Philosophy

Definitions
A government A government exists in many social organs. The government is a distinct body that presides over the activities of a certain social group, or a unit that a political entity exercises its authority over other people. This political entity also uses this distinct body to control public policy and all the activities of members or subjects thereof.   It either can be on a local level, nationwide or can be worldwide. Nevertheless, the term government can also apply to other groups other than in nations and kingdoms alone. Groups such as commercial organizations, religious groups, and academic institutes also have bodies that control activities that run within them. These groups therefore have governments too, though we may not call them by such names as we call the national government officials. They have different names depending on which group it is. For church or religious groups they are called council of elders. For schools they may be called board of directors or at times administrators. In business organizations, they are called the managers.

There are different styles of leadership that governments have. The governance will depend on policies that are laid down to guide the process of administration. These policies also are based on different philosophies of leadership that different individuals have.  From this, we find that we have several types of governments especially the national governments, depending of these philosophies. There are four broad categories, which may be subdivided into other smaller subcategories. The four are authoritarian, in which only a few people have the say or rule, anarchy, which is based on a philosophy that believes in nonexistence of any organized group, anarchism, which wants governance by approval and not compulsion, and lastly democracy, which believes that majority have the say.

Democracy In this case, we will look at democracy. As we talk of democracy, we are talking of a method of decision-making. People of such groups conform to equality, allowing everybody to express opinions freely.  Democracy in such a case therefore is the process where groups of people make decisions together and all the participants consider each other equal. Democracy involves some clear aspects. First, it entails the process of involving everyone in making decision. Every individual is subject to these decisions made. Secondly, this definition also goes beyond a national level of decision-making, but traverses all social groupings. This is to say that democracies can be found in small groups such as families, and all the way to nations. Again, the definition does not set any standard for anyone, it is very clear that this aspect is coherent with the definition and so democracy does not apply in all contexts. In itself, the meaning of democracy cannot give solutions to questions about standards. The fourth aspect is that this definition democracy does not address the question about equality completely. Some democratic groups have their equality deep and others have theirs very shallow.  

Best government For one to establish what the best government is, he or she should evaluate the practices of such a government. This will call for looking out for one that has good practices of good governance. Governance means the manner in which social or public organizations control the use of public resource and the way they run their affairs too. Governance also will describe procedure that decisions are made and effected, and how other organizations are not effective in implementing them. Therefore, the hallmarks of good governance are always the successes of such institutions where this governance exists. Although success may not be a definite term, I have used it as I relate different aspects of life in different nations. Those nations that are ranked top in the lists of things such as economic growth, per capita earnings, and democratic indices will show us that such nations have good governance.  Such countries have established democracies and their people do their best to live in accordance to the democratic values. Statistics of democratic indices show Japan and America being amongst the top 20 fully democratic countries, and they are also ranked amongst the top 10 leading economies in the year 2008 (The Economist Intelligence Units Index of Democracy 2008). This is then to say that the best government is a democratic government. More specifically, this government governs the people according to the decisions reached upon by collective agreement of the people.
Answer From our discussion, we have seen the characteristics of democracies concisely. This will lead me to stage up an argument presenting my attitude towards democratic government. I would say that a democratic government is the best type of government. I particular give this answer because of what we have seen from the above description of what a government, best government, and democracy is.
Argument Democratic governments are the best governments. The premises that lead me to term a democratic government as the best type of government are the benefits that people have hitherto enjoyed from such governments. In democracy, the law regards all citizens equally, which is the belief that all people are dignified and no one is more dignified than others are.  Democracies also have it clear that no creation of profiles of people on racial lines, in terms of riches, nepotism and any other kind of prejudices and stereotypes. All people would have equal chances to opportunities such as taking leadership roles in the government and in economic activities like establishing businesses, and the law should judge all people equally.

The democracies also have the inherent feature that allows all citizens the right to equal power, so long as they are adults that can convince the rest that they can take up leadership roles sufficiently. This implies that such people can be candidates for any one of the official seats in a country or in a nation. Ideally, it is to be that way irrespective of financial status of the aspiring candidates.
   
Democracys ultimate goal is freedom for the people, that is that people may do things as they wish. The philosophical base for this is that no one is subject to any one, and everyone has an inborn capacity to do things as they wish, that no one should interfere with. Democracy therefore ideally provides people with the liberty that they need as individuals. That is everyone should live as it pleases him or her. This freedom calls for everyone to live and do everything as they wish while restraining from interfering with the freedom of the other people. This helps to ensure ultimate freedom that encourages peaceable coexistence amongst communities. Since people are usually complex to deal with, there should be some form of governance. This calls for all people to make consensus and forge the way forward to define governance that will be acceptable for all of them.

The other good thing about democracy is that it creates a platform for creations of acceptable policies and laws. The process of making legislation through democracy is better that the non-democratic. The first thing is that it factors in the interest and the views many of the people in the public. In this case, the process confers power to more people than in other forms such as monarchy (Democracy 2006). In such a setting, it is easy to have the politicians having the initiative to respond to the needs of the poor than in the other types of governance.

Furthermore, the process of decision-making makes the people come up with the best well thought and articulated ideas. The process is usually very rigorous and this makes people to think very hard in order to come up with the right resolutions. It also has the advantage of gathering many ideas from the various sources of information. This is because the process brings many people together. The extensive discussions that are in such type of decision-making provoke critical thinking that will help the stakeholders to factor in all ethical and moral considerations in the process of decision-making.  Good comparisons are made and finally good judgments are put in place.

Finally, democracies also increase the chance of having improved moral level among the citizens. This is because everyone has a mandate of listening to the others during decision-making. When it comes to their chance to argue out their points, they are required to justify their arguments for certain principles they believe in. In the process, this kind of people may abandon some of the wayward mannerisms and follow the majoritys belief in what is right. This is because they are not merely forced, but genuinely made to think and consider the general good and justice. It definitely enhances the authority that the participants have. Besides that, it improves the moral and rational status of all people that will participate in the process.  

The autonomy given to people in the democratic societies make people to think rationally any time they want to make a decision. This is because when they make these decisions, they bear in mind the fact in mind that no one will interfere with them, and that their decisions will not infringe on the rights and the freedom of other people.  That is what the freedom given to the people will help them be.  
For these reasons, we clearly see how a democratic government is beneficial to the citizens. Democratic governments ensure that all people have equal chances in all things. They are therefore the best types of governments.

Part II
Objection
After a critical study of the democratic governments, we find out that they are not really the type of governments to covet. The argument that democratic governments are best governments then becomes invalid in this case. Though they look good, these governments have posed many subtle issues.  It is for this reason that I ague out that democratic governments are not good. In this case, my premises will comprise of demerits of such governments.

On the point of freedom, a democratic government cannot give all people freedom. People are different and not all can have similar opinions at same times. Those who do not agree with the majority will have their rights incapacitated. They will always live burdened by what the majority will have forced them to live by. The majority will impose this deep oppression on the minority. It should be very clear that on the ideal reasoning, democracy is not good at all because as people are many, so tastes, opinions or views are also very many.    
.
For as long as there is a form of competition in the lives of people, societies will not achieve democracy. This is due to the craving that is within people to get anything he or she wants, to have more the neighbor. Monetary system is what exacerbates this situation. In addition to this are things such as greed, lust for opulence, wealth, and power. These things make democratic systems very deficient.

Democracies also may disregard the true leadership qualities in individuals, and only focus on the ability for people to convince the people in public. Some people may be very good leaders but some who have exceptionally good ways of convincing the public that they are good leaders will gain advantage over the genuinely good leaders. The expertise on emphasis is therefore the campaign rather than the one for good governance. Again, most democracies are usually a sense of public opinion but not what really is justly right. An elite in the society may settle on a certain opinion and because of his position the society tend to follow dogmatically because they just believe this person has been good.  The democratic view of the many people will disadvantage the few that will not follow their way. Besides the elites in the society, the media may also influence the public opinion. This will make some of the exceptionally right views of the few people be thwarted. Many of the citizens are usually not well informed about politics, and many are usually uninterested. These creates room for specific groups to direct the manners of politicians, there after using the government for their own functions and in turn directing the outlay to all other citizens. These are mainly in things of economical benefit such as market favor.

The manipulative nature of the politicians makes them gain more power and luck the motivation to consider the concerns of the common good of the citizens. They therefore make decisions that are not for all people but a section of people. This has eventually lost the overall direction that democracy wanted to play. These all emanates from the power conferred to some one (the politician) from the majority. It then turns out to undermine them. This is why we need to reject democracies and get other options for governance.

Reply to the objection
It is usually very had to get anything that will favor the thinking and the opinions of all people. Having that point in mind, all people should be given the opportunity to express themselves, and after words, settle on decisions that are acceptable to a majority of these people. It is therefore wise to let people to make the decisions of how they want to live and not few of them to dictate how they ought to live.  It is therefore not right to say that the argument that the best government is democratic government is invalid. The subtle issues are minor and if we focus on them, we will violate the common good.  The common good in this case means a way of life that is acceptable to the majority of the people. The only way to arrive to this form is by letting people come together, discuss, and arrive at these ways. This is definitely through a democratic process.  

To object democracy completely with the reason that it does not give all the people freedom is not right.  It is true that tastes and feelings are very many and that there is no day they can be similar. In democratic systems, people are given a chance to come together and discuss this opinions and feelings freely. This ensures that there is a moderation of all these differences. It is wisdom to live in moderation, and not in extremity. All the decisions reached after discussing different opinions always ensure that all people will fit in and live standard life.

It is not true to say that, democracy is deficient in the existence of competitions. Actually, competitions are healthy aspects of economic and social growth. People are able to learn and develop new ways of making the various aspects of their lives better. Organizations will look for the best way to govern its people in order to become as good as the other one likewise, nations will make sure that they look for the best ways of governance that encourages continued positive development in the social and economic lives of people.

Democracies do not ignore the true leadership qualities in individuals. If it does then that would not be a true democracy. People who are able to convince the rest in the public are not going to govern the various jurisdictions alone. The will always be with a team that will help them govern. Leaders in democratic systems are usually coordinators of decision-making process.  For that reason, after being elected, they will not govern the people by what they feel is right but by what the people suggest. Certain persons for instance do not enact government policies upon declaration. In a country such as U.S.A, such policies are taken through the senate, and if the senate sees them right, they are enacted. This is simply to say that they will always act by what the people want and not what they want. Therefore, their ability to give good leadership cannot be disqualified because they have been chosen democratically.

It is also not justified to say that democracies are public opinions because they take the pattern of the elites in the society is wrong. Before people settle on decisions, many of them will have discussed and arrived at an acceptable resolution.  The process is what describes democracy, not taking the opinions of anyone dogmatically, but judging them, there after discussing and arriving at an opinion that is acceptable to the majority.