual living in any part of the world would be envisaged. Though European Union has not been so successful , yet this has been an attempt in the right direction.
764516
I think it was Winston Churchill who said something like \n\n"...It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."\n\nIn other words, yes, it is the best form of government, according to WC and me.
1024469
Elaborate your question. What political system are you referring to and what do you define as 'public stability' in which public administration?
176601
The government is all about rules. Sometimes what you think is best for you or for anyone else doesn't follow the government's rules. Plus, the government has layers and layers of bureaucracy. Trying to get any meaningful change through all of that is very difficult.
1028285
In a Parliamentary government the Executive (President or Prime Minister) more directly depends on the legislature for power. There is usually more direct control over government  by the people in this form, but it is also more inherently unstable and offers less checks and balances.
204224
it depends on your views of everything. You might say a European country is the greatest because it has free healthcare, good pension, etc... but not much oportunity to get ahead. in the US, there arent many things that are free, and many things cost alot of money, but opportunities are everywhere in the Statesm, its easier to make money. So again, its a personal choice of "The Best". My Answer is The United States. many things are wrong with it. but its the best i've seen.
308107
Democracy is the best we've had so far.  I would like to see more direct democracy in the future.\n\nThe converse of democracy is a dictatorship.  There are many advantages to a dictatorship as well.  Countries with dictatorships essentially take a greater gamble.  A democracy will never vote in the best leader for a country, because the average IQ and political knowledge of a country is not great enough to make this decision.  A dictatorship with a perfect leader would enjoy a strong government for the leader's lifetime.\n\nThe problem with a dictatorship is that when a bad leader is in place, or when power gets the better of them, the country is stuck with them.\n\nKeep in mind that the most deadly dictator of our time, Hitler, was born out of a German democracy.  Now, Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  Somehow, the majority government fell and handed the power to him by default.  \n\nAll I can say is that we still have a lot to learn about what makes a great government system.\n\n\np.s...I agree with the comments about communism, but must mention that this is a separate issue from democracy.  A Democratic Communist state could theoretically exist, and it may just happen in the future.  Keep in mind that it may be much ado about nothing.  We call ourselves a Capitalist state, but are far from the true meaning of Capitalist.  All in all, we are a mild socialist state.   Likewise, a future Democracic Communist state would likely not be a true communist state, but simply a stronger form of socialist state.\n\nIe.,,,the possible futures of China or Russia.
601282
Parliamentary government is a form of democracy found in many countries.\n\nIn a parliamentary government the head of government, often styled the Prime Minister or Premier, is the leader of the party or coalition of parties who is able to win a majority vote within the parliament. In such governments the Head of State can be either an hereditary Prince (as in the United Kingdom), a President elected directly by the people (as in France), or a President or other official elected by the Parliament (as in Italy).\n\nBecause the head of Government is chosen based on his or her ability to create and maintain a majority in the Parliament, it is possible for the head of Government to change without an election by the people.
943248
A completely new form of government is better\n\nThe present method of governing Britain, and most other countries, is out of date\n\n\nMy idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.\nWhen the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.\n\nNow, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.\n\nSo each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.\nIn other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.\nThis is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.\n\nAs the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.\nWhat we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.\nI propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.\nIf they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then  they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.\n\nThe benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.\nIt is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.\nThere would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.\nWe would overcome the problems created by too much power in too few hands\n\nI'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.
399777
You could say that the British *way* of government is the best but not necessarily that the British government itself is the best.\n\nOur parliamentary system is known as the mother of all parliaments and has been a model used for centuries throughout pretty much all the demcracies in the world.  Each country has of course, it's own rules and regulations and it's own way of doing things but the system is based on the British system.\n\nI wouldn't necessarily agree with your comments.  You say that we have low taxes, in fact, we have higher than average taxes paying 41p in every £1 earned as tax.  This compares quite well to the EU as a whole (48p) but quite poor in comparison to other countries (29p in the US for example).\n\nOur economy isn't particularly healthy and today's announcement of thousands of job losses at Peugeot is a good example.  If it weren't for the trillions of dollars worth of north sea gas and oil that's been keeping the economy afloat for 32 years then we, as a nation, would have been bankrupt a long time ago.  We used to be world leaders in textiles, ship-building, steel, electronics, engineering, railways but all these industries have long since declined.\n\nWe do have free healthcare but the NHS, which was once the envy of the world, is in crisis.  Huge sums of money have been pumped into it yet we can only staff it by draining the resources of other countries by paying their doctors and nurses to come over here.\n\nThe safety net you mention costs over £100 billion a year, that's the equivalent of £5,000 for every single household in the country.  Considering that the average household gets nowhere near this amount it demonstartes just how much is wasted on bureaucracy.  To give you one example from when my Dad worked for the government... It was decided to look into the possibility of moving one of the government departments to new offices, it cost us (the taxpayer) £94 million for them to decide to stay where they were.
99793
A form of government that isn't misused?  Democracy is probably the LEAST misused form of government.  Communism might have worked (I still oppose it) in the Soviet Union if it wasn't for dictators.\n\nBy the way, when Lenin came out of exile to rule Russia after the Russian Revolution, he the country was so broke and the economy infrastructure was so bad that he had to set up a temporary capitalist system to generate money into the economy before he could start his socialism.  I find that ironic and slightly humorous--maybe even a small slap to socialists.
337924
its like the U.S. in the fact that its a democracy but the president (who is voted into office) is only Head of State (does partys/makes the country look good). The prime minister is the Head of Government and is the leader of the majority in the Legislature.
210382
government explained simply,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=98\nmoney,\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\neducation,\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/taylor_stream.html\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/gatto_stream.html\nww1 wilson,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nhttp://thestressblog.com
574953
It sets up a government.
51186
Republicanism is the view that a republic is the best form of government.