Military leadership and Democratic leadership which one do u prefer.

[GeorgeJohn]

Some countries need strong hand to handle some situations,during military time no minister of a sector is permitted to traveled out a country and no senators is also permitted to traveled out a country and things are moving in accordance of government and also their directives since is only the president that has power to go anywhere for betterment of the country, still everything was in order, even journalist are not permitted to broadcast or dispense any information from government house to any other country.
So what is your suggestion over this.

[squatz1]

No doubt in my mind I know the answer to this:

Democratic Leadership.

We've all been told by one another that if the 'other evil party' wins that we're going to lose it all and that they're evil and we're not and all this shit. This hatred of one another got us into this place, and strayed us VERY FAR from what the real truth is. The real truth is that this game isn't about Republican and Democrats -- it's about the super rich and everyone else.

We're all bickering about the bullshit and they just keep making money. The government is in the hands of the rich, and we do have to fix it. The money printer goes on for the ones with means, not the ones like us.

[amishmanish]

I think the other option has no worthy examples in modern history to be valued for its real potential. While there is plenty of academic, media and contemporary culture backing of the so called "Democratic" leadership, the fact is that a true "Military" leadership which actually follows ethos of leadership as described by military texts, such leadership could do so much better.

For example, all the great empires of Ancient India were basically "Military" leaderships with a king at the helm. From the mythical era of "Raghunandan Ram" to the historical age of "Mauryan" empire. Asoka the Great, The Gupta empire, there is plenty of evidence that a military leadership in true terms has also had civilizational success throughout history. To have examples from other empires, What were the Spartans? For most of modern history, we have grown up on really bad examples of military dictatorships. From the junta-generals of Burma to the warlords of Africa. THAT is definitely NOT what a fighting man would necessarily devolve into. A fighting man can be the best kind of man and leader.

As to the OP, you are actually talking about Martial law and yes, it works better in the times of crisis than a democracy in today's sense. Today's democracy with its social media mouthpieces are not democracies anymore. People don't have free opinions anymore. We no longer judge situations based on our very human emotions or responses to tragedy and pain. We base our responses on the insensitized ideology of whichever side you belong to. Depending on your ideology, there are people who will find chinks in George Floyd's character because your "ideological" sources on social media are saying so. At the same time, they will find no fault with a drunk man snatching a Taser from a police officer and firing it as he runs off.

The whole thing leads me to one conclusion. Democracy in its present form where everyone is an expert is fucked. Democracy worked because people based their decisions on the basis of right, wrong, emotions and common norms of what is acceptable human behavior and what is too painful. In today's time, we read insensitive comments from people on Social media wishing death, rape, decapitation to each other just because ideologies don't match. Well, THIS is no Democracy. This is a Dog Eats Dog world and we need some big fucking lions to put the vermin back in place.

[Renampun]

Some countries need strong hand to handle some situations,during military time no minister of a sector is permitted to traveled out a country and no senators is also permitted to traveled out a country and things are moving in accordance of government and also their directives since is only the president that has power to go anywhere for betterment of the country, still everything was in order, even journalist are not permitted to broadcast or dispense any information from government house to any other country.
So what is your suggestion over this.

iron fist is not always good...
I prefer democratic leadership because the people are still given the freedom to speak and elect their heads of state by a general election, while the military leadership tends to be authoritarian which locks people's aspirations.

[BADecker]

Let's do Libertarian leadership, where everybody can do his own thing as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. The leadership, itself, would focus around making sure that the courts and juries always remained as honest as possible.

[amishmanish]

Let's do Libertarian leadership, where everybody can do his own thing as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. The leadership, itself, would focus around making sure that the courts and juries always remained as honest as possible.

And who defines what is "as honest as possible"? This will fail not work because the "libertarian" citizen by his very nature will tell you, "What i THINK is right, is right?" In an ideal society of libertarians, there has to be no fear of violence or coercion, hence no use of a jury or court. Unfortunately, even a libertarian society will have its sets of criminals and psychopaths who will need to be put in their place. You need a system there too.

A democracy as well as a kingship can work. We don't have ANY examples of an ideal libertarian state in history. or are there? Enlighten us.

[Mauser]

Some countries need strong hand to handle some situations,during military time no minister of a sector is permitted to traveled out a country and no senators is also permitted to traveled out a country and things are moving in accordance of government and also their directives since is only the president that has power to go anywhere for betterment of the country, still everything was in order, even journalist are not permitted to broadcast or dispense any information from government house to any other country.
So what is your suggestion over this.

iron fist is not always good...
I prefer democratic leadership because the people are still given the freedom to speak and elect their heads of state by a general election, while the military leadership tends to be authoritarian which locks people's aspirations.

I agree. Most people here live under a Democratic leadership. It's easy to argue about something you haven't experienced yourself. We should be cautious giving all the power to the mitlitary, they could exploit it easily.

Maybe ask the people escaping out of North Korea if they prefer to live in South or North Korea. Because they experienced both.

[KingScorpio]

Some countries need strong hand to handle some situations,during military time no minister of a sector is permitted to traveled out a country and no senators is also permitted to traveled out a country and things are moving in accordance of government and also their directives since is only the president that has power to go anywhere for betterment of the country, still everything was in order, even journalist are not permitted to broadcast or dispense any information from government house to any other country.
So what is your suggestion over this.

military leadership is often as corrupt as the democratic one, the states civil population gets still massively abused as military leadership doesnt mean police state.

europe today needs a police state to deal with migration, as the democratic leadership completely fails and only knows one thing exploit the own population to satisfy the hostile migrants

[Renampun]

...

iron fist is not always good...
I prefer democratic leadership because the people are still given the freedom to speak and elect their heads of state by a general election, while the military leadership tends to be authoritarian which locks people's aspirations.

I agree. Most people here live under a Democratic leadership. It's easy to argue about something you haven't experienced yourself. We should be cautious giving all the power to the mitlitary, they could exploit it easily.

Maybe ask the people escaping out of North Korea if they prefer to live in South or North Korea. Because they experienced both.

Yup, on YouTube there are many testimonies from the citizens who made it out of North Korea...
Communist countries are an example of a country led by military assertiveness, even politicians inside the country are afraid to voice their voices, they must submit to the government and the ruling party. Unlike the case with politicians in democracies, they are even given the freedom to criticize the government and the ruling party.

[InvoKing]

It depends. If you are talking about first world countries and no ressources third world countries then democracy is the best choice. If you are talking about rich third world countries then western imposed democracy is the worst choice like Iraq for example. West govs will put its corrupt puppets to rule the country and steal its ressources, infinite war, civil unrest, food shortage and tremendous inflation.......... .
Now if Kim or Maduro will be removed and NK or Venezuela will become a democracy then is there anyone thinking that they will prosper? Hell no. The only advantage that they will speak freely but everyday problems will remain the same or worst after a couple of months + they will hug IMF and WB.
So hypothetically Democratic leadership is the best pick but nowadays the situation is too complex to find the best choice.

[Shimmiry]

Some countries need strong hand to handle some situations,during military time no minister of a sector is permitted to traveled out a country and no senators is also permitted to traveled out a country and things are moving in accordance of government and also their directives since is only the president that has power to go anywhere for betterment of the country, still everything was in order, even journalist are not permitted to broadcast or dispense any information from government house to any other country.
So what is your suggestion over this.

For me, Military Leadership is a better option than any other kinds of leadership. Why? Simply because people nowadays tend to imply their "rights" yet only seeks more and more things just for their satisfaction. Yes, people have a right and freedom to speech and anything they want to say, yet sooner or later you'll realize they'll use Democracy to kill democracy as well. But it will all depend on how the Military Leadership is processed and used, it can either be forceful or by slow discipline. I've been on the Military training for 2 years and it taught me a much disciplined and understand that we people must put our heads and hearts down to the ground and always think that we are the lowest level. It also taught me that if you wanted to change a system (a leadership, or a country's government), slowly climb and reach the highest position from time to time then change it from the inside.

[josephsonand]

Military or democratic is not something to pay attention to. A leader is that person who shows sanity. And no matter who he is.

[Tash]

I lead myself

[GeorgeJohn]

military leadership is often as corrupt as the democratic one, the states civil population gets still massively abused as military leadership doesnt mean police state.

Basically is well understood that military leadership always brutal to civilians and civilians needs strong hand to handle them in order to obey the rules and regulations of government, @kingscorpio point I agreed with such ideology because no of their leadership is preferable to citizens base on patterns of governance existing currently.

[KingScorpio]

military leadership is often as corrupt as the democratic one, the states civil population gets still massively abused as military leadership doesnt mean police state.

Basically is well understood that military leadership always brutal to civilians and civilians needs strong hand to handle them in order to obey the rules and regulations of government, @kingscorpio point I agreed with such ideology because no of their leadership is preferable to citizens base on patterns of governance existing currently.

military leader ship can be good or better than democratic and vice versa it all depends on the situation.