Every Type of Government Has Advantages & Disadvantages. Do You Concur?

CYCLE OF CHANGE - PART 1: GOVERNMENTAL CHANGES

Contrary to Partisans from every part of the political spectrum, each governmental system can work but its success & longevity are highly dependent on who or what runs it. Thus, all represented systems in this chart have merits, regardless of the system in use.

Now we all know, especially in the west, that the governments that allow for the most civil liberties are the most successful of countries; case and point: the US and UK, yet, there were actual exceptions such as King Solomon of Israel in the Old Testament, the Kangxi Emperor of China, & Kaiser Wilhelm 1 of Germany (formerly Frederick Wilhelm IV). But due to the imperfect nature of human beings the good does not often last very long.

The former extreme can end because of governmental corruption or it's inability to solve serious problems because of partisanship. That will enviably lead to the demand for a more authoritarian government as it would promise an end to endless bickering & eviction of the corrupt, which in turn, establish full cooperation from all branches of government as all answers to one or a few.

As for the latter however, such a government would eventually be corrupt, it is after all run by fallible human beings. And between the former & the latter, the latter will be far more difficult to remove as it has no one to answer but to itself. So then, the more abusive the government or ruler becomes the more desirous the public will be for change.

CYCLE OF CHANGE - PART 2: ECONOMIC ALTERNATES

This also applies to the economic system as well for which governments adopt. Respective governances do not always or strictly hold to a particular economic system for long as Communist China finally allowed the Free Market to run.

The reason they've done that is because the tighter one controls the economy the greater the inefficiency, & if one controlling it knows nothing about the nature of economy & commerce s/he will do great damage as Chairman Mao had with the "Great Leap Forward" which caused mass starvation & death.

Still, even if reckless policies were not implemented, the tighter the control of commerce the less efficient it will be. the more regulations there are the less profit one gains, & competition that tended to bring about the best possible product will be stifled.

With Capitalism, its end often comes when greedy or ruthless bosses leads as they care more about profit then the basic well-being of their employees. When the rich gets richer & the poor gets poorer then discontent grows which it is for that reason Socialism rises in popularity.

It had happened during the Industrial Age in Europe & America as workers were paid far too low for the value of their work. If not rectified, violent revolutions tended to occur which often happened in Central & South America. In the meantime, the public will demand more & more regulations on businesses

Nice. I've been thinking similarly recently. Since any form of government becomes corrupt over time and thus eventually necessitates revolution, we need to find a way to make revolution and a switching to completely different forms of government easier.

That is a very intriguing solution, TwoWayMirror. How would you go about accomplishing the change to the other form from a representative government to the next or the most opposite form of government? And, how to do the same from the that opposite back to the representative form of government?

That I don't know. It seems to me corrupt people worm their way into any system of power, so there's no reason they wouldn't try to take over the system for changing systems too.

Federalism and separation of powers are good at combatting corruption, but the existence of political parties concentrate power and thus subvert separation of powers.

Currently I'm thinking a solution will have to be something modeled on the self-correcting mechanisms of science and journalism when they're practiced properly. A kind of technocracy within a limited arena.

"Federalism and separation of powers are good at combatting corruption, but the existence of political parties concentrate power and thus subvert separation of powers."

Interesting, so by what means do you believe seats should be filled?