choose a government: MONARCHY, ARISTOCRATIC, DEMOCRATIC? why?
542373
MONARCHY if i am the monarch.\nARISTOCRACY if i am an aristocrat.\nDEMOCRATIC if i am a common man.
295067
Its a form of government, there are monarchies where you have Kind and Queen, Republic, Oligarchies, Democracy like the USA, Socialist, Communist like China, Anarchies, Fundmentalist where supreme religious leader rule.
462026
Democracy is the best of bad choices for government we have.For me, a benevolent dictatorship would be my choice. Democracy is too messy, takes too long to get going, or for people to understand, look at Iraq. Just too many disparate opinions have to be weighed for it to be effective. Sometimes, countries need a strong man{or woman} with a single vision. FDR and Lincoln come to mind in our history.
129026
The Sultans play more of a "ceremonial" role- Very similary to the Queen of England.  In England, parliment and the Prime Minister make the decions but the Queen and the Royal Family serve as a figure head.
1179681
Republic.\n\nAnd I am partial to republics.\n\nHowever, a tyranny with me as supreme leader would be best.
1005071
Usually, it's the parliamentarian. If you don't have a parliamentarian (get one next year), then someone like the sargeant at arms or someone who has a formal position of enforcing the rules. You could just randomly select individuals from the organization body to make up the "constitution committee" which would be more constitutional and democratic.
635061
"Deference" is a visible show of respect for someone or something.  "Difference" is the quality of something being different from some other thing.  In a tyranny, someone, or small group of someones, make decisions for the whole.  In a monarchy, the royal person is the "owner" of the place and gets to make the decisions--unless it's a "Constitutional Monarchy", where the monarch is limited by law in certain areas.  In a democratic republic, like the U. S. A., the country belongs to the ordinary citizens.  The governing bodies are simply the "hired hands" of the owners--put in place to do necessary work while the owners go about their own lives.  Those governing bodies should make laws which protect the people they work for, as well as make honest business easy to conduct.  "Freedom" means a person has the capacity to choose how he/she wants to live, what work he/she wants to do, whose lead to follow in various facets of life, etc.  Democracy is a system which lets people choose--who should be in their governing bodies, what theory of government seems best--"democracy" (in the ideal) supports "freedom".
886617
You will get your definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\n\nGood Luck!!!
595725
Consitutional monarchies like japan and the UK seem to work.Absolute monarchies, now there`s (in my opinion) a bad idea.
748332
Democratic. In a republic you have very little say in the laws that are passed and repealed, and the only things you basically vote on are the representatives. A federal government takes power away from the states and by extension the people, and as such is an unwanted unitary force. A democratic government means that the people vote on passing, amending, and repealing laws. For an example of the one true democracy on this planet, take a look at Switzerland.
1158107
Answerman is a bit off on the question here, since a monarchy is a form of government and might have very little to do with his statement.\n\nA government is essentially a body of rulers who make decisions for the society they govern.  Usually these decisions are ones that an individual of the society cannot or should not make by themselves because of their education, caste level, ect.  A good example of this is crimes against an individual.  If we allowed everybody to make the decisions on how to punish someone who committed a crime against them, the amount of homicides would probably be up.  In this example, the government makes the decision, creating an objective view to the crime.\nDepending on the type of government, the control can be from only one person (monarchy) to, theoretically, every member of the society (perfect democracy), and usually depends on the education and technological level of the society.  For example, a democracy would not have worked back in the 12th century, because most people were not and could not be educated up to a level to make a significant rational choice, which left the smaller educated class of king and higher subjects to rule.
132103
The modern parliamentary system has its roots in the Roman Republic's senate, which was essentially a ruling council made up of the elite of society. Even after the Republic became the Roman Empire, the senate still had immense influence and power. However, as time went on, the autocratic nature of later emperors eventually reduced the senate's prestige and power, and ushered in centuries of relative autocratic rule by monarchs. Under feudalism in the Middle Ages, all members of a kingdom were technically under the protection of a ruling monarch (and the Church), who gave land to nobles in exchange for support. However, nobles would occasionally challenge the ruling monarch (as would the Church). Under the customs of Feudalism, groups of nobles would meet to decide on whether they would support the monarch on important issues. These groups sometimes clashed with the autocratic nature of some monarchs. The most important clash, in the evolution of the nation state and Constitutional rule of law, came with Magna Carta of 1215—it was the first true challenge to the unrestrained powers of a king, attempting to constitutionally limit King John after he committed a series of debacles. The kingdom of England had become too big, the groups of nobles believed, for any one man as crazy as John to make decisions. The statements made by Magna Carta were a direct challenge to the Divine Right of Kings, a philosophy held by convention at the time, and led to many civil wars, perhaps the most famous of which was the English Civil War.\n\nParliaments throughout Europe systematically replaced the powers of the monarch, often holding complete financial control of the state. In many cases the monarchs finally signed over all actual power, and became ceremonial figureheads. In others, the entire monarchy fell, and were replaced by the parliaments. As time went on, most states began to give suffrage to decide the makeup of the parliament, often with two houses. One was hereditary and made up of nobles, and the other made up of elected officials, for example the House of Lords and House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Initially, the house of the elite, or upper house, held most of the power, but most parliaments now invest almost complete power in the elected or lower house. Some parliaments have abolished the upper house completely, while others have altered them to be elected as well. The parliamentary system has come full circle from its ancient beginnings.\n\nThe executive is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government, but parliamentarism has also been practised with privy councils. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members thereof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister. In many countries, the cabinet, or single members thereof, can be removed by the parliament through a vote of no confidence. In addition, the executive can often dissolve the parliament and call extra-ordinary elections. Under the parliamentary system the roles of head of state and head of government are more or less separated. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren't politically divisive, such as appointments of civil service. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state may have reserve powers which are usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head of government.\n\nBecause the executive is directly related to the legislature, some argue the executive is actually more accountable than many fixed term presidential systems, as the executive, being linked to the legislative, can face an early election in the face
488322
All governments created by mortal men are imperfect. the problem with many of them is greed. our own democracy is suffering now. whether we care to admit it or not.when you consider the fact that we now live under the golden rule he who has the gold makes the rules this is very clear with lobbiest provideing campaign money that ultimately gets there man in office. Democracy may be the best form of government there is but greed and corruption can kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
176331
Well in the days of high kingdom hood, the benefits were a stable line of government.  The royal family was the standard of how one should conduct themselves.  The burden of government fell on one person to make the necessary decision without the complications of pleasing everyone.
823836
The type of government can change in a country, depending on who is governing/presiding/leading it.
495655
That's a very good question.  I would say the quality of a democratic government depends on how democratic the government actually is and also on how capable of making wise decisions the people of the country are.  The ancient Greeks were among the first people to have democratic governments, and in their literature we can read about democratic governments that were disastrous because of the unwise decisions the people made.  That led some Greek philosophers to theorize that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship by a person so wise that they would have preferred not to be in power, but accepted it as their duty, but that because of the instability of that situation, a democracy was the next best thing.  In modern times, we have seen many governments that claimed to be democracies but in reality were dictatorships of a rather less benevolent kind.  The founding fathers of the United States (by the way, I am from the USA) wisely formed a government of checks and balances, where the people of the country had a voice, but no one institution had absolute authority.  I would say that in our country today, democracy is sometimes in danger of being compromised by the influence of powerful business and special interest groups over corrupt politicians, and by the apathy of many voters who are not as informed about political issues as they could be.  But overall, the institutions are sound and democratic, so I would give the U.S. good grades as a quality democracy overall.
790685
yes all countries should be a republic\nwhy any one wants to be ruled by a king or queen is beyond me.\nlook how much it costs to keep them the are the biggest waste of money ever.\nin england you have a fair idea who will sit in the throne for the next 100 years. do you not think you should decide who is the head of your country.