What form of government is the best?

Problem of classification of the forms of government.

How many and what forms of government did exist in the history of mankind? To answer this controversial question, it is necessary to choose correctly criteria which distinguish one form of government from another. The comparative analysis of the forms of government is a condition for their successful classification. The form of government is a type of the device of the Supreme power in the country. There were some attempts to make similar classification in history of philosophy.

Aristotle's classification.

This classification is stated in Aristotle's book of "Policy". This classification is borrowed by Aristotle Plato entirely, but Aristotle managed to state this classification in more systematic form.
Aristotle called six forms of government (a kingdom, tyranny, the aristocracy, oligarchy, an okhlocracy, democracy) which are allocated according to two criteria:
• Number of ruling persons (one, minority, majority).
• Assessment of the forms of government (bad or good).
The kingdom is a good form of government when one good person governs. Examples of outstanding tsars: Kodr, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, Napoleon.
The tyranny is a bad form of government when one bad person governs. In my opinion, Stalin and Hitler serve as examples of tyrants. Tyrant Periandr considered that it is necessary to tear off ears rising over others – to execute all outstanding people. The well-known words possesses by Aristotle: "It is better to kill the tyrant than to kill thief". These words became the slogan of all killers by tyrants like Sofia Perovskaja and members of group «People will» in Russia who killed Russian tsar Alexander 2 though Alexander 2 was a reformer, instead of the tyrant.
The aristocracy is a good form of government when good exclusive minority rules.
The oligarchy is a bad form of government when bad exclusive minority rules.
Democracy is a good form of government when the good majority of the population rules.
Okhlocracy is a bad form of government when the bad majority of the population (criminal crowd) rules when the simple people become similar to the despot. Demagogues are able to flatter for crowd and to turn the mercenary offers into laws. Demagogues erect charges against officials often, and the people accept this charges willingly so value of all officials comes to naught. And anarchy comes at inaction of officials.
Conclusion: According to Aristotle, the aristocracy is the best form of government. In my opinion, this conclusion was absolutely correct only for an antiquity when representative democracy wasn't invented yet. There was a regress in 20 century in a number of the countries to the ancient forms of government – to oligarchy or tyranny – in the form of a fascist regime, the Soviet power, the fundamentalist and Islamic state. The main lack of classification of Aristotle consists that this classification is a little obsolete since the new forms of government were invented after Aristotle.
Classification of Machiavelli.
There are only two forms of government in classification of Machiavelli:
• REPUBLIC
• MONARCHY

My point of view concerning classification of the forms of government.
In my opinion, it is possible to make classification of five forms of government:
• TYRANNY or KINGDOM.
• ARISTOCRACY or OLIGARCHY.
• DIRECT DEMOCRACY or OKHLOCRACY.
• HEREDITARY MONARCHY.
• REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
This classification is made on the basis of four criteria:
• quantity of governors or voters,
• kinds of ways of conflict for power,
• kinds of fighting groups and a place or the arena of their fight,
• kinds of defects or shortcomings of each form of government.
Most important is the second criterion from these four criteria since kinds of the social conflict and kinds of social control are the main basis for construction of social structures.
The quantity of governors is equal to one tyrant or the tsar under tyranny or a kingdom. The quantity of governors is equal to privileged minority under the aristocracy or oligarchy. The quantity of governors is equal to the majority of citizens under direct democracy or an okhlocracy. The quantity of governors is equal to dynastic family under hereditary monarchy. All citizens have a right to elect and be the electee in the conditions of representative democracy. Ways of conflict for power are the armed capture of the power or civil war for a throne under tyranny and a kingdom.
Way of conflict for power is elections in privileged meeting under the aristocracy and oligarchy. Way of conflict for power is elections in people's assembly under direct democracy okhlocracy. Way of conflict for power is throne transfer by inheritance without fight or palace coups with help of quads at hereditary monarchy. Way of conflict for power is national elections in the conditions of representative democracy.
Kinds of fighting groups are groups of rebels in armies or bureaucratic cliques under tyranny and a kingdom. Kinds of fighting groups are fractions in the senate, the Politburo or Central Committee of CPSU under the aristocracy and oligarchy. Kinds of fighting groups are crowds led by demagogues under direct democracy or an okhlocracy. Kinds of fighting groups are groups of guardsmen led by representatives of a ruling dynasty or impostors under hereditary monarchy. Kinds of fighting groups are parliamentary parties or fractions in parliament in the conditions of representative democracy.
Kinds of defects are an arbitrariness and abuses of tyrants and harm from civil wars for a kingdom or tyranny. Kinds of defects are a degeneration of oligarchy and revolt of the majority deprived of civil rights for the aristocracy or oligarchy. Kinds of defects are abuses of demagogues and impossibility to construct this form of government in the big territory for direct democracy or an okhlocracy. Kinds of defects are a degeneration of a ruling dynasty and absence of election of governors for hereditary monarchy. Representative democracy has no defects, but representative democracy has small shortcomings – too many governors and deputies and they make the decision too long.
Conclusion: Representative democracy is the best from five forms of government. But creation of representative democracy is the most complex problem. To overcome these small shortcomings, Parliament give to the President emergency powers for limited term in case of emergence conditions –in case of wars, natural disaster or mass riots. Society rolls down to the archaic forms of government – tyrannies or oligarchies in case of failure of similar construction of representative democracy, as it happened in 1917 in Russia under Bolsheviks. Worst of five forms of government are the okhlocracy and tyranny, and an okhlocracy is worse than tyranny even. An example of okhlocracy are meetings of criminals or crowd of villains which are ready to smash and kill always. The tyranny was invented in the countries of the Ancient East. Aristocracy was invented by Lycurgus in Sparta. Direct democracy was invented in Athens. Hereditary monarchy was invented in the Moscow Principality in the form of custom about a succession, about throne transfer to the eldest son or the big brother. Representative democracy was invented in England and the USA.

What forms of government did exist in Russia in the 20th century?

Russia is a unique country where of the power tried to enter all five forms of government in turn during 20 century. Hereditary monarchy was under Russian emperor Nicolay 2 in Russia before 1905. Russian tried to construct representative democracy from 1905 to February 1917, Russian parliament and a multi-party system was created for this purpose, political freedoms and free elections are guaranteed, but the constitution wasn't adopted, and the right of appointment of members of the government remained in hands of the emperor, instead of parliament. The diarchy of Provisional government and the Soviet power was established from March to November 1917. an election in the Constituent assembly was held. This Constituent assembly should choose the form of government. But Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917, Bolsheviks disperse by Constituent assembly, Conclusion: Representative democracy is the best from five forms of government. But creation of representative democracy is the most complex problem. To overcome these small shortcomings, Parliament give to the President emergency powers for limited term in case of emergence conditions –in case of wars, natural disaster or mass riots. Society rolls down to the archaic forms of government – tyrannies or oligarchies in case of failure of similar construction of representative democracy, as it happened in 1917 in Russia under Bolsheviks. Worst of five forms of government are the okhlocracy and tyranny, and an okhlocracy is worse then tyranny even. An example of an okhlocracy are meetings of criminals or crowd of villains which are ready to smash and kill always. The tyranny was invented in the countries of the Ancient East. Aristocracy was invented by Lycurgus in Sparta. Direct democracy was invented in Athens. Hereditary monarchy was invented in the Moscow Principality in the form of custom about a succession, about throne transfer to the eldest son or the big brother. Representative democracy was invented in England and the USA.

 

National Socialism is the best and Were Baack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x5lmSm50CA

 

And illiterate as ever with it!

 

Nazi's were and are scum.

 

I have to say, one that includes the most people. I would prefer a direct democracy, but I do like a republic. But with more switches between senators.

 

The best one for the United States was the Rule of King George. They were quite civilised back then.

 

No. The US has never had a ruler named King George.

 

He was the last legitimate ruler of the territory, whatever the moneybag terrorists call it now!

 

Yeah, I know we suck.

 

Dearie me! Only jokin' mun.

 

One thing I think, in a democratic government a two-party system, such as the one found in the USA, does not always adequately respresent the beliefs of the people. It is the "winner take all" system, the problem is that each congressional voting district only elects one representative. So typically there are only two choices on the ballot, people are essentially forced to choose between the "better of the two evils". This has resulted in a split between "conservative" and "liberal" politics, and it become very difficult to make other political issues important. It is only rarely that a third candidate has enough support in a district to have any chance of winning, even when most of the voters would prefer to vote for independant parties.

 

There are lots of possibilities and most of the forms of democracy have their pluses and minuses. I used to think I was in favour of Direct Democracy but I have changed my mind. First because I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge on all subjects to give an informed opinion meaning that they likely would find the most radical would get the vote and also because I think in a democratic society it is necessary to have some safeguard for the rights of minorities which direct democracy does not always provide. Proportional Representation tends to allow more voices to be heard but often results in poor government - alliances sometimes being made to the more extreme. It probably is the best but needs to be based on a strong Constitution which includes human rights and the right to information. In addition I think it is best to give as much power as possible to local level as local level knows what is best needed there. Thatcher for instance by strangling the funds of local government massively reduced it's influence. Over important issues I am in favour of Referendums. However as they used to say people get the democracy they deserve so it is to be hoped that after the last 30 years or so of lack of interest in politics, certainly in the UK, people become more involved so that they can create the society they wish for them and their children. (I am sure this lack of interest in politics was a reflection of Thatcher's view taken from neo-con's in the States, that democracy was not a good thing!)

 

All subjective evaluations by definition are biased! Therefore, objective measures should be used to determine the answer. First, I would look at how long a country/government continuously exists under a singular governing document. Second, the ability and availability to peaceably modify the governing document, allowing for input from all citizenry). Third, the ability and availability to peaceably pass control to another set of leaders (allowing for input from all citizenry). And fourth, established mechanisms to provide a balance of government functions to prevent governmental control from encroaching upon individual daily decisions of citizens. Lastly, a government where law is applied fairly to all, regardless of political, social, or economic status within the system. This is just a start. There are those who will immediately tear this apart! But I humbly suggest one of the first and most important (subjective, yes, biased) considerations is to consider longevity as a VERY important feature when you consider children, grandchildren, and succeeding heirs!

 

... and financed by Republicans on Wall Street:


http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

 

Mr_Truth ...Your post is a rather biased accusation, based on subjective opinion without substantiation, is it not? Please post something pro or con with your reasoning and evidence relating to the subject matter or not at all (and not waste your time and ours)! Thank you!

 

Honestly I think my signature spoils it, but my answer to the question "What form of government is the best?" is none.

 

the best form of government is for the american people to have a revolution and get rid of the corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats.Its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice.We need to get rid of this corrupt two party system and get a third party president who is for the people in there and get all these corrupt congressmen out who take donations from the zionests and serve them and not them.arrest those people and every recent president alive is the BEST form of government.

 

Indeed, "That government is best which governs not at all." Unlike my so-called "anarcho-capitalist" (I prefer nonarchist, for these reasons) comrade Eaol, I do not think that a society based on "money decides" is fair at all, irrespective of the empty rhetoric declaring freedom and voluntary exchange.

We want freedom, not oppression. We want people to control their own lives.

Direct democracy over the state is an undesirable system, yes. But direct democracy over one's direct environment is not. At present, 90% of the decisions made in legislative institutions (parliament usually) is trying to solve the problems caused by capitalism. Solving unemployment, solving poverty, welfare, the crisis, distribution of wealth, ensuring access to healthcare, and so forth.

But direct democracy over decisions such as infrastructure is rather different. Moreover, when you have direct democracy over the state minorities are at risk (as you say). But that's because the state is a repressive organ. Giving the people direct control over such an organ is indeed a bad idea.

 

a scientific socialism is easily the most stable form of government but in todays world would have to be similar in proportions to soviet russia or the us in that its economy would have to be large, varied, and self-sustaining if it wished to survive

 

Direct democracy is the out-of-date and primitive form of government today. "Father" Nestor Makhno wanted to enter direct democracy in Ukraine in 1917, but "Father" Nestor Makhno constructed government of bandits in practice.

 

Are you the utopianist?

 

All forms are bad. We can see it. Monarchies and communists regimes were destroyed. There are capitalist economicses in in the deepest financial hole. I'm follower of сosmopolitanism. You can say i'm a dreamer,but how said John Lennon-"i'm not the only one"....

 

That government is best which governs least.

 

Representative democracy is the smallest of the evils in comparison with tyranny, an okhlocracy or oligarchy. Russian people suffered from dreamers, tyrants and utopianists under a communistic regime strongly therefore Russian people consider utopianists and dreamers as dangerous mentally ill people. I advise to dreamers to have more cynicism.

 

Valery, i'm from Russia too. There's no communistic tyranny. There's no monarchy. But there's oligarchy. Prokhorov,Berezovsky,Abramovich and others are disease of Russia. There's no place to dreamers.....

"I advise to dreamers to have more cynicism."
Why? How it can to help?