To look at another example of a different system of government, we can look at the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. The philosophy of communism, Marx and Engels were convinced, would sweep the globe, as A.J.P Taylor said: "Both of them, and particularly Marx, were convinced that they had solved the riddles of man's existence" It was not just Marx that held this view, in the 20th Century, Marx's philosophies were taken on board by many countries worldwide after communist revolutions.
However, Marx's ideal of 'the dictatorship of the prolitariat' failed to take into account human nature. People simply could not function without leadership, and leadership led to lust for power, lust for power to dictatorship. The theoretical government of the people, by the people and for the people simply did not come about in practise and led instead to brutal dictatorship.
Furthermore, Marx's communist philosophy was based almost entirely on the people working tirelessly for the common good. However, if you gain nothing for working harder or becoming better educated then it is human nature to think why bother? The people in practise were not the innately good beings that Marx and Engels theoretically percieved them to be, if there were no benefits to be gained, education standards fell and production decreased in a non-competitive environment.
Therefore, as Churchill once said: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried." (Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on 11th of November 1947)
Although Democracy has its problems, there is no better system, the only question that remains is how much democracy is required. In my opinion, the most beneficial system is something in between democracy and dictatorship. To prove this, I would like to look at the two extremes. The most democratic constitution is that of the United States of America, the near perfect system of checks and balances where it is impossible for any one person to gain too much power.
The American president, often referred to as the 'most powerful man in the world' can do little without the approval of the Senate. The result of this democratic constitution is that there is a certain amount of inefficiency. For example, after alcohol was banned in the United States in a post-war fervour, it took 14 years to get the resolution revoked, a demonstration of the checks and balances working to too greater effect. Furthermore, as I have already shown, despite the effective government that an autocratic, benevolent dictator can bring, the result is the concentration of power in the hands of the few.
Is there a solution to this whereby a fair, democratic system of administration could also be efficient. As I have already shown, the British party political system is fundamentally flawed, sismilarly, proportional representation causes as many problems as it solves. However, in my opinion, there is a resolution. The most effective system of government that I have seen operate is that of the Isle of Man. In my home land, there is no party political system, each candidate is voted in on their own individual manifesto, and each candidate is independent.
This leads to a system where compromise between individuals is required, but this is far outweighed by the fact that each individual MHK (the Manx equivalent of an MP) represents the interests of their constituency and not that of the party. Furthermore, at the beginning of each year, the elected MHK's vote for a Chief Minister, rather than the leader of the elected party automatically becoming Prime Minister. This leads to a fairer election of a strong leader who essentially, along with his cabinet holds the responsibility for the passage of legislation.
This seems to be an effective system of government, a democratic system with a powerful leader who can be effective and decisive. However, even the Manx system can be ineffective as with so many individuals, the passage of legislation can be slowed and compromises must be reached. Even this system has not solved all of the problems of the tendancy of democracy to be ineffective, but until someone invents a better system, democracy does present the best system of government available.