Just to cause a riot, I went with oligarchy. Why? I'll tell you why, in my opinion the accumulation of wealth by the individual proves a drive to succeed, the ability to succeed, the ability to lead others and the ability to manage and grow enormous amounts of money. Kings can be weak, or strong and succession is always tenuous, a weak prince can take a state down into the gutter and a democracy is as the supporter of oligarchy says, mob rule.
A republic ruled by an oligarchy of the wealthiest most influential people of its time ruled Rome and grew it into an Empire that ruled almost the entire known world (remember they thought the earth was flat and ended off the coast of England and China) for over 700 years. Think on this.
This is a summary of a discussion between three people at Susa (Persia) at the time when Athens was working out its democracy. Herodotus put words in their mouths obviously he didn't hear the conversation, nor is there any proof of it ever having happened but it is interesting:
Quote:
1. The monarchist (supporter of rule by one person, be it a king, tyrant, dictator, or emperor) says freedom, one component of what we today think of as democracy, can be given just as well by monarchs.
2. The oligarch (supporter of rule by a few, especially the aristocracy but could also be the best educated) points out the inherent danger of democracy -- mob rule.
3. The pro-democracy speaker (supporter of rule by the citizens who in a direct democracy all vote on all issues) says in democracy magistrates are held accountable and are selected by lot; deliberation is made by the entire citizen body.
|
If you want to read the entire text go to:
Herodotus - Debate on Democracy vs Other Forms of Government in the Histories of Herodotus