What makes the Government of Myanmar non Democratic

Why is the government of Myanmar not democratic?

Why isn't a government democratic? It seemed that questions were asked when the construct of the question made it impossible to answer them. This makes it a difficult task, especially for the opposition parties in. The only survivors are the political parties that follow the government's line. They have the power to make a difference.

Myanmar is not democratic

This is undemocratic, because when the nation chose Aung San Suu Kyi as our country's leader, the army had her detained and placed under home detention. Refusing to give her control and to keep the nation under the rule of their army regime. You have detained many tens of thousands because you protested against them and murdered tens of thousands of others of ethnic tribesmen in the country.

They are disqualified from duty by the recent behaviour of the army Junta after the hurricane to prevent the aid work. Swaziland is the only African state with an undemocratic state. The rest of the world are either republics or constitutional monarchs, both of which are democratic states. It is the Socialist Communists who control China and the local population.

Citizens' voices are not relevant to the CP. Taiwan's democratic processes are working quite well. There are only two nations in the worid that do not call themselves democratic; they are Myanmar (Burma), which is a dictatorship; and Vatican City, which is an absolute theocratic monarchy. Most of the nations of the globe that call themselves democratic are democratic only in the name of democracy; and because of bribery, deprivation of rights and other elements, they are not real democracy because they are led by the army (the junta) and all hostile warfare.

An undemocratic state is good and not democratic. But not democratic. These are the undemocratic nations of the world: Uganda Cameroon Equatorial Guinea Angola Zimbabwe Ethiopia Eritrea Gambia Burkina Faso Chad Sudan Djibouti Republic of the Congo Central African Republic Rwanda Burundi Mauritania Cuba Syria Iran North Korea Belarus Swaziland* = The government system of Swaziland is an absolutely monarchical one, but the state is also recognised as a dictatorship. Swaziland is a dictator.

These are undemocratic or erroneous democracies: Cameroon Central African Republic China Côte d'Ivoire Cuba Democratic Republic of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Haiti Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Libya Malaysia Morocco Myanmar Nepal North Korea Oman Pakistan Qatar Republic of Congo Russia Rwanda Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uganda Uzbekistan Vatican City Vietnam Zimbabwe The following are not affected

or erroneous democracies: Egypt Bahrain Belarus Bhutan Brunei Burkina Faso Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic China Côte d'Ivoire Cuba Democratic Republic of Congo Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Haiti Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Laos Liberia Libya Malaysia Morocco Myanmar North Korea Oman Pakistan Sudan Syria Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uganda Uzbekistan Vatican City Vietnam Zimbabwe Note that some of these lands are theoretically democracy, while others are total monarchy or dictatorship.

A government's dissatisfied actions make them non-democratic when there has been consultations with the electorate and electoral officials. If a government does not debate its country's matters in the House and if it takes its own decision without taking into consideration the views of its own House, it is also behaving undemocratically.

The members of a government are elected by a state. And the government should live up to its nation's aspirations. It is not clear whether they refer to the Republic of India or the Indians. It also believes that its government is undemocratic. Well, if you mean the Republic of India, it's aracy.

As in America and the rest of Europe, citizens elect their own political leaders. A few were democratic. Strong involvement of the army in the law and order and the suppression of unauthorised opponent powers. Many things make the government of Saudi Arabia non-democratic. Governments deal with topics without any consultation and politics are dictators.

At present, there are no fully democratic states. The majority of contemporary industrialised West European economies (including the likes of Brazil, Australia and New Zealand) have developed powerful democratic structures - mostly as representational Republics or parliament. Other parts of the rest of the world vary from semi-democratic governments (mostly militarised states with democratic characteristics - e.g.

Nicaragua ), allegedly socialistic regime (Cuba, China and some Latin America nations) and even a few full-fledged sovereign states ("Saudi Arabia and Kuwait"). From a technical point of view, Pakistan is a democratic country. There will be an election from which several applicants can be selected. A large part of the real government might is under political scrutiny (and not, as here in the US, under a powerful system of civil government control).

At present, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is the most powerful army commander (and probably the overall commander) in Pakistan. U.S. militaries have a close connection with, especially through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. Despite the fact that Pakistan's policies are a shifting and constantly evolving scenery, the US has placed its political aspirations in the US (as has the development of a common military-strategy and tactic in the region).

Present day Alexander Lukashenko has progressively raised the limits on freedom of expression and other liberties such as political and religious freedom. As with other totallyitarian states, China is faking democracy. It is a Chinese state governed by a dictatorship, the so-called chairman. Headquartered in the Netherlands and owned by The Chairman, the government holds all media and many production and industry companies.

State demands every facet of its people's life, as well as the number of babies a child can have. Though China provides American goods through an increasingly capitalizing economies, it has a powerful undemocratic attitude and policy towards those who would question its hegemony. It is using politics and the army to keep hold of authority, especially in Tibet and other areas that have inhabitants who would rather go their own way.

The United Arab Emirates is an imperialist nation because it has a system of kingdoms and is therefore an undemocratic state. You have to be part of the "Communist Party" during the election to be able to take part. Thus, while they government is in principle at the will of the nation, they have also made sure that they can never be democratically removed from office.

But I would be negligent if I did not point out that even in a "party-led democracy", which many would not call at all a democratic one, they have a higher volunteer turnout quota in their election than America. Castro was not elected by the electorate either, but by a political bureau elected by a congress elected by the electorate.

In the USA, of course, we do not select the US presidents, but the electors (electoral system), provided they select a nominee who is selected by a country's political group. Myanmar's nation chose Aung San SuuKyi. However, Myanmar's army rulers declined to resign and did not agree with the outcome of the elections.

Mr Aung San Suu Kyi pursued her struggle for it. Even though the Myanmar population is still struggling to introduce a democratic government into their country..... This is undemocratic, because when the nation chose Aung San Suu Kyi as our country's leader, the army had her detained and placed under home detention.

Refusing to give her control and to keep the nation under the rule of their army regime. You have detained many tens of thousands because you protested against them and murdered tens of thousands of others of ethnic tribesmen in the country. They are disqualified from duty by the recent behaviour of the army junta after the hurricane to prevent the aid work.

It' s an undemocratic state because it' s not a democratic one. Added: It is a communistic people. It is NOT a democratic government. It can be described as an undemocratic state because it is essentially a welfareist state, although it can be said that its economies are becoming more libertarian and capitalist.

However, the Republic of China is democratic. However, the semi-autonomous Hong Kong is only partly democratic. Egypt is not a democratic country. Muhammad Hussein Tantawi, the commander-in-chief of the Egypt army, is the temporary prime minister of Egypt. For when Husni Mubarak resigned, he gave M. H. T. authority, and since the people of Egypt did not vote for him, Egypt is not yet a democratic country.

To show Mubarak, who, thank God, is now paid for his endless prison deeds and will hopefully soon be dead in prison, was only the first move to make Egypt the democratic state it should be. Next and last move is to get a new presidency that has been chosen by the population. Mr. Tantawi will not have a regular presidential mandate.

He will in fact be elected to the presidency only until the upcoming election in September this year. As soon as one of the nominees assumes his post, M.H.T. will no longer be elected to the presidency, and Egypt will at last be a democratic country. Two are former members of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of many illicit counterterrorist organisations that call themselves Muslims, who believe they know what is best for Islam, and who reject these two of them.

Other 2 nominees are Muhammad al Baradei and Muhammad Salim al Awa, the only 2 persons I would be voting for! That is one of the causes why it is undemocratic. After the 2005 post-electoral period, monitors claimed that the government interfered in the electoral processes through deception and electoral manipulation, as well as through policing grossness and force by pro-Mubaraki followers against opposing protester.

Bhutan is to be democratised after 2007, with two political groups as parliamentarians. But, in practice, the heir to the throne reigns the land according to the principles of faith, tradition, culture and a religious tradition. The answer 2 is a Swiss Federation of 26 semi-independent states.

It is the same as what is known as a state in English-speaking states. It' has a very democratic system of government. The majority of the Swiss Confederation's member states were once autonomous and in many respects still operate as such. In addition to the normal election, Switzerland has a type of "direct democracy" in which every vote can be submitted to a referenda.

It is chaired by the Speaker of this Board. It is chaired by the Speaker of the Board. The Federal Assembly elects the Federal Assembly for one year, the Federal president presides over the Federal Assembly and assumes specific representative functions. First of all, the Governor has no power over the other members of the Board and remains in charge of his group.

It is a tradition that the tasks change between the members in the order of their membership and the vice-president of the preceding year becomes president. It is officially called "Bundespräsident" (German: Bundespräsident(in), French: The Mexican government is similar to that of the United States. She has a president and is a Federal Republic with a constitution.

There' re three arms of government, just like in America. That'?s why Mexico is very democratic. When she asks why China is considered a non-democratic state, there are several causes. Firstly, it regards itself as a communist state. Secondly, the concept of democratisation is that people have a say (through referendums or votes) in their government.

They are denied to their people in China and the Communist Party serves as an oligopolist group. Leninism is the name given to this governmental system. When she asks about the historic situation, why China is not democratic, that is a much longer response. Whilst democracies are certainly something the East Asians can earn and implement (see Japan and South Korea), they were never at home in East Asia.

China was governed for almost 2100 years (221 B.C. to 1912 A.D.) byyautocratic and depotic emperors who were to follow one another. Yet no single democracy has ever encouraged a democratization of the state. Emperor's legality did not come from the people per se, but from the riches and power of the state.

It was the mandate of heaven because it believed that the riches and prosperity of the land were the way of ghosts and ancestors to demonstrate that the emperor had the right to reign. In China, the notion of suffering in order to obtain human dignity instead of being rich but helpless, which prevailed in Europe in the 1600', 1700' and 1800' s, never took root.

But the imperial system collapsed in China when the West and Japan in the middle to the end of the 19th century. By 1911, the turmoil had reached the point where Sun Yatsen, a Chinese revolutionary, came back from abroad and declared the Republic of China. China should be a partly democratic, if not completely democratic government for China, oriented towards the West.

This republic, however, did not last long (only one or two years) as Sun Yatsen was succeeded as president by General Yuan Shikai, who tried to make himself emperor. After all, the population, especially in the more remote regions, did not want to relinquish its power to an emperor. As a result, the warlordship in China came into being, which was associated with the succession of Yuan Shikai:

In 1949 (after almost 30 years of civil war) Mao finally beat Jiang and united China until 1950. Deng Xiaoping, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, noted in the 1980' that the Communist Soviet Union collapsed by granting political liberties, but that economic reforms were necessary to ameliorate China and prevent massive losses.

This opened the door to the economy, but not to politics. The collapse of the Communist Party under Gorbachev in the Soviet Union was thus avoided and the manifestations of respect for mankind in China were also averted. The Democratic Uprising in Myanmar :. Myanmwar was formerly known as Burma. Byzantine Colonization in 1948 and became a democratic.....

But the democratic domination of the state ended in 1962 with a war putsch..... The National League for Democracy has won the elections. But Myanmar's commanders declined to resign. Burma still has no democratic government... A democratic nation. The new victorious political group is PML National, which forms the government together with the Allies.

In addition, non-democrats can relate to a multitude of different states, from curative tyrannies to junta monarchies, and so on. Normally it is better to be in a democratic society because citizens' rights are safeguarded, but others choose to be in a dictatorship because they get results faster. Swaziland' s country' s current state of politics is unclear because the empire has given way to certain democratic reform.

With a population of less than 2 million, its small stature has enabled the Austro-Hungarian Empire to remain largely under the radar. 2 million inhabitants are living there. In 1968 it became an autonomous land from Great Britain. Plaintiffs have tried to make the government more democratic. On a global scale, Bolivia cannot be described as a non-democratic state.

The republic under an autocratic regimen. In a plebiscite, the Chairman for a second seven-year period (no time limit); last plebiscite on 27 May 2007 (next in May 2014); the Chairman designates the Vice-Presidents, the Premier and the Deputies: Hashar al-ASAD approves as Chairman; percentage of votes - Hashar al-ASAD 97.

Illegive me, but Iraq is an illiberale democratic country. The Chinese government is not democratic because of the difference between Chinese and democratic ideologies. Kuwait cannot be called a non-democratic government because it has a democratic parliamentary assembly and a constituent state. Why is Myanmar not democratic?

Mehr zum Thema