write an argumentative essay on the topic democracy is better than military rule

Argumentative Essay On Democracy Is Better Than Military Rule

The debate between democracy and military rule has long been a topic of contention in discussions about governance. In this essay, we will explore the advantages of democracy over military rule, focusing on representation, human rights, the rule of law, economic development, and peaceful transitions of power. Democracy, with its emphasis on citizen participation and protection of individual rights, has proven to be a better path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide.

Table of Contents

Reasons Why Democracy Is Better Than Military Rule Essay

Representation and participation.

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is representation and participation. In democratic societies, citizens have the opportunity to elect their leaders, granting them a voice in shaping policies that impact their lives. Elected representatives, who are accountable to the people, advocate for the interests of their constituents and secure various perspectives, are considered in decision-making processes. In contrast, military rule often leaves citizens without a voice, as a select group makes decisions of military leaders without the consent of the governed.

Protection of Human Rights

Democracies are characterized by a commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms. Constitutional frameworks and independent judiciary systems in democratic nations ensure that basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, are upheld. These rights are essential for fostering an environment of open dialogue, debate, and progress. In contrast, military rule may impose restrictions on civil liberties, leading to censorship and oppression, stifling societal growth and development.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is a cornerstone of democratic governance. In a democracy, laws apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their social or political standing. This principle ensures that those in power are held accountable for their actions, promoting transparency and fairness. In military rule, the rule of law may be undermined, leading to arbitrary decision-making and a lack of checks and balances, which can result in abuse of power.

Economic Development

Empirical evidence suggests that democracies tend to experience higher levels of economic development compared to countries under military rule. The stability and predictability of democratic systems create a favorable environment for investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Additionally, democratic governments prioritize policies that foster economic growth, social welfare, and education, leading to better economic outcomes and improved living standards for citizens.

Peaceful Transitions of Power

One of the significant advantages of democracy is its ability to facilitate peaceful transitions of power through regular elections. In democratic nations, leaders are elected for a fixed term, and power is peacefully transferred to the winning candidate after each election cycle. This ensures political stability and reduces the risk of violent conflicts that can arise from power struggles in military regimes.

Challenges and Counterarguments

While democracy offers numerous benefits, it is essential to acknowledge its challenges and consider counterarguments. Democracies can face issues such as political polarization, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and the influence of money in politics. Furthermore, some argue that military rule can bring stability and decisive action in times of crisis. However, it is crucial to recognize that military rule often comes at the cost of human rights and undermines the principles of democratic governance.

In conclusion, democracy has proven to be a superior form of governance when compared to military rule. It ensures representation and citizen participation, protects human rights, upholds the rule of law, fosters economic development, and facilitates peaceful transitions of power. While it may face challenges, democracy remains the best path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide. Embracing democracy’s core principles of inclusion, transparency, and accountability will continue to lead societies toward a brighter and more equitable future.

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy
• 2. Democracy widely supported, little backing for rule by strong leader or military

Table of Contents

• 1. Many unhappy with current political system
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix: Political categorization

Governance can take many forms: by elected representatives, through direct votes by citizens, by a strong leader, the military or those with particular expertise. Some form of democracy is the public’s preference.

[a representative democracy]

A global median of 78% back government by elected representatives. But the intensity of this support varies significantly between nations. Roughly six-in-ten Ghanaians (62%), 54% of Swedes and 53% of Senegalese and Tanzanians hold the view that representative democracy is very good. Just 8% of Brazilians and 9% of Mexicans agree. The only countries where there is significantly strong opposition to representative democracy are Colombia (24% say it is very bad) and Tunisia (23% very bad).

In many countries, skepticism of representative democracy is tied to negative views about economic conditions. In 19 countries, people who say their national economies are in bad shape are less likely to believe representative democracy is good for the country.

In 23 nations, the belief that representative democracy is good is less common among people who think life is worse today than it was 50 years ago. In Spain, for example, just 63% of those who believe life is worse than before consider representative democracy a good thing for their country, compared with 80% who support representative democracy among those who say life is better than it was a half century ago.

Similarly, pessimism about the next generation is related to negative views about representative democracy. In roughly half the nations surveyed those who think today’s children will be worse off financially than their parents are less likely than others to say representative democracy is a good form of government. Among Mexicans who believe the next generation will be worse off, only 52% say representative democracy is good for the country. Backing for government by elected representatives is at 72% among those who say children will be better off than their parents.

Attitudes toward representative democracy are also associated with opinions about diversity. In more than a third of the nations surveyed those who think that having people of many different backgrounds – such as different ethnic groups, religions and races – makes their country a worse place to live are less likely than others to support government by elected representatives. In South Africa, a country with a troubled history of racial oppression and conflict, 73% of those who embrace diversity describe representative democracy as a good thing for their country; just 54% agree among those who say diversity makes South Africa a worse place to live.

Many publics want a direct say

Direct democracy, a governing system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues, is supported by roughly two-thirds of the public around the world, with little difference in views between regions.

The strongest support for governing through referenda is found in Turkey (84%), where 53% of the public say it would be very good to have citizens vote on major national issues. Lebanon (83%) and Kenya (80%) also show broad support for direct democracy.

There is also strong backing for such governance in Japan (65%) even though the country has not had a referendum in the post-World War II era.

In the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands, people with a high school education or less are more likely than those with more than a high school education to support direct democracy. Such differences are small in the U.S. (6 percentage points) and Germany (8 points) but there is a 17-point differential in the Netherlands (62% of those with less educational attainment back direct democracy, but only 45% of those with more education agree).

In six of seven Latin American nations surveyed, those with a secondary school education or above are more supportive of direct democracy than those with less than a high school education. This educational divide is 16 points in Chile and 14 points in Argentina and Colombia. In each of these countries, those with less education are less likely to hold an opinion of direct democracy.

In Latin America, there is also a generation gap in views of direct democracy. In Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, those ages 18 to 29 are more supportive than those ages 50 and older of having citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on issues of major national importance.

Notably, in the U.S. it is people ages 30 to 49 who are most likely (73%) to back referenda.

In other countries there are sharp divisions along religious or ethnic lines. In Israel it is Arabs (83%) more than Jews (54%) who favor direct democracy, and in Nigeria it is Muslims (70%) more than Christians (55%).

Supporters of some populist parties in Europe are particularly enthusiastic about direct democracy. In Spain, 88% of those who hold a favorable view of Podemos say citizens voting on national issues would be good for the country. In Germany, 84% of AfD backers agree, as do 77% of PVV supporters in the Netherlands.

Support for direct democracy can also be seen in other recent Pew Research Center findings in Europe. In the wake of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, a median of just 18% in nine continental EU member states say they want their country to exit the EU. But 53% support holding a national vote on their own country’s EU membership.

And such support is particularly strong among backers of Euroskeptic populist parties, many of whom have promised their supporters a referendum on EU membership. (For more on European’s attitudes about staying in the EU, see Post-Brexit, Europeans More Favorable Toward EU .)

And in six of the nine continental European nations surveyed, strong majorities of those who believe that direct democracy is a very good form of governance support their own EU membership referendum.

Technocracy has its champions

The value of expert opinion has been questioned in the eyes of the public in recent years. But when asked whether a governing system in which experts, not elected officials, make decisions would be a good or bad approach, publics around the world are divided: 49% say that would be a good idea, 46% think it would be a bad thing.

Europeans (a median of 43%) and Americans (40%) are the least supportive. But among Europeans, roughly two-thirds of Hungarians (68%) say leaving decision-making to experts would be a good way to govern.

Asian-Pacific publics generally back rule by experts, particularly people in Vietnam (67%), India (65%) and the Philippines (62%). Only Australians are notably wary: 57% say it would be a bad way to govern, and only 41% support governance by experts.

More than half of Africans surveyed also say governing by experts would be a good thing for their country. Nigerians (65%) are especially supportive. And it is Nigerian Muslims more than Christians who say this.

Young people in a number of advanced economies are particularly attracted to technocracy. In the U.S. the age gap is 10 percentage points – 46% of those ages 18 to 29 but only 36% of those ages 50 and older say it would be good if experts, not elected officials, made decisions. The young-old differential is even greater in Australia (19 points), Japan (18 points), the UK (14 points), Sweden (13 points) and Canada (13 points).

Some support for rule by strong leader

Rule by a strong leader is generally unpopular, though minorities of a substantial size back it. A global median of 26% say a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts would be a good way of governing. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) say it would be a bad type of governance.

Opposition is particularly widespread in Europe (a median of 86% oppose rule by a strong leader), with strong opposition in Germany (93%), Sweden (90%) and the Netherlands (89%).

But autocracy is not universally opposed. Roughly four-in-ten Italians (43%) who have a favorable view of Forza Italia, the political party founded by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and a similar share of the British (42%) who favor UKIP say a strong leader making decisions would be good for their country. Nearly half of Russians (48%) back governance by a strong leader.

In Asia, 55% of Indians, 52% of Indonesians and 50% of Filipinos favor autocracy. Such support is particularly intense in India, where 27% very strongly back a strong leader.

Public views of rule by a strong leader are relevant in countries that have experienced degrees of authoritarianism in recent years. Roughly eight-in-ten Venezuelans (81%) and 71% of Hungarians oppose a strong leader who makes decisions without interference of parliament or the courts.

Rule by a strong leader also appeals to older members of the public in some countries. More than a quarter of Hungarians (29%) and South Koreans (34%) ages 50 and older favor governance by a strong leader.

In advanced economies there is little overall backing for autocracy. But, where such support does exist, it is often people with a secondary education or below who are more likely than those with more education to favor autocratic rule. This educational divide is particularly wide in the UK (19 percentage points), the U.S. (15 points), Poland and South Korea (both 13 points).

In a number of nations there is a significant division of opinion about strong leaders based on ideology. Those who place themselves on the right of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those who place themselves on the left to say a strong leader making decisions would be a good way of governing. The ideological gap is 20 percentage points in South Korea and Australia and 16 points in Italy and the UK. Notably, in Venezuela, which has been ruled by populist, left-wing strongmen, those on the left are more supportive of autocratic rule than those on the right.

Significant minorities support military rule

There is minority support for a governing system in which the military rules the country: a median of 24% in the 38 nations surveyed. At least four-in-ten Africans (46%) and Asians (41%) see value in a government run by the generals and admirals.

The strongest backing is in Vietnam (70%), where the army has long played a pivotal role in governance in close collaboration with the Communist Party, especially in the 1960s and 70s during the war with the United States. Some of this may be nostalgia for the past: By two-to-one (46% to 23%) Vietnamese ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 29 to say military rule would be very good for their country.

Notably, roughly half of both Indians (53%) and South Africans (52%), who live in nations that often hold themselves up as democratic exemplars for their regions, say military rule would be a good thing for their countries. But in these societies, older people (those ages 50 and older) are the least supportive of the army running the country, and they are the ones who either personally experienced the struggle to establish democratic rule or are the immediate descendants of those democratic pioneers. In South Africa, blacks (55%) more than whites (38%) also favor the military making governance decisions.

Only one-in-ten Europeans back military rule. But some on the populist right of the political spectrum voice such support. Nearly a third of those who hold a favorable view of the National Front in France (31%) say a governing system in which the military rules the country would be a good thing, as do nearly a quarter of those who favor UKIP in the United Kingdom (23%).

Support for a governing system in which the military rules the country enjoys backing among people with less education in at least half the countries surveyed, with some of the strongest support among those with less than a secondary education in Africa and Latin America.

More than half of Peruvians with less than a high school education (55%) prefer military rule. Only about a third (32%) of more educated Peruvians agree.

Particularly strong backing for military rule also exists among the less educated in Vietnam (76%), Nigeria (57%), Kenya (49%) and the Philippines (47%).

Notably, one-in-five of those ages 50 and older in the U.S. support military rule, as do roughly one-in-four Japanese (24%) ages 18 to 29.

Ideology also plays a role in public views of military rule. But it can cut both ways. In some countries, people on the right of the political spectrum are significantly more supportive of military governance than those on the left, especially in Chile. In Hungary and Venezuela, on the other hand, it is more likely to be individuals on the left who see value in military rule.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Authoritarianism
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Support for democracy is strong in Hong Kong and Taiwan

Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government, many across the globe are dissatisfied with how democracy is working, how countries around the world view democracy, military rule and other political systems, study on twins suggests our political beliefs may be hard-wired, most popular, report materials.

• Explore global opinions on political systems by country
• Spring 2017 Survey Data

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Why Is Democracy Worth Defending?

More and more Americans are turning against democracy. According to a 2023 survey from the University of Virginia Center for Politics, 24% of Democrats and 31% of Republicans agree with the statement, “Democracy is no longer a viable system, and America should explore alternative forms of government.” A series of 2024 Pew Research Center surveys says roughly two-thirds of Americans don’t think our democracy is working very well—and satisfaction with democracy itself has fallen by 10 points since 2021.

That trend is global. The Pew Research Center has found support for democracy as an ideal slipping around the world over the past seven years. Those opinions reflect a real-world trend: A new report from the V-Dem Project —which convenes over 4,000 researchers around the world to aggregate their data—finds that authoritarian governments are gaining ground. Almost two-thirds of the world’s population (5.7 billion people) now live under authoritarian leaders, a 48% increase from 10 years ago. Around the world, according to this team of political scientists, core democratic mechanisms like fair elections and a free press are troubled or declining.

Why? That’s a question hotly disputed among scholars and citizens alike. But, according to Henry E. Brady, professor and former dean of the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, the problem boils down to rapid technological change and rising economic inequality overwhelming governments. Those forces have combined with climate change to trigger mass migrations, which strains infrastructure and social cohesion. When governments don’t seem able to effectively address these kinds of problems, he says, they lose legitimacy—and that creates an opportunity for would-be dictators.

In the face of these challenges, now is a good time to ask ourselves: What’s good about democracy? Why is it worth defending?

Democracy vs. authoritarianism

The trouble, of course, is that more authoritarian governments face the same problems—but they don’t have the same level of transparency, and so their failures are not as apparent.

What is democracy?

While there are different kinds of democracy—a word that means “rule by the people”—democratic political systems tend to have these characteristics in common:

The potential for all citizens to participate in decision making, through mechanisms like elections or referenda.

The idea that all people, including the rich and powerful, are accountable before the law.

Well-defined fundamental rights, including for free speech and assembly.

Brady cites the Nobel Prize–winning economist Amartya Sen, who famously argued that there are no famines in functioning democracies because “you can’t get away with having one.” Through channels like independent peer-reviewed research, investigative journalism, or the debates that unfold in election campaigns, “democracies do better ultimately because people are better able to recognize problems,” says Brady.

It’s important to note, however, that studying competing political systems involves a tremendous amount of uncertainty and disagreement. John Gerring is a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, who has published a number of large-scale studies comparing outcomes in democratic and authoritarian systems. He cautions that this is extremely hard to do, because of the chaos and complexity involved. Moreover, “democracy is not randomly assigned,” he says. “So all the things that cause a country to become democratic or authoritarian could also affect the outcomes that we want to explain.” In other words, for example: Are more prosperous and peaceful countries more likely to become democratic—or does democracy drive peace and prosperity?

However, even acknowledging those limitations, says Gerring, the consensus among researchers is that the citizens of democracies do tend to be happier and healthier than those in more authoritarian countries.

In a 2022 paper , Gerring and his colleagues looked at results from 1,100 cross-country analyses published after the year 2000, covering 30 outcomes like human rights, military and criminal justice, and overall governance—and they found that democracies perform as well or better in almost every domain.

Of course, nothing is ever simple: “For inequality, inflation, and public spending, there is no case for democracy producing desirable outcomes,” write the authors, suggesting that democracies don’t always do a good job of managing their money.

Seven benefits of democracy

Democracy can’t protect us from every bad thing—but the research to date says that it has done a much better job so far than alternatives like dictatorships, military juntas, monarchies, or one-party systems. So, how is democracy good for you? Read on.

Greater well-being

There is a robust connection between democratic decision making and self-reported happiness—or what researchers call “subjective well-being.” One 2017 study looked at a diverse group of countries (including, for example, Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Rwanda, in addition to the usual Western suspects) and found that people living in stable democracies were much more satisfied with life than those in less democratic countries. (Of course, there are many factors interacting to shape happiness in a given country—especially economic ones—and researchers have discovered that, in fact, inequalities create happiness gaps within countries, which drags down their collective average.)

The quality of democratic institutions and the type of democracy matter, too, when it comes to happiness. Another 2017 paper used data for the nations of the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and the United States to discover that the happiest people lived in countries with parliamentary and proportional representation electoral systems, perhaps because those best represent a range of interests and viewpoints. However, across multiple studies, the overall picture is pretty clear: On average, the more democratic a country is, the happier its people tend to be.

Better health

In a 2012 study , Gerring and his colleagues found that long-standing, stable democracies had much lower infant mortality rates than their unstable or undemocratic counterparts. Another 2018 study by Yi-ting Wang and her colleagues studied a data set that tracked 171 countries for over a century. They found that “democratic elections have consistent effects on health outcomes even when other important factors, including good governance, are taken into account.”

“Democracies do better ultimately because people are better able to recognize problems”

Both those studies found that the age of a democracy was a big influence on health. Why? Authoritarian governments aren’t as good at health care for the majority partially because powerful minorities tend to hoard medical resources and ignore the needs of the many—but transitioning to democracy does not instantaneously make people healthier. “You need time to build up a bureaucracy and distribute health care and ideally do things that extend life, like vaccinate kids,” says Gerring. “Those things don’t materialize in a jiffy.”

More human and civil rights

Democracy is majority rule—but it’s also comparatively good at protecting minorities. That may seem like a paradox, but consider the role of the rule of law and and constitutionally protected civil liberties, which are designed to restrain the power of majorities and powerful elites.

Indeed, according to the V-Dem Democracy Report 2024 , the world’s democracies are substantially better at protecting religious, racial, political, and sexual minorities from bias and persecution than are autocracies, in part because those minorities can band together for self-protection. As Anthony J. McGann argues in a 2004 paper , “Majority rule offers most protection to minorities because it makes it easiest for a minority to form a coalition that can overturn an unacceptable outcome.”

Relatedly, a 2020 study by Larry M. Bartels found that people who are more hostile toward ethnic minorities tend to have more anti-democratic attitudes. As that and other studies suggest, bigotry and democracy are simply not compatible, with one undermining the other .

Stronger relationships

“Social capital” refers to the strength and diversity of our contacts with friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, and more. The research to date suggests that democracy and social capital have what sociologist Pamela Paxton calls an “interdependent relationship,” with the health of one tied up in the health of the other.

In a 2002 paper that used data from the World Values Survey and the Union of International Associations, she finds that the two bolstered each other—so long as civic organizations were in some way connected to a larger community. In other words, organizations that channel people into, for example, community sports leagues or farmers markets strengthen social capital, while those that are more insular (like not-in-my-backyard activist groups) don’t .

In a more recent paper for the Review of Political Economy , two Greek researchers find strong evidence for the same kind of relationship, with democracy boosting people’s social capital and their social capital fueling their satisfaction with democracy. That’s a finding supported by many other studies that find, for example, that rural social capital leads people to give more input to government decisions through forums like debates and town meetings, which translates into more trust between the people and government.

Less war, more peace

One of the strongest conclusions from the research to date is that democracies tend to be much more peaceful than their authoritarian counterparts. “There just aren’t very many examples of two democracies fighting wars with each other,” says Gerring. There are some interesting nuances to this discussion, like the fact that when democracies do go to war, it’s almost always with autocracies, and the democracies are much more likely to win those wars.

In a 2014 paper , for example, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and his colleagues argue that “because defeat is more likely to lead to domestic replacement for democrats than for autocrats, democrats only initiate wars they expect to win”—and that same public pressure drives more resources toward the military than dictators are usually able to muster. At the same time, healthy democracies are much less likely to experience civil war, domestic terrorism, and military coups. In fact, the rise of civil wars in recent years might be linked to the decline of democracy around the world.

Stronger, more egalitarian economies

Democracies enjoy more stable and sustainable economic growth , and they’re overall more redistributive, believe it or not, meaning that functions like education and health care tend to be more public and universal than they are in authoritarian counterpart countries.

While some people might believe that cut-throat capitalism and colonialism are responsible for democratic prosperity, the global picture is much more complicated. As Brady points out, there is such a thing as what he calls well-being or egalitarian democracy, where “not only do you have autonomy as a person and people have to respect your rights, but also you have the right to pursue happiness—and that means there should be programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, social security, and so forth, so that throughout your life, no matter what befalls you, you have a safety net.”

Indeed, the world’s social democracies —of the kind found throughout Europe, with manifestations in places like Canada, Bolivia, and New Zealand—have become the world’s happiest nations by embracing a social safety net for everyone.

Better governance

If your employer steals part of your wages or forces you to work overtime, will the Labor Commission act? Are your investments protected by the courts? Do you need to bribe someone at City Hall to get a building permit? Issues like these hint at the quality of governance—an umbrella term for functioning, responsive, honest government.

In the 2022 meta-analysis mentioned above, Gerring and his colleagues found this is an area where democracies tend to excel, relatively speaking. Though countries transitioning to democracy are more vulnerable to bribery and nepotism, says Gerring, “over the longer term, the countries with the longest democratic histories have the lowest levels of corruption.” That’s a conclusion shared by many other studies —some of which suggest that maintaining solid administration is also key to sustaining support for democracy, especially when it comes to crime and law enforcement.

“Democracy is more fragile than most of us like to think. Not fragile like glass. Fragile like a bomb.”

As we approach the 2024 election, it might be easy to feel complacent and imagine that because American democracy has endured for centuries, it will continue to do so—or we might feel that embracing a more authoritarian leader will “make America great again.”

But “democracy is more fragile than most of us like to think,” says Ray Block , senior analyst for the African American Research Collaborative and the Michael D. Rich Distinguished Chair for Countering Truth Decay at the RAND Corporation. “Not fragile like glass. Fragile like a bomb. Not caring for it means that we perish.”

About the Author

Jeremy Adam Smith

Uc berkeley.

Jeremy Adam Smith edits the GGSC's online magazine, Greater Good . He is also the author or coeditor of five books, including The Daddy Shift , Are We Born Racist? , and (most recently) The Gratitude Project: How the Science of Thankfulness Can Rewire Our Brains for Resilience, Optimism, and the Greater Good . Before joining the GGSC, Jeremy was a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University.

You May Also Enjoy

Can Social-Emotional Skills Strengthen Democracy?

The Emotions That Make You Decide to Vote

Americans Still Have Hope for Democracy, Despite Everything

How Inequality Keeps People from Voting

Can a Protest Make You Change Your Vote?

If Democracy Had a Sound, It Would Be Jazz

March 14, 2020 by The Nation

Democracy is better than military rule – Rate Your Leader counsels Senator Adeyemi

Agency Reporter

Read also:  ‘don’t sacrifice nigerian democracy, judiciary over personal ambitions’.

Abuja doctor reveals a unique way to permanently cure weak erection, small and shameful manhood, and infertility issues without side effects within a short period. Click now to see!!

VERIFIED NEWS: Salaries and compensation for Nigerian workers can now be paid in US Dollars, you acquire premium domains for as low as $1500 and PROFIT $22,000 ( ₦34 million) Click here

Kalejaye becomes Asiwaju of Ilese 1 hour ago

Adepoju-Ogunmodede celebrates at 90 1 hour ago

‘How Sango police averted hunger protest’ 1 hour ago

Lagos, stakeholders commit to fight food insecurity 1 hour ago

APC’s Okpebholo vows to create over 5,000 jobs in first 100 days 1 hour ago

Democracy Arguments For and Against Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Arguments for democracy, arguments against democracy, works cited.

Contrary to other ideas in political science such as justice and liberty, democracy is a term that can be easily explained. It mainly relates to the government by the majority. Although characterizing democracy is not difficult, the latest political theory is often left this out. No strong argument is provided by political theorists regarding the reason for representative democracy.

On the other hand, if any is given, it lacks strength. One would anticipate that great literature can be created from the reasons for the promotion and institution of democracy. On the contrary, popular literature does not delve so much into why democracy is desirable, but instead, get to explain the reasons for the improvement of the current democracy. This essay examines what different philosophers have had to argue both for and against democracy.

One of the arguments is that democracy is important because it can be embraced and made deliberative. This implies that deliberation of a dialogical nature is vital to the democratic society. When democracy is made deliberate in a given society, instead of people’s mere adaptation to circumstance, their preferences are not only informed but also made clear.

Democracy also helps to remove points of difference among people without necessarily making them agree. At times, democracy requires that people be compelled to embrace a general perspective. As such, both their imagination and empathy are stretched. In the same vein of the deliberateness of democracy, selfish concerns can be separated from public-oriented considerations thus encouraging public reasoning for participants who are free and equal (Sosa & Villanueva 287-288).

Research also indicates that making democratic to be more deliberative is likely to result to other benefits such as legitimizing all decisions that are arrived at, encouraging the powerless to voice their concerns in decision making, promoting transparency among group members and enhancing outcomes that are just.

Another argument that favors the importance of democracy in deliberation is one that aims at making deliberation democratic and not vice versa. This implies that whenever there is democratic deliberation, then the probability of reaching the truth based on reliability increases with the presence of a democratic decision-making regime.

Moreover, democracy enhances the proper allocation of resources to appropriate uses. This argument is supported by the fact dictatorial leaders are not fully accountable to citizens and do not have motivations to put the total output into maximum use. Instead, they focus on their selfish ends.

Consequently, democracy ensures that property rights are protected hence allowing investors to have a long term perspective. Besides, allowing free flow of information ensures that the quality of economic decisions made is high (Dahl 448).

In attempting to argue against democracy, Gordon takes on several philosophers who have argued in favor of democracy. He does this by revealing how such arguments fail to hold water when based on democracy because, in his perspective, the proponents of democracy do not express the desirability of democracy as it were. A good example of writers who have omitted this fact is Bernard Barber.

He dismisses other philosophers on this matter arguing that a just political order can only be reached at through a discussion and not by avoiding it. Questions of distributive justice can properly be dealt with by individuals rather than by philosophers alone since it would be undemocratic to do the reverse. However, Barber does not clearly explain why people should value democracy.

His concern is that individuals thinking on their own can reach wiser decisions than a group of individuals discussing the same issue. He’s satisfied with the fact that Rousseau concurs with the issue. If he were to be correct about this empirical matter, then it would be sound to conclude that if democratic governance would guide a society, then it would be prudent to arrive at decisions in such a society through discussions.

Although this point is still devoid of the desirability of democracy, it centers on the importance of democracy in discussing policy publicly. Deliberating on issues publicly is not a compulsory ingredient for democracy. For instance, during the nineteenth century, there was no democracy in the British government although public issues could be discussed broadly (Gordon para.5).

Plato presents a couple of arguments against democracy. First, Plato describes democracies as societies that are anarchic. He believes that societies that are democratic are marked with anarchy. For example, his attack describes governments that are democratic for being libertarian in such a manner every citizen can carry out their life issues in a way that appeals to them.

In this way, he asserts that people mistake anarchy for freedom. Plato criticizes democratic societies again by asserting that since they are characterized with anarchy, they are devoid of unity. They are not united on two fronts. First, due to the lack of political structure and are not politically organized. Second, democratic societies do not have a leadership structure since everyone can speak on political issues.

Second, Plato argues that democratic societies are likely to adhere to what their citizens want hence lacking any concern for the good of all. If anarchy is what features in democracies, then every individual has the freedom to choose what will ultimately benefit him or her. These choices may clash and encourage people to value their own needs rather those of others as well.

This is a clear pursuit of personal desires which may encourage loss of the common good. Since citizens have no idea of what ruling is, it happens that they pursue their passions and not the reason because reason cannot be applied in such pursuits. Any leaders that are elected through democracy are therefore servants who are out to satisfy the individual desires and appetites of the citizens.

Plato further argues that citizens who are guided by democracy are likened to individuals who grope in darkness since they do not have what it takes to execute governance (Kofmel 20). Moreover, Plato lists two more difficulties. First, numerous individuals falsely believe that they have adequate political proficiency that can qualify them to take part in political issues.

Citizens are not bothered by the fact that on account of their political standing, they are entitled to an equal political voice with each other. Second, when people get involved in a philosophical investigation with each other, they are more concerned with winning arguments instead of the following truth.

Therefore, even though citizens may be endowed with enough political expertise, it may be concluded that they will not be able to manage it effectively (Kofmel 21). The best remedy to this problem is to limit popular involvement in politics and allowing those who have sufficient political know-how in matters of governance to take the lead in the political decision-making process. Such are the people who can guide the citizens into achieving their common good.

Democracy is a term that is perceived differently by different people. Arguments put forth in favor of it are that it encourages fair allocation of resources, sound decision making especially by the powerless and allows for transparency and justice through deliberation.

Arguments against democracy are that it is not the best option for decision making, it encourages anarchy and hence lack of unity and that democracy encourages people who do not have sufficient political expertise to be involved in decision making. This results in a lack of common good.

Dahl, Robert. The Democracy Sourcebook. NY: MIT Press, 2003. June 19, 2011.

Gordon, David. What’s the Argument for Democracy? LeRockwell.com, 1992. June 19, 2011.

Kofmel, Erich. Anti-Democratic Thought. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2008. June 19, 2011.

Sosa, Ernest & Villanueva, Enrique. Social, Political and Legal Philosophy, Volume 1. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. June 19, 2011.

• Scholars on Postmodernism as Social Theory
• Democracy as the Best Form of Government
• Social Desirability Bias in Post-Graduate Students
• “Jihad Versus Mcworld” by Benjamen Barber: Tribalism and Globalism Threat to Democracy
• The Causes and Impacts of Social Desirability Bias
• Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses
• Analysis of Hugo Chavez and Muamar Gaddafi's Reign Through Machiavelli's Eye
• Machiavelli’s Views on Democratization and Their Relation to Modern Politics
• "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan
• The Effects of the American Correctional Policy
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 14). Democracy Arguments For and Against. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/

"Democracy Arguments For and Against." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Democracy Arguments For and Against'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

1. IvyPanda . "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

Global site navigation

• Celebrity biographies
• Messages - Wishes - Quotes
• TV-shows and movies
• Fashion and style
• Capital Market
• Celebrities
• Family and Relationships

Local editions

• Legit Nigeria News
• Legit Hausa News
• Legit Spanish News
• Legit French News

Advantages of democracy over military rule in Nigeria

Eventually, people will always talk about the advantages of democracy over military rule in Nigeria. Those who had an opportunity to compare two rules will vote for democracy and will always appreciate peaceful and stable democracy. We will remind you in this article one more time why the whole country has to work hard to overcome the challenges of Democracy in Nigeria.

What is democracy

Today democracy is considered the best form of government in the world. In a democratic state, people are believed to have power in there hands, and people decide how to rule the country.

The characteristics of democracy are:

• People are the highest form of political power; they have a right to choose and to be chosen.
• Mass media and citizens have a right to express themselves; people can even organize meetings.
• The law protects the rights of the citizens.
• The rule of law prevails.
• The separation of powers into executive, legislature and judicial branches.
• Pure democracy does not exist.

Top 5 causes of the current religious crisis in Nigeria and possible solutions

READ ALSO: What are main features of democracy?

You must be surprised by the last line, but this is indeed the problem of democracy, it does not exist. There are always exceptions that do not permit people to rule the country entirely. At the same time, these restrictions do not let the democracy to become the anarchy. Anyway, to see all advantages of the regime that is supposed to be called “democracy,” we will compare it with the other governing experienced by the Nigerians – military rule.

What is military rule

Military rule - is political regime when the power is concentrated in the hands of the military as an organization. It is believed to be one of the types of the authoritarian regime because at the time of military rule human rights are noticeably limited.

The main features of military rule are:

• The concentration of power in the hands of the military ruler.
• A significant limitation or complete absence of democratic rights and freedoms.
• Willful violation of constitutional proclamation of rights and freedoms in the pretext of restoring and maintaining order in the country.
• The military government can resort to weapons for resolving any conflict. People lose any right to express their opinion and have to suffer under the pressure of armed people.

Causes, positive and negative effects of military rule in Nigeria

However, military rule has positive sights:

• The rulers have no other choice but maintain and sponsor some projects, the civilian government forgets about in peaceful times.
• The military rule includes severe discipline, that factually “destroys” corruption and bureaucracy.

READ ALSO: History of Democracy Day in Nigeria

What are the advantages of democracy over military rule in relation to human rights

We are going to speak about democracy and the army rule in the context of Nigeria because this country experienced both regimes.

Military rule in Nigeria started for the first time in 1966 – a several years after obtaining the independence. The matter was that Nigeria was in an infantile state, and it was necessary to adjust the governing so that all citizens were satisfied.

There were several coup d’états against the existing government of the grounds of ethnicity, discontentment and many other reasons. It is quite clear that military rule was not the best period in the life of Nigerian people. But citizens of the current time must be able to compare these two forms of ruling to avoid choosing the wrong ways in the future.

Top primary values and principles of constitutional democracy

First of all, it is necessary to highlight the advantages of democracy over military rule in Nigeria concerning human rights.

1. The right to vote

The military rule usually begins with the armed seizure of the governing power.

2. The right to express one’s point of view

Military rule press is characterized by propaganda. All mass media (including radio, television, Internet) work for the government only. People can not organize demonstrations and meetings because they will be punished. During the military rule, many people were tortured because of their opposition to the government. Democracy predisposes the freedom of speech and pluralism of opinions. Meetings organized by people will be taken into account, and people will be listened to because the government depends on people.

3. The right to live

In the period of the military rule in Nigeria, many people were killed and tortured. They were not protected by the law or police. In the democratic conditions, all citizens are supposed to be protected by the law, and all people are supposed to be equal in the court.

How to solve the problem of cultural diversity in Nigeria

READ ALSO: History of democracy in Nigeria from 1960

Advantages of democracy over military rule in general

Other advantages of democracy over military rule in Nigeria include:

• Democracy is the best way to implement the social and political system in a society with constantly changing living conditions without revolutionary explosions and upheavals.
• Democracy is stable. People appreciate peace that is why the regime that presupposes no peace provokes mass dissatisfaction. The problem of Nigerian military rule consists in its durability. It took thirty-three years for the state to become democratic! That is why it is still so difficult to recover from the consequences of revolutions, blood spilling, and instability.
• Democracy promotes the idea of national identity, of national pride, while military rule destroys it. Many people tend to leave the country with military rule.
• Government is stable in a democratic state. Unlike the military rule, you will never wake up and hear the name of a new ruler of the country. Democracy brings stability. At least, in the democratic state, you will go to bed thinking that tomorrow will be a different day!

Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

As it can be seen, military rule is evil, like any other authoritarian rule. This is not just someone’s subjective point of view. Summing up the advantages of democratic rule over military rule is human life which is the most precious thing in the world and any rule that threats or neglects it is considered wrong, dangerous, and must be demolished. Fortunately, it happened in Nigeria, and under no conditions should it (military rule) be repeated.

READ ALSO: Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

Source: Legit.ng

Adrianna Simwa (Lifestyle writer) Adrianna Simwa is a content writer at Legit.ng where she has worked since mid-2022. She has written for many periodicals on a variety of subjects, including news, celebrities, and lifestyle, for more than three years. She has worked for The Hoth, The Standard Group and Triple P Media. Adrianna graduated from Nairobi University with a Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) in 2020. In 2023, Simwa finished the AFP course on Digital Investigation Techniques. You can reach her through her email: [email protected]

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

Explore our publications and services.

University of michigan press.

Publishes award-winning books that advance humanities and social science fields, as well as English language teaching and regional resources.

Michigan Publishing Services

Assists the U-M community of faculty, staff, and students in achieving their publishing ambitions.

Deep Blue Repositories

Share and access research data, articles, chapters, dissertations and more produced by the U-M community.

A community-based, open source publishing platform that helps publishers present the full richness of their authors' research outputs in a durable, discoverable, accessible and flexible form. Developed by Michigan Publishing and University of Michigan Library.

• shopping_cart Cart

Browse Our Books

• See All Books
• Distributed Clients

Feature Selections

• New Releases
• Forthcoming
• Bestsellers
• Great Lakes

English Language Teaching

• Companion Websites
• Subject Index
• Resources for Teachers and Students

By Skill Area

• Academic Skills/EAP
• Teacher Training

For Authors

Prospective authors.

• Why Publish with Michigan?
• Open Access
• Our Publishing Program
• Submission Guidelines

Author's Guide

• Introduction
• Final Manuscript Preparation
• Production Process
• Marketing and Sales
• Guidelines for Indexing

For Instructors

• Exam Copies
• Desk Copies

For Librarians and Booksellers

• Our Ebook Collection
• Ordering Information for Booksellers
• Review Copies

Background and Contacts

• About the Press
• Customer Service
• Staff Directory

News and Information

• Conferences and Events

Policies and Requests

• Rights and Permissions
• Accessibility

Between Military Rule and Democracy

Regime consolidation in greece, turkey, and beyond.

Examines military interventions in Greece, Turkey, Thailand, and Egypt, and the military’s role in authoritarian and democratic regimes

Look Inside

• Table of Contents

Description

Why do the armed forces sometimes intervene in politics via short-lived coups d’état, at other times establish or support authoritarian regimes, or in some cases come under the democratic control of civilians? To find answers, Yaprak Gürsoy examines four episodes of authoritarianism, six periods of democracy, and ten short-lived coups in Greece and Turkey, and then applies her resultant theory to four more recent military interventions in Thailand and Egypt.

Based on more than 150 interviews with Greek and Turkish elites, Gürsoy offers a detailed analysis of both countries from the interwar period to recent regime crises. She argues that officers, politicians, and businesspeople prefer democracy, authoritarianism, or short-lived coups depending on the degree of threat they perceive to their interests from each other and the lower classes. The power of elites relative to the opposition, determined in part by the coalitions they establish with each other, affects the success of military interventions and the consolidation of regimes.

With historical and theoretical depth, Between Military Rule and Democracy will interest students of regime change and civil-military relations in Greece, Turkey, Thailand, and Egypt, as well as in countries facing similar challenges to democratization.

Yaprak Gürsoy  is Lecturer of Politics and International Relations at Aston University.  

“ Between Military Rule and Democracy is a pioneering study in the sense that there exists no comparative-historical study of the same level of historical depth and theoretical sophistication which tries to uncover the complex trajectories of democratization and authoritarian reversals in the Southeastern periphery of Europe.” —Ziya Öniş, Koç University  

“ Between Military Rule and Democracy goes beyond many of the other treatments of militaries in politics by making a well-supported argument concerning factors that influence the actions of militaries in various situations . . . It thus makes an interesting contribution to the literature on democratization and authoritarianism as well as providing very well-documented case studies of the actions of militaries in two countries where they have played an important role over time.” —Sharon Wolchik, George Washington University  

News, Reviews, Interviews

Watch: Yaprak Gursoy book launch with the South East European Studies group at Oxford Link | 5/24/2017 Watch: Interview with Yaprak Gursoy with the South East European Studies group at Oxford Link | 4/19/2017

Is Military Rule Better Than The Civilian Rule Or Vice-Versa?

This article examines whether military rule is better than the civilian rule and vice-versa. It provides the advantages of each system of government and gives room for readers to build on any of the points highlighted.

Democratic Government

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the laws’ proposal, development, and creation. i.e., A democratic government is ruled by civilians, usually elected by the people. Democracy is ruled by the constitution and reign of civil laws, which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society with civilians exercising all legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

A democratic government contrasts two forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Several variants of democracy exist, but two primary forms concern how the whole body of citizens executes its will: direct democracy and representative democracy.

Read: Is democracy the best form of government?

Military Government

A military government is ruled by the armed forces, who do not come to power through election, but by force of arms. A military regime is a process, procedure, or system with expertise, adapted and rooted in war and combat. It is a system rooted in martial law and forces. It is also a system that demands obedience always and, in its purest essence, makes no room for debate and opposition.

Some of the features of military rule include Suspension of the constitution, absence of an election, use of decrees and edicts, lack of respect for fundamental human rights, no checks and balances, centralized form of government, no periodic election, etc.

Read: Causes and remedies to indiscipline in schools

Which is better?

Below are the advantages of civilian rule and military rule. Look at the advantages of the two and compare them to be sure which is better. Each of them has its cons and that must be considered too. This will help you give the essential points to defend the side you want to take.

Civilian Rule

• There are ways to resolve different views and conflicts peacefully.
• It is a government by the people and for the people
• Respect for human dignity.
• The freedom to act, speak, and think freely (as long as it does not stop others from doing the same).
• Equality before the law.
• Safe and secure community.
• It is a system of government that is efficient, transparent, responsive, and accountable to citizens.
• Ability to hold elected representatives accountable.
• Opposition and criticism are tolerated.

Military Rule

• The military has protocol and structure.
• Protection of life and property is ensured in a military regime.
• Decision-making is faster in military regimes than in civilian.
• It instills discipline and brings about order and corporate living among people in society.
• Control of corruption
• It is cost-effective. Since the election is not conducted, billions spent on this process are avoided.
• There is respect for authority
• Criminal activities are minimal. Martial law can quickly illuminate all criminals.
• Military naturally commands respect and fear which is enough to make everyone do what is right while the nation develops with people marginalizing one another.

Related posts:

• Nigerian Military School JS1 Application Form 2024/2025
• Nigerian Military School (NMS) Admission List 2023/2024
• Nigerian Military School (NMS) Zaria School Fees 2023/2024
• How to gain admission into Obafemi Awolowo University
• How to know the type of course to study in the university

Bolarinwa Olajire

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Username Password Remember me Sign in New here ? Join Us

• English Language
• 2001 WAEC English La...

2001 WAEC English Language Theory You are a speaker in a debate on the topic “Civilian rule is better than...

You are a speaker in a debate on the topic “Civilian rule is better than military." Write your contribution for or against the motion. 

Explanation

Good morning Mr. Chairman, panel of Judges, accurate time-keeper, co-debaters, ladies and gentlemen. I am here to support the motion which says: "Civilian rule is better than military rule."        Firstly, I would like to take the pains to enlighten some of the younger ones here about what civilian rule and military rule are actually all about. Civilian rule can be likened to a democratic rule. Democracy, in the opinion of the layman, is government for the people, of the people and by the people. From the definition, it can be noted that civilian rulers are actually chosen by the people and they work for the benefit of the people who choose them.        On the other hand, military rule can be likened to an autocratic rule where the people are instructed to go and comes without any argument from anyone. It is like a do or die affair. Let me now get down to the motion.        First and foremost, in every democratic dispensation, there is freedom to vote and be voted for, which is not present in the military rule. The civilians only rule when they have been elected by the people. They do not impose themselves on anyone. Meanwhile, the people have no say when the military is ruling. Military rule is imposed on the people and military heads of state rule without the consent of the people. Because military men have guns, the people can not protest, they just have to accept them. Moreover, when civilians rule, the people enjoy freedom of speech and of the press. An indigene can criticise a civilian leader either in the newspaper or on television without any fear of molestation. Nowadays, it is very common to see people criticising or admonishing the civilian president of Nigeria on the television. Everybody is believed to be equal under a civilian dispensation. However, in military rule, no one has the guts to talk against a ruler even in the enclosure of his room because walls are believed to have ears.        Furthermore, in military rule, some innocent citizens, being victims of circumstances, are shot down accidentally. This often occurs in a military dispensation. There is little respect or regard for human lives and the military can be likened to armed robbers because instead of using their guns for security purposes, they maim innocent lives. However, in civilian rule, the intimidating guns are not present and this actually brings a sense of security to the citizens.        Lastly, civilian rulers execute good and popular projects which are aimed at ameliorating the suffering of the people they rule. They know that the people who vote them into power would judge them by their performance. Therefore, they execute good projects and provide infrastructural facilities that could speak for them when they are called to render account of their stewardship in governance. On the contrary, military rulers are not guided by the wishes and demands of the people they rule when it comes to project execution. This is because they are not accountable to the people.        I believe that I have been able to convince you that civilian rule is better than military rule. I thank you for your patience. 

Contributions ({{ comment_count }})

Please wait..., modal title, {{ feedback_modal_data.title }}, quick questions.

Post your Contribution

Please don't post or ask to join a "Group" or "Whatsapp Group" as a comment. It will be deleted. To join or start a group, please click here

{{ quote.posted_by.display_name }}

Write an Argumentative Essay on the Topic Military Rule is Better Than Civilian Rule

The ongoing debate surrounding often centers on the choice between military rule and civilian rule. Advocates for military rule assert its merits in terms of efficiency, discipline, and stability. While supporters of civilian rule emphasize democratic values and individual rights, it is important to explore both perspectives. Here we are going to write an argumentative essay on the topic military rule is better than civilian rule. This essay aims to present a simplified argument favoring military rule, with a focus on aspects that may resonate with students.

Efficiency and Discipline:

Military rule is frequently associated with efficiency and discipline. In a government led by the military, decisions are made swiftly, avoiding the prolonged debates common in civilian rule. This characteristic can lead to quicker problem-solving and a more efficient administration. To illustrate, consider a well-organized military operation compared to a smoothly executed school event where things are efficiently planned and carried out.

Stability and Order:

A key argument in favor of military rule is its ability to ensure stability and order. The disciplined structure within the military is believed to translate into a stable government capable of maintaining law and order effectively. Students can draw parallels to a well-managed classroom where rules are enforced, ensuring a peaceful learning environment.

National Security:

Proponents of military rule argue that it enhances national security, as the military is trained to protect the country from external threats. A government led by the military might prioritize national defense more effectively. This analogy can be related to a school setting where security measures are in place to ensure the safety of students and staff.

Decisive Leadership:

Military leaders are often perceived as decisive individuals capable of making tough choices for the greater good. In times of crisis, quick decision-making becomes crucial. Students can grasp this concept by comparing it to a student council that must make swift decisions during emergencies or challenging situations.

Corruption Control:

Advocates for military rule argue that it can effectively control corruption due to the strict code of conduct within military institutions. A government led by the military may enforce anti-corruption measures more rigorously. Students can understand this by drawing a parallel to a school environment where a strong administration ensures fair play and honesty among students.

While arguments in favor of military rule exist, it is essential to recognize that democracy and civilian rule offer unique advantages, including individual freedoms, representation, and government accountability to the people. This simplified perspective does not encompass the complexity of real-world governance. Striking a balance that ensures both efficiency and individual rights is crucial. As future leaders, students can contribute to building a society that values discipline, order, and democracy, acknowledging the merits of each system while working towards a harmonious coexistence.

Related Posts

Exploring Experimental Research Topics That Can Be Done At Home

100+ Engaging Debate Topics for High School: Shaping Future Leaders

Top Essential 20 Qualities of a Good Nurse

Exploring the 4 Types of Leadership Styles with Examples

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

write an argumentative essay on the topic democracy is better than military rule