» » » Debate: Civilian Rule Is Better Than Military Rule |
by : On |
Good morning, the chairman, the moderator the panel of judges, the time keeper, my co-debaters, and my attentive audience. The topic to be proposed this morning is “Civilian Rule is Better Than Military Rule”. First, one has to give the meanings of key words in this topic – Civilian and military Rule. Civilian rule can be defined as a type of governance undertaken by the civil society. It can also be referred to as government by the people’s representatives. Military rule on the other hand is governance by members of the armed forces. They usually force themselves on the people. Civilian rule is referred to as democratic while military rule is tagged autocratic. The process of choosing the representatives of the people is most often done through voting while the military come to power through another process called coup d’etat. At this juncture, I have to come out boldly by supporting the proposal, having these points to buttress my stance. One of the most important reasons why civilian rule is better is what we are doing today-debate. The freedom guaranteed all citizens to air their views. My opponents cannot deny the fact that you dare not publicly criticize a military regime. You will be rounded up by the state security agents if such happens. The process of becoming the peoples’ representative is another reason for my preference of civilian rule to military rule. All intending participants will come out to campaign. They will give highlights of what they wish to accomplish if they are voted for. Nigerians. The most important of all these is the choice. The opportunity given to the electorate to vote for the best candidate. In addition, civilian rulers tend to govern better than military rulers. This is simply because of the fear of reprimand by the people who elected them. The civilian rulers know clearly that should they fail to perform, re-election will be difficult. It may even spell doom for their political party if they are elected through the platform of a political party. Above all, they live amongst us, they begged us to vote for them and they are our people. It seems logical that they are easily accessible to us than any group of people who forced themselves on us. Moreover, there care checks and balances embedded in civilian rule to ensure smooth running of government. The legislative houses and the press oftentimes cry out to check the excesses of civilian rulers. My opponents can testify to the fact that there are no legislative houses during military regime. Again, the press is viewed by the military as their enemy, thus leading to the closure of medical houses and detention of journalists. In conclusion, I wish to state categorically that the armed forces are established to defend the territorial integrity of the nation against internal and external aggression. They should face their job rather than rule.
Life is good Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) You must or to post a comment. |
Sections: - Copyright @ 2016 - 2024 . All rights reserved. See . DMCA . : Every member is for that he/she or on |
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
The ongoing debate surrounding often centers on the choice between military rule and civilian rule. Advocates for military rule assert its merits in terms of efficiency, discipline, and stability. While supporters of civilian rule emphasize democratic values and individual rights, it is important to explore both perspectives. Here we are going to write an argumentative essay on the topic military rule is better than civilian rule. This essay aims to present a simplified argument favoring military rule, with a focus on aspects that may resonate with students.
Table of Contents
Military rule is frequently associated with efficiency and discipline. In a government led by the military, decisions are made swiftly, avoiding the prolonged debates common in civilian rule. This characteristic can lead to quicker problem-solving and a more efficient administration. To illustrate, consider a well-organized military operation compared to a smoothly executed school event where things are efficiently planned and carried out.
A key argument in favor of military rule is its ability to ensure stability and order. The disciplined structure within the military is believed to translate into a stable government capable of maintaining law and order effectively. Students can draw parallels to a well-managed classroom where rules are enforced, ensuring a peaceful learning environment.
Proponents of military rule argue that it enhances national security, as the military is trained to protect the country from external threats. A government led by the military might prioritize national defense more effectively. This analogy can be related to a school setting where security measures are in place to ensure the safety of students and staff.
Military leaders are often perceived as decisive individuals capable of making tough choices for the greater good. In times of crisis, quick decision-making becomes crucial. Students can grasp this concept by comparing it to a student council that must make swift decisions during emergencies or challenging situations.
Advocates for military rule argue that it can effectively control corruption due to the strict code of conduct within military institutions. A government led by the military may enforce anti-corruption measures more rigorously. Students can understand this by drawing a parallel to a school environment where a strong administration ensures fair play and honesty among students.
While arguments in favor of military rule exist, it is essential to recognize that democracy and civilian rule offer unique advantages, including individual freedoms, representation, and government accountability to the people. This simplified perspective does not encompass the complexity of real-world governance. Striking a balance that ensures both efficiency and individual rights is crucial. As future leaders, students can contribute to building a society that values discipline, order, and democracy, acknowledging the merits of each system while working towards a harmonious coexistence.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
Governance can take many forms: by elected representatives, through direct votes by citizens, by a strong leader, the military or those with particular expertise. Some form of democracy is the public’s preference.
[a representative democracy]
A global median of 78% back government by elected representatives. But the intensity of this support varies significantly between nations. Roughly six-in-ten Ghanaians (62%), 54% of Swedes and 53% of Senegalese and Tanzanians hold the view that representative democracy is very good. Just 8% of Brazilians and 9% of Mexicans agree. The only countries where there is significantly strong opposition to representative democracy are Colombia (24% say it is very bad) and Tunisia (23% very bad).
In many countries, skepticism of representative democracy is tied to negative views about economic conditions. In 19 countries, people who say their national economies are in bad shape are less likely to believe representative democracy is good for the country.
In 23 nations, the belief that representative democracy is good is less common among people who think life is worse today than it was 50 years ago. In Spain, for example, just 63% of those who believe life is worse than before consider representative democracy a good thing for their country, compared with 80% who support representative democracy among those who say life is better than it was a half century ago.
Similarly, pessimism about the next generation is related to negative views about representative democracy. In roughly half the nations surveyed those who think today’s children will be worse off financially than their parents are less likely than others to say representative democracy is a good form of government. Among Mexicans who believe the next generation will be worse off, only 52% say representative democracy is good for the country. Backing for government by elected representatives is at 72% among those who say children will be better off than their parents.
Attitudes toward representative democracy are also associated with opinions about diversity. In more than a third of the nations surveyed those who think that having people of many different backgrounds – such as different ethnic groups, religions and races – makes their country a worse place to live are less likely than others to support government by elected representatives. In South Africa, a country with a troubled history of racial oppression and conflict, 73% of those who embrace diversity describe representative democracy as a good thing for their country; just 54% agree among those who say diversity makes South Africa a worse place to live.
Direct democracy, a governing system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues, is supported by roughly two-thirds of the public around the world, with little difference in views between regions.
The strongest support for governing through referenda is found in Turkey (84%), where 53% of the public say it would be very good to have citizens vote on major national issues. Lebanon (83%) and Kenya (80%) also show broad support for direct democracy.
There is also strong backing for such governance in Japan (65%) even though the country has not had a referendum in the post-World War II era.
In the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands, people with a high school education or less are more likely than those with more than a high school education to support direct democracy. Such differences are small in the U.S. (6 percentage points) and Germany (8 points) but there is a 17-point differential in the Netherlands (62% of those with less educational attainment back direct democracy, but only 45% of those with more education agree).
In six of seven Latin American nations surveyed, those with a secondary school education or above are more supportive of direct democracy than those with less than a high school education. This educational divide is 16 points in Chile and 14 points in Argentina and Colombia. In each of these countries, those with less education are less likely to hold an opinion of direct democracy.
In Latin America, there is also a generation gap in views of direct democracy. In Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, those ages 18 to 29 are more supportive than those ages 50 and older of having citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on issues of major national importance.
Notably, in the U.S. it is people ages 30 to 49 who are most likely (73%) to back referenda.
In other countries there are sharp divisions along religious or ethnic lines. In Israel it is Arabs (83%) more than Jews (54%) who favor direct democracy, and in Nigeria it is Muslims (70%) more than Christians (55%).
Supporters of some populist parties in Europe are particularly enthusiastic about direct democracy. In Spain, 88% of those who hold a favorable view of Podemos say citizens voting on national issues would be good for the country. In Germany, 84% of AfD backers agree, as do 77% of PVV supporters in the Netherlands.
Support for direct democracy can also be seen in other recent Pew Research Center findings in Europe. In the wake of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, a median of just 18% in nine continental EU member states say they want their country to exit the EU. But 53% support holding a national vote on their own country’s EU membership.
And such support is particularly strong among backers of Euroskeptic populist parties, many of whom have promised their supporters a referendum on EU membership. (For more on European’s attitudes about staying in the EU, see Post-Brexit, Europeans More Favorable Toward EU .)
And in six of the nine continental European nations surveyed, strong majorities of those who believe that direct democracy is a very good form of governance support their own EU membership referendum.
The value of expert opinion has been questioned in the eyes of the public in recent years. But when asked whether a governing system in which experts, not elected officials, make decisions would be a good or bad approach, publics around the world are divided: 49% say that would be a good idea, 46% think it would be a bad thing.
Europeans (a median of 43%) and Americans (40%) are the least supportive. But among Europeans, roughly two-thirds of Hungarians (68%) say leaving decision-making to experts would be a good way to govern.
Asian-Pacific publics generally back rule by experts, particularly people in Vietnam (67%), India (65%) and the Philippines (62%). Only Australians are notably wary: 57% say it would be a bad way to govern, and only 41% support governance by experts.
More than half of Africans surveyed also say governing by experts would be a good thing for their country. Nigerians (65%) are especially supportive. And it is Nigerian Muslims more than Christians who say this.
Young people in a number of advanced economies are particularly attracted to technocracy. In the U.S. the age gap is 10 percentage points – 46% of those ages 18 to 29 but only 36% of those ages 50 and older say it would be good if experts, not elected officials, made decisions. The young-old differential is even greater in Australia (19 points), Japan (18 points), the UK (14 points), Sweden (13 points) and Canada (13 points).
Rule by a strong leader is generally unpopular, though minorities of a substantial size back it. A global median of 26% say a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts would be a good way of governing. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) say it would be a bad type of governance.
Opposition is particularly widespread in Europe (a median of 86% oppose rule by a strong leader), with strong opposition in Germany (93%), Sweden (90%) and the Netherlands (89%).
But autocracy is not universally opposed. Roughly four-in-ten Italians (43%) who have a favorable view of Forza Italia, the political party founded by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and a similar share of the British (42%) who favor UKIP say a strong leader making decisions would be good for their country. Nearly half of Russians (48%) back governance by a strong leader.
In Asia, 55% of Indians, 52% of Indonesians and 50% of Filipinos favor autocracy. Such support is particularly intense in India, where 27% very strongly back a strong leader.
Public views of rule by a strong leader are relevant in countries that have experienced degrees of authoritarianism in recent years. Roughly eight-in-ten Venezuelans (81%) and 71% of Hungarians oppose a strong leader who makes decisions without interference of parliament or the courts.
Rule by a strong leader also appeals to older members of the public in some countries. More than a quarter of Hungarians (29%) and South Koreans (34%) ages 50 and older favor governance by a strong leader.
In advanced economies there is little overall backing for autocracy. But, where such support does exist, it is often people with a secondary education or below who are more likely than those with more education to favor autocratic rule. This educational divide is particularly wide in the UK (19 percentage points), the U.S. (15 points), Poland and South Korea (both 13 points).
In a number of nations there is a significant division of opinion about strong leaders based on ideology. Those who place themselves on the right of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those who place themselves on the left to say a strong leader making decisions would be a good way of governing. The ideological gap is 20 percentage points in South Korea and Australia and 16 points in Italy and the UK. Notably, in Venezuela, which has been ruled by populist, left-wing strongmen, those on the left are more supportive of autocratic rule than those on the right.
Significant minorities support military rule
There is minority support for a governing system in which the military rules the country: a median of 24% in the 38 nations surveyed. At least four-in-ten Africans (46%) and Asians (41%) see value in a government run by the generals and admirals.
The strongest backing is in Vietnam (70%), where the army has long played a pivotal role in governance in close collaboration with the Communist Party, especially in the 1960s and 70s during the war with the United States. Some of this may be nostalgia for the past: By two-to-one (46% to 23%) Vietnamese ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 29 to say military rule would be very good for their country.
Notably, roughly half of both Indians (53%) and South Africans (52%), who live in nations that often hold themselves up as democratic exemplars for their regions, say military rule would be a good thing for their countries. But in these societies, older people (those ages 50 and older) are the least supportive of the army running the country, and they are the ones who either personally experienced the struggle to establish democratic rule or are the immediate descendants of those democratic pioneers. In South Africa, blacks (55%) more than whites (38%) also favor the military making governance decisions.
Only one-in-ten Europeans back military rule. But some on the populist right of the political spectrum voice such support. Nearly a third of those who hold a favorable view of the National Front in France (31%) say a governing system in which the military rules the country would be a good thing, as do nearly a quarter of those who favor UKIP in the United Kingdom (23%).
Support for a governing system in which the military rules the country enjoys backing among people with less education in at least half the countries surveyed, with some of the strongest support among those with less than a secondary education in Africa and Latin America.
More than half of Peruvians with less than a high school education (55%) prefer military rule. Only about a third (32%) of more educated Peruvians agree.
Particularly strong backing for military rule also exists among the less educated in Vietnam (76%), Nigeria (57%), Kenya (49%) and the Philippines (47%).
Notably, one-in-five of those ages 50 and older in the U.S. support military rule, as do roughly one-in-four Japanese (24%) ages 18 to 29.
Ideology also plays a role in public views of military rule. But it can cut both ways. In some countries, people on the right of the political spectrum are significantly more supportive of military governance than those on the left, especially in Chile. In Hungary and Venezuela, on the other hand, it is more likely to be individuals on the left who see value in military rule.
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government, many across the globe are dissatisfied with how democracy is working, facts on foreign students in the u.s., how countries around the world view democracy, military rule and other political systems, most popular, report materials.
1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .
© 2024 Pew Research Center
This article examines whether military rule is better than the civilian rule and vice-versa. It provides the advantages of each system of government and gives room for readers to build on any of the points highlighted.
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the laws’ proposal, development, and creation. i.e., A democratic government is ruled by civilians, usually elected by the people. Democracy is ruled by the constitution and reign of civil laws, which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society with civilians exercising all legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
A democratic government contrasts two forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Several variants of democracy exist, but two primary forms concern how the whole body of citizens executes its will: direct democracy and representative democracy.
Read: Is democracy the best form of government?
A military government is ruled by the armed forces, who do not come to power through election, but by force of arms. A military regime is a process, procedure, or system with expertise, adapted and rooted in war and combat. It is a system rooted in martial law and forces. It is also a system that demands obedience always and, in its purest essence, makes no room for debate and opposition.
Some of the features of military rule include Suspension of the constitution, absence of an election, use of decrees and edicts, lack of respect for fundamental human rights, no checks and balances, centralized form of government, no periodic election, etc.
Read: Causes and remedies to indiscipline in schools
Below are the advantages of civilian rule and military rule. Look at the advantages of the two and compare them to be sure which is better. Each of them has its cons and that must be considered too. This will help you give the essential points to defend the side you want to take.
Leave a reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Write an argumentative essay on civilian rule is better than military rule.
Explore the debate on whether civilian rule is better than military rule . This article provides insights into the advantages of civilian governance, backed by expert opinions and historical examples.
Civilian rule and military rule are two contrasting forms of governance that have shaped the course of history and politics. The debate surrounding the effectiveness and suitability of these forms of rule has been ongoing for decades. In this article, we delve into the reasons why civilian rule is considered superior to military rule.
By examining key aspects, historical instances, and expert opinions, we aim to shed light on the strengths of civilian governance and why it is a preferred choice for societies striving for stability, development, and freedom.
Debate on civilian rule is better than military rule
Civilian rule is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, and it has several advantages over military rule. Here are 10 reasons why civilian rule is better than military rule:
Civilian rule refers to a government led by individuals who are not affiliated with the military. It is characterized by a focus on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Military rule, on the other hand, involves the direct control of a nation by the armed forces. While both forms of governance have been prevalent in various parts of the world, there are compelling reasons why civilian rule is widely regarded as the superior option.
Democratic principles and representation.
Civilian rule inherently promotes democratic principles, ensuring that the government is accountable to the people it governs. Elected officials represent the interests of the citizens, creating a system where policies and decisions are made with the welfare of the populace in mind. This democratic process encourages transparency, participation, and a sense of ownership among citizens.
Under civilian rule, the protection of human rights is a fundamental priority. Constitutions and legal frameworks are designed to safeguard individual freedoms and prevent abuse of power. This commitment to human rights fosters an environment of equality and justice, allowing citizens to live without fear of oppression.
Civilian governments are often better equipped to focus on long-term socioeconomic development. Policies can be formulated and executed based on comprehensive assessments of the nation’s needs and resources. Moreover, civilian rule promotes a stable environment that attracts foreign investments, encourages innovation, and supports economic growth.
Civilian governments emphasize diplomacy and negotiation in resolving conflicts, both domestically and internationally. Open dialogue and peaceful negotiations are preferred methods for resolving disputes, reducing the likelihood of armed conflicts that can arise under military rule.
Civilian rule tends to foster better diplomatic relations with other countries. International cooperation and collaboration are prioritized, contributing to a more interconnected world. Such interactions open doors for trade, cultural exchange, and mutual understanding.
The united states: a beacon of democracy.
The United States stands as a prime example of the success of civilian rule. With a government founded on democratic principles, it has demonstrated how a system based on checks and balances, individual rights, and regular elections can lead to stable governance and widespread prosperity.
South Korea’s transition from military rule to civilian rule marked a turning point in its history. The country’s journey toward democracy led to economic growth, improved human rights, and a vibrant civil society. This transformation underscores the positive impact of civilian governance.
India, with its diverse population and complex social fabric, has embraced civilian rule since its independence. Despite challenges, the country’s democratic institutions have provided a platform for various voices to be heard and for peaceful power transitions to occur.
Renowned political scholars and experts overwhelmingly advocate for civilian rule as the preferred form of governance. Dr. Emily Carter, a political scientist, emphasizes, “Civilian governments are rooted in the aspirations of the people. They ensure inclusivity, progress, and a foundation for sustained development.”
Q: Can military rule bring stability in times of crisis? A: While military rule might initially restore order, it often comes at the cost of human rights and long-term development. Civilian rule is better equipped to address crises while upholding democratic values.
Q: Are there instances where military rule led to positive outcomes? A: Some argue that military interventions have resulted in short-term stability. However, sustained progress requires civilian governance that prioritizes human rights and accountability.
Q: How does civilian rule prevent abuse of power? A: Civilian governments are structured with checks and balances, ensuring that power is distributed and decisions are made collectively. This reduces the risk of concentrated authority and its potential abuse.
Q: What role does civilian rule play in economic growth? A: Civilian rule fosters an environment conducive to sustainable economic development. Policies can be tailored to address economic challenges, attract investments, and promote innovation.
Q: Can military rule effectively handle diplomatic relations? A: Military regimes often lack the diplomatic finesse required for healthy international relations. Civilian governments engage in diplomatic dialogues, contributing to global stability and cooperation.
Q: Are there risks associated with civilian rule? A: Civilian rule can face challenges such as bureaucracy and political gridlock. However, these challenges can be addressed through effective leadership and democratic processes.
In the ongoing debate Civilian Rule is Better than Military Rule, the advantages of civilian governance stand out as crucial components of a thriving society. With a commitment to democratic principles, human rights, and sustainable development, civilian rule provides a platform for inclusive growth and progress. By examining historical examples, expert opinions, and the merits of this form of governance, it becomes evident that civilian rule is indeed better than military rule in fostering stability, prosperity, and a brighter future.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
The debate between democracy and military rule has long been a topic of contention in discussions about governance. In this essay, we will explore the advantages of democracy over military rule, focusing on representation, human rights, the rule of law, economic development, and peaceful transitions of power. Democracy, with its emphasis on citizen participation and protection of individual rights, has proven to be a better path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide.
Table of Contents
Representation and participation.
One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is representation and participation. In democratic societies, citizens have the opportunity to elect their leaders, granting them a voice in shaping policies that impact their lives. Elected representatives, who are accountable to the people, advocate for the interests of their constituents and secure various perspectives, are considered in decision-making processes. In contrast, military rule often leaves citizens without a voice, as a select group makes decisions of military leaders without the consent of the governed.
Democracies are characterized by a commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms. Constitutional frameworks and independent judiciary systems in democratic nations ensure that basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, are upheld. These rights are essential for fostering an environment of open dialogue, debate, and progress. In contrast, military rule may impose restrictions on civil liberties, leading to censorship and oppression, stifling societal growth and development.
The rule of law is a cornerstone of democratic governance. In a democracy, laws apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their social or political standing. This principle ensures that those in power are held accountable for their actions, promoting transparency and fairness. In military rule, the rule of law may be undermined, leading to arbitrary decision-making and a lack of checks and balances, which can result in abuse of power.
Empirical evidence suggests that democracies tend to experience higher levels of economic development compared to countries under military rule. The stability and predictability of democratic systems create a favorable environment for investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Additionally, democratic governments prioritize policies that foster economic growth, social welfare, and education, leading to better economic outcomes and improved living standards for citizens.
One of the significant advantages of democracy is its ability to facilitate peaceful transitions of power through regular elections. In democratic nations, leaders are elected for a fixed term, and power is peacefully transferred to the winning candidate after each election cycle. This ensures political stability and reduces the risk of violent conflicts that can arise from power struggles in military regimes.
While democracy offers numerous benefits, it is essential to acknowledge its challenges and consider counterarguments. Democracies can face issues such as political polarization, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and the influence of money in politics. Furthermore, some argue that military rule can bring stability and decisive action in times of crisis. However, it is crucial to recognize that military rule often comes at the cost of human rights and undermines the principles of democratic governance.
In conclusion, democracy has proven to be a superior form of governance when compared to military rule. It ensures representation and citizen participation, protects human rights, upholds the rule of law, fosters economic development, and facilitates peaceful transitions of power. While it may face challenges, democracy remains the best path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide. Embracing democracy’s core principles of inclusion, transparency, and accountability will continue to lead societies toward a brighter and more equitable future.
Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Engage in a compelling debate against the motion "military rule is better than civilian rule," showcasing your personalized arguments and evidence.
AI templates turn a simple form into a sophisticated prompt, helping you get high quality, dependable results from AI. They are saveable, shareable, and reusable.
Write a comprehensive argumentative essay in support or against the motion “Civilian Government is better than Military Government” ?
Argumentative Essay: Civilian Government is Better than Military Government
Introduction
The debate over the superiority of civilian government, often synonymous with democracy, over military government has been a recurring theme in political discourse. This essay aims to argue in favor of the motion that “Civilian Government is better than Military Government”.
1. Rule of Law and Human Rights
In a civilian government, the rule of law is paramount. Civilian governments are typically bound by a constitution, which guarantees the rights and freedoms of its citizens. In contrast, military governments often operate under martial law or decrees, which can lead to human rights abuses and unchecked power.
2. Representation and Participation
Civilian governments are characterized by the participation of the citizenry in governance. Through elections, citizens have the opportunity to choose their leaders and have a say in the direction of their nation. On the other hand, military governments are characterized by a lack of public participation, as leaders are not elected but seize power, often through force.
3. Stability and International Relations
Civilian governments tend to offer more political stability, which is attractive to foreign investors and beneficial for international relations. Military governments, however, are often met with international condemnation and sanctions, which can isolate the country and harm its economy.
4. Checks and Balances
In a civilian government, power is typically divided among different branches of government, providing a system of checks and balances that prevents the abuse of power. In contrast, military governments often concentrate power in the hands of a few, leading to potential misuse and corruption.
While it is true that military governments can provide order and swift decision-making in times of crisis, the long-term costs to human rights, democratic values, and international standing are significant. Therefore, civilian government, with its emphasis on representation, rule of law, and checks and balances, is arguably better than military government.
In conclusion, with these points, I hope I have been able to convince you that civilian government is indeed better than military government. Thank you.
Notice: Posting irresponsibily can get your account banned!
No responses
You are a speaker in a debate on the topic “Civilian rule is better than military." Write your contribution for or against the motion.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, panel of Judges, accurate time-keeper, co-debaters, ladies and gentlemen. I am here to support the motion which says: "Civilian rule is better than military rule." Firstly, I would like to take the pains to enlighten some of the younger ones here about what civilian rule and military rule are actually all about. Civilian rule can be likened to a democratic rule. Democracy, in the opinion of the layman, is government for the people, of the people and by the people. From the definition, it can be noted that civilian rulers are actually chosen by the people and they work for the benefit of the people who choose them. On the other hand, military rule can be likened to an autocratic rule where the people are instructed to go and comes without any argument from anyone. It is like a do or die affair. Let me now get down to the motion. First and foremost, in every democratic dispensation, there is freedom to vote and be voted for, which is not present in the military rule. The civilians only rule when they have been elected by the people. They do not impose themselves on anyone. Meanwhile, the people have no say when the military is ruling. Military rule is imposed on the people and military heads of state rule without the consent of the people. Because military men have guns, the people can not protest, they just have to accept them. Moreover, when civilians rule, the people enjoy freedom of speech and of the press. An indigene can criticise a civilian leader either in the newspaper or on television without any fear of molestation. Nowadays, it is very common to see people criticising or admonishing the civilian president of Nigeria on the television. Everybody is believed to be equal under a civilian dispensation. However, in military rule, no one has the guts to talk against a ruler even in the enclosure of his room because walls are believed to have ears. Furthermore, in military rule, some innocent citizens, being victims of circumstances, are shot down accidentally. This often occurs in a military dispensation. There is little respect or regard for human lives and the military can be likened to armed robbers because instead of using their guns for security purposes, they maim innocent lives. However, in civilian rule, the intimidating guns are not present and this actually brings a sense of security to the citizens. Lastly, civilian rulers execute good and popular projects which are aimed at ameliorating the suffering of the people they rule. They know that the people who vote them into power would judge them by their performance. Therefore, they execute good projects and provide infrastructural facilities that could speak for them when they are called to render account of their stewardship in governance. On the contrary, military rulers are not guided by the wishes and demands of the people they rule when it comes to project execution. This is because they are not accountable to the people. I believe that I have been able to convince you that civilian rule is better than military rule. I thank you for your patience.
Please wait..., modal title, {{ feedback_modal_data.title }}, quick questions.
Please don't post or ask to join a "Group" or "Whatsapp Group" as a comment. It will be deleted. To join or start a group, please click here
{{ quote.posted_by.display_name }}
March 14, 2020 by The Nation
Read also: ‘don’t sacrifice nigerian democracy, judiciary over personal ambitions’.
Abuja doctor reveals a unique way to permanently cure weak erection, small and shameful manhood, and infertility issues without side effects within a short period. Click now to see!!
Military rule is not better than civilian rule in Nigeria, as it often leads to human rights abuses, lack of accountability, and political instability.
No, military rule often results in centralized decision-making and lack of transparency, which can hinder efficient governance.
No, military rule has been associated with corruption and mismanagement of resources, which can hinder economic development.
No, military rule often leads to human rights abuses, including censorship, intimidation, and suppression of dissent.
No, military rule is often characterized by political turmoil and uncertainty, leading to instability.
No, military rule tends to suppress democratic processes and limit the participation of the public in governance.
No, military rule undermines the foundations of democratic institutions and principles, making it difficult to foster long-term democratic development.
No, military rule often lacks mechanisms for accountability and transparency, leading to unchecked power and corruption.
No, military rule can lead to militarization of governance and excessive use of force, exacerbating security challenges.
No, military rule can marginalize certain groups and limit their participation in decision-making processes.
No, military rule can lead to isolation and strained relationships with other nations, adversely affecting international relations.
No, military rule often disregards the rule of law and can undermine the legal system, leading to injustice and impunity.
No, military rule can prioritize militarization over public infrastructure development, hindering overall progress.
No, military rule tends to prioritize the interests of the ruling military elite rather than the broader needs of the population.
No, military rule tends to suppress political participation and limit civil liberties, curtailing freedom of expression and dissent.
Robert has over 15 years in Law Enforcement, with the past eight years as a senior firearms instructor for the largest police department in the South Eastern United States. Specializing in Active Shooters, Counter-Ambush, Low-light, and Patrol Rifles, he has trained thousands of Law Enforcement Officers in firearms. A U.S Air Force combat veteran with over 25 years of service specialized in small arms and tactics training. He is the owner of Brave Defender Training Group LLC, providing advanced firearms and tactical training.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
The topic to be proposed this morning is "Civilian Rule is Better Than Military Rule". First, one has to give the meanings of key words in this topic - Civilian and military Rule. Civilian rule can be defined as a type of governance undertaken by the civil society. It can also be referred to as government by the people's representatives.
While supporters of civilian rule emphasize democratic values and individual rights, it is important to explore both perspectives. Here we are going to write an argumentative essay on the topic military rule is better than civilian rule. This essay aims to present a simplified argument favoring military rule, with a focus on aspects that may ...
More than half of Peruvians with less than a high school education (55%) prefer military rule. Only about a third (32%) of more educated Peruvians agree. Particularly strong backing for military rule also exists among the less educated in Vietnam (76%), Nigeria (57%), Kenya (49%) and the Philippines (47%).
Military Rule. The military has protocol and structure. Protection of life and property is ensured in a military regime. Decision-making is faster in military regimes than in civilian. It instills discipline and brings about order and corporate living among people in society. It is cost-effective.
write an argumentative essay on civilian rule is better than military rule. Explore the debate on whether civilian rule is better than military rule.This article provides insights into the advantages of civilian governance, backed by expert opinions and historical examples.
By August 2, 2023. The debate between democracy and military rule has long been a topic of contention in discussions about governance. In this essay, we will explore the advantages of democracy over military rule, focusing on representation, human rights, the rule of law, economic development, and peaceful transitions of power.
Final answer: Military rule refers to a system where the military governs a country, while civilian rule is based on democratic processes. While military rule may offer efficiency and stability, it can also lead to abuses of power and lack of democratic accountability. Examples like Myanmar highlight the negative consequences of military rule.
One could make an argument that military rule is better than civilian rule by pointing to aspects of stability, security, and discipline inherent in military structures. Unlike civilian Government, where power can be divided and decisions slow, military rule often features centralized authority that can make swift decisions, especially in times ...
Civilian Rule vs. Military Rule Debate. Engage in a compelling debate against the motion "military rule is better than civilian rule," showcasing your personalized arguments and evidence. Add background on the product, company, or situation you want ideas on. The information does not need to be organized perfectly.
This essay aims to argue in favor of the motion that "Civilian Government is better than Military Government". Body. 1. Rule of Law and Human Rights. In a civilian government, the rule of law is paramount. Civilian governments are typically bound by a constitution, which guarantees the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
You are a speaker in a debate on the topic "Civilian rule is better than military." Write your contribution for or against the motion. ... military rule can be likened to an autocratic rule where the people are instructed to go and comes without any argument from anyone. It is like a do or die affair. Let me now get down to the motion.
There is a point to which I would obey a work for the military, but a some point I would want to do my own thing in life and be my own person instead of being subject to military rule. In the civilian rule,opposition and criticism are tolerated.In the military these are not tolerated because in the bible,people in authority are not to be ...
2 points. Civilian rule is often better than military rule. Civilian rule is designed to take a functioning civil body and make it work for the population without the need for much intervention. That intervention is delegated to the local police force. If the population needs much more that the occasional intervention, then military rule would ...
The military's focus on teamwork and camaraderie fosters a strong sense of unity. In an argumentative essay about military rules being better than civilian rules, you can consider discussing the aspects of discipline, efficiency, and expertise. Military rules are often created to maintain discipline and order, ensuring that tasks are carried ...
AI-enhanced description. Samuel Brown. The document argues that military rule is better than civilian rule in Nigeria for several reasons: 1) Military regimes in Nigeria's past were able to develop infrastructure like roads and bridges more so than current civilian administrations. Military rule also provided more law and order.
The document argues that military rule is better than civilian rule in Nigeria for several reasons: 1) Military regimes in Nigeria's past were able to develop infrastructure like roads and bridges more so than current civilian administrations. Military rule also instilled discipline, order, and structure. 2) Current civilian rule in Nigeria is ...
The call - from the makers of the free democracy app Rate Your Leader - comes as a Nigerian senator appeared to voice support for a return to the rule of unelected army officers during a ...
The prevalence of nepotism and corruption can lead to the misallocation of resources and slow progress. This is where military rule is seen as an alternative that can enforce discipline and accountability among officials, curtailing corruption. In conclusion, the choice between military rule and civilian rule is not straightforward.
Military rule is not better than civilian rule as it can lead to the suppression of rights and hinder democracy. Explanation: Writing an argumentative essay against the motion that military rule is better than civilian rule requires presenting valid arguments and supporting evidence.
civilian rule is better than military rule. Military rule represents a failure to make civil rule work. Civil rule can look ineffectual, but it is actually a triumph of civilisation to have an army reporting to an elected civilian assembly. Any civilian rule is better than an oppressive junta.---------.
An argumentative essay is a type of writing that presents an argument or claim, usually in response to a particular topic or issue. The purpose of an argumentative essay is to convince readers that the writer's opinion on the topic is valid and should be accepted. ... Some argue that military rule is better than civil rule while others ...
No, military rule tends to suppress political participation and limit civil liberties, curtailing freedom of expression and dissent. 5/5 - (58 vote) About Robert Carlson. Robert has over 15 years in Law Enforcement, with the past eight years as a senior firearms instructor for the largest police department in the South Eastern United States.
In an argumentative essay, you will need to present evidence and arguments to support your stance on whether military rule or civilian rule is better. Begin by introducing the topic and providing some background information on military rule and civilian rule. Then, present your thesis statement, clearly stating which form of rule you believe is ...