Different Political Systems

Just wondering does anyone on here feel like Democracy is the best system of government invented.
I mean you have a lot of political systems with different ways of doing things. Which help a country in different ways.

I just feel that countries should choose the right political system for the country, not assimilate the country into the political system.

These are the different political systems i found:
Absolutism
Capitalism
Bureaucracy
Autocracy
Coalition
Colonialism
Commercialism
Aristocracy
Communism
Confederation
Creed
Democracy
Empire
Fascism
Federation
Feudalism
Imperialism
League
Matriarchy
Meritocracy
Modernism
Monarchy
Paternalism
Patriarchy
Pluralism
Plutocracy
Regime
Republic
Socialism
Suzerainty
Theocracy
Totalitarianism
Union
Extremism
Militarism
Dynasty
Anarchy
Canton
Oligarchy
Geopolitics
Minimalism
Industrious

Now no country today has one pure system it's usually a combination of two, or more.
If you can i want to know what is you preferred combination of political systems and why?

True Democratic Republics are the best system in theory imo, capitalism with minor influence on the government and strong regulations would be best economy too. Communism would be neat in some unlimited resource world, but it just can't ever work realistically.

According to churchill

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

In my opinion democracy does lean out to bieng a proper government, providing you don't have leaders who are to afraid to do whats necesary, not whats "right"

Ocasionally i lean towards some sort of monarchy, providing the leader is once again, capable.

Ocasionally i lean towards some sort of monarchy, providing the leader is once again, capable.

But isn't that the problem with any form of (relatively pure) monarchy (or dictatorship)? Any good leader is essentially short-lived in their reign, it seems... at least when the lifetime of countries is taken into account.

I think the problem is how often you actually have a good leader, one who isn't corrupt or self-serving or overly radical in ideas, etc.

According to churchill

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

In my opinion democracy does lean out to bieng a proper government, providing you don't have leaders who are to afraid to do whats necesary, not whats "right"

Ocasionally i lean towards some sort of monarchy, providing the leader is once again, capable.

That's what i thought cause it would be more better for the country overall if "what should be done" was the words to govern by.

But people live and rule by their emotion, i guess it can't be avoided i suppose.

I think the problem is how often you actually have a good leader, one who isn't corrupt or self-serving or overly radical in ideas, etc.

Pretty much exactly what I was saying. You also have the problem of a poor leader flushing everything down the toilet with remarkable speed.

So, like I said, the problem seems to be that any good leader doesn't rule for an extended period. Even if the time of their rule is in excess of fifty years, that's likely to be beans in comparison to the lifetime of the country they ruled.

Also, who determines what should be done? Isn't that a problem in and of itself?

Ocasionally i lean towards some sort of monarchy, providing the leader is once again, capable.

But isn't that the problem with any form of (relatively pure) monarchy (or dictatorship)? Any good leader is essentially short-lived in their reign, it seems... at least when the lifetime of countries is taken into account.

You have a good point there

As just an aside on actual democracy, in the city i live in most decisions are made democratically by a council of 40 i think, each counciler represeting a ward of the city, the problem is that the councilers set their wards as a priority, even if by doing so they screw over the rest. for everything to work properly, decisions must be made for the good of the whole, not just for hte good of a small part, running into issues where you block a motion that could do good for you country, just becuase it was written by your oppising party.

tldr- i can't type right now- im tryign to say democracy only works if everyone who makes the rules is trying to make the best decisions possible for all residents of said country.

Also, who determines what should be done? Isn't that a problem in and of itself?

Good point i guess it depends on the system in place, its policies toward the country and what the countries problems are, yes its quite complex indeed to fathom but its the first step to a final decision.

The problem isn't in a particular type of government, its in knowing what to govern, and what not to. Our government gets it hands in all kinds of things that it shouldn't.

The problem isn't in a particular type of government, its in knowing what to govern, and what not to. Our government gets it hands in all kinds of things that it shouldn't.

And doesn't get its hand in some of the things that it should, or else does a crap job in what it does handle.

And doesn't get its hand in some of the things that it should

No.

NOTE: Do not take this "no" as being an absolute or literal "no." if you respond to it, you're STUPID.

Well, the actual system utilized in a society should be dynamically selected based on what works well. Democracy is one way to provide such dynamic selection, but the sad truth happens to be that truth tends to finish last, while factors such as money, information and sociology in general decides it all. The most immediate example, is the fact that my own very opinion is likely shaped more by the people I have known and the things I have experienced, rather than - you know - stuff that actually matters in a democratic context.

So, I have no answers, but I guess the point is that none of the systems on your list will ever work perfectly by themselves. We're all fucked.

I often debate political and economic systems even with people within my own party. It seems that within many systems there is a lot that is open for interpretation, and therein lies the problem with any form of government. Systems with solutions to some societal problems have no answer to others.

I suppose then, that people of any government ought to be informed about the choices they make, and be prepared to change things should the government not suit the needs of the county's people.

And although I am a member of the American Socialist Party, I sadly have to agree with this:

Communism would be neat in some unlimited resource world, but it just can't ever work realistically.

Not because there aren't enough resources; I think there are and we just don't share well, but because socialism is a segeway to communism and it requires those in power to voluntarily give it up after certain conditions are met. Maybe one socialist revolutionary in history was prepared to do so, but unfortunately he was executed and now we will never know.