I was just wondering what people thought

If I didnt put all of them then sorry but those were all I knew

I put anarchy in because there are some people, most notably american teens, who think anarchy is the way to go

I put those other ones because there are some major diferences in them

Some people dont know that and would vote "other"

Sharia.

The form of government used by the Caliph Umar.

It has proved its self many a time as a success when applied fully. Just look at the first four caliphs. Howabout Moorish Spain.

When ever they started to leave the way of the Sharia then their downfall was obvious.

Baris, please explain why. You can not make such a negative comment with out backing your thoughts. I really would like to know since all i see is beauty with the Sharia political system

If you look at the facts the Shariet system was revolutionary in the field of womens rights.

The Sharia system promotes equality between races.

The Muslim empires under a TRUE Sharia system have been well documented, even in the west for their excelent relations with their Kafir (non-Muslim) citizens. When Christain Spain (under a monarchy regime) was expelling the Jews from Spain it was the Muslims who gave them a home, thus complying with the rules of the Sharia. Muslims following the Sharia will never forcefully enforce Islam on Kafirs.

Muslim nations with Shariet law have low crime rates. (Note: no Muslim country at present follows the doctrines of the Sharia 100%, thus their failings cannot be blamed upon this system)

Past empires following a Sharia systems have excelled in various non-religious field, Science, Mathematic, astronomy etc

Freedom of speech is allowed, aslong as there comments are in a way that is trying for the progress of the nation. Thus comments that promote racism, terrorism, prejedice etc will not be allowed. A women in the time of the Caliph Umar once disagreed with the doing of the Caliph. She decided to put across view by shouting to the Caliph "Umar, fear Allah". One of the Caliph's freinds was angered and wanted thewomen punished. Instead Caliph Umar said that what the women has said is positive and was correct in doing so. The Caliph thanks to the women then decided on a more better route for his decision.

The points that i have put across is what i think of when i think of the Sharia political system.

When compared to the majority of the pre-Islami world, esp. Europe? Yes.

How about the rest, do you approve or disaprove?

It will be a blessing, a person with the greatest possible combination of benevolence, wisdom, compassion, integrity, etc to have the power of a dictator. The country would become far much better but the problem arises where to find such a man. If you look at it objectively, it might be possible to find a person like that but subjectively it isn't. Btw it wasnt only Aristotle who spoke about this but also Plato in his Republic who suggested that Philosophers ought to lead a society to a kinda benevolent dictatorship in order to take humanity into the light.

I would also like to note that America is actualy a Constitutional Republic which is in-between republic and democracy though much closer to a democracy

Athens democracy is the true form of democracy just very far down the lader. Constitutional republic branched off from it though.

To Mixcoatl (Is that an I or an L at the end of your name) I said very far down the lader in which i meant VEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYY far down the lader.

To Baris the diference are these. In a democracy People can just walk in and make desisions at any time Also if any socal clases are formed it is like Men, women, slaves (For athens) not preists, Noblemen, and slaves. Not that I am saying So

In a normal republic (Roman is considered the standard normal)  there is no constitution. also there is very few rights the citezens have (Most of todays republics are "Democratic Republics" and I should have put that in the poll choices instead of republic) There are diferent social groups and they usualy are something like Preists, noblemen, slaves. also you must vote for leaders not just walk in. Those are the main diferences

Constitutional Republic is diferent from both because it has the same rights as democracy, More freedom than republic but Its people must still vote for its leaders. And this is seperate but sometimes republics and democracys have no contitution. Constitutional Republic has to have a constitution.

From now on regard Republic as "democratic republic"

and sorry if you have a hard time understanding. It is kind of complex and techincal.

That is true, assuming that the best government is that which does most in the interest of the common good. Freedom is not only the condition necessary for prosperity, but may be an end unto itself.

Its imposible to seperate governments entirely but you can generalize. It is of very little use to argue over the division of governments. However a game I got has given me an idea to separete them. It is refered to in the game as civics and it would work. In fact i will put those in my reference book but change them to real life.

Back to the subjuct it is useless to try to divide governments. just as useless as trying to divide oceans. So you are wasting your time if you want to debate the separations of governments.

Democracy is a decision making mechanism, in which people participate in the decision making process.

Republic is a form of government, which has the people as the source of sovereignty and legitimizes itself on this basis..

The Shariet system.

As you can see there is a similarity with democracy. Many people think of a Shariet as some sort of Saddam Hussein style government, Which it clearly isnt.

Osmanli.... good info, but can u provide ur source please...

it is helpful for others to learn more if u can provide the citation of ur source retrieval... (*this refer to any information provide in AE)

Originally posted by Infidel I had a History teatcher who used to say that the best form of government was an illuminated despotism!

Your History teacher was damn right. Especially if he was reffering to Portugal. That's the only regime that worked properly in this country...

It's just like Robert Wilson says: we need a SoB every now and then to straighten things up...

I'm pretty sure that there is no such thing as illuminated despotism, rather, its called enlightened despotism.  And yes, I believe that this was certainly the best form of government other than democracy.  You can't argue too much with a guy like Voltaire, he feared the power that democracy would give to the unenlightened populace.  I'd have to agree with him, based on some of the choices of leader that have been made by the world's most dominant democracy.

There's theory and there's practice.

The Iraqi Constitution during Saddam's rule is at

http://www.cleverley.org/areopagus/docs/misc/iraq.html - http://www.cleverley.org/areopagus/docs/misc/iraq.html

You can draw your own conclusions as to how far it reflected reality.

Now look carefully. Now what made come to the conclusion that the above Sharia system is like a monarchy or a dictatorship. It clearly shows that elections take place. I think as soon as you heard the word 'Sharia' you did not even bother looking, rather you fell into the usuall stereotype.

Iam pleased to say that the Sharia system is unlike any man-made system in the world. Diffrent from communism, monarchy, democracy, capatilism etc. All these man-made laws have all failed misarably whether economically or socially.

Whats one of the examples? Whats a fake democracy?

Fuedalism definitely.

After analyzing this diagram for a while, i think it isnt as bad and old fashioned then many would think. it isnt unrealistic for a modern country to implement this government structure. if you's look at it clearly then it seems that the system looks alot like a modern day democracy style.

this system can be used through out all time. in my eyes its a perfect system

Constitutional Monarchy.

I think there must be a figurehead as a symbole for all his own people

It seems at the bottom line that Muslims get two votes to one for everyone else.

There also seems to be a heavy implication of religious barriers to office.

That's what stops it being a perfect system.

Has to be democracy, what other system of government allows the people(majority.....in most cases) to have a voice and action?

Democracy of course provides the best conditions for its citizens but is also the most powerful and effective from a pragmatic sense.  In democracies action cannot be as swift as a dictatorship where a dictator says "do this" and it is done immediately but the slow and deliberative process of decision making which allows for many ideas to be discussed until a consensus is reached about what needs to be done is worth the extra time.  Especially when reading about Nazi Germany, it is obvious that dictatorships are not brutally efficient, they are just brutal.  In Albert Speer's book "Inside the Third Reich" he talks about how in the dictatorial and rigid authoritarian atmosphere subordinates were not allowed to question the orders of their superiors and initiative was squashed in the German economy and many other facets of organization.  Due to this wasteful projects would fester for years whereas in a democracy they would be brought to some attention and rectified after a little debate.  Speer even joked with people that he was "restoring parliamentarianism" to Nazi Germany with his economic reforms. 

With Nazi Germany as a larger example, you can see how Hitler's system was effective at getting what it wanted only as long as Hitler made rational decisions, like he did most of the time before Operation Barbarossa, once Hitler became crazier and irrational his system was just awful.  Had Hitler been as mad in 1936 as he was in 1943, Nazism would have been still born and faltered before the war and many fewer people would currently fall for the myth of single party efficiency that leads them to neo-nazism and other such things.

Ideally an elected benevolent dictator who makes decisions for the good of the country (economically, culturally, socially, technologically) with his government based on recommendations from committees and executives evaluated by expert civil servants and economists. Such a government would not be open to bribes from corporations or foreign connivers.  No need for the beaurocracy and corruption that comes hand in hand with a Western style democracy.

Do you feel like having a voice or action?

If you do, then in the US democracy really works. In my country the new democracy stinks, to express it euphemistic. Not that the previous dictatorship was good, it's just that people don't feel like democracy is really better.

It is not about the system, it's about those who have the power. Wether they call themselves communists, democrats, tehnocrats or whatever label they like, what they really do with the power they have is what  matters in the end.

Most people do not really care about what their goverment call himself as long as they can have a decent life. All systems where designed to work. Any system would work if it provides a balance between individual and social needs. "The theory works fine, but the practical use of the design still needs to be improved."

Given that ideal form, do you think that that makes the case that an elected executive should have broad powers?  That was a key point in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the adoption of the United States Constitution.  People such as Alexander Hamilton argued for a very powerful executive branch as opposed to many people from my state like George Mason and Patrick Henry.

To be frank, Genghis... hell yes, definately.  I think America would be a much better place, not only to live in, but to live with, simply for the reason outlined in my last sentence..

definately true. 

Brilliant.Could've never thought of that.

Romania is not in Africa!!! We don't have an african goverment!

Yet our goverment does exactly what you said?