My Pathetic Social Essay

I finished my essay, and boy do I suck. I think I am better at writing essays for English because at least that way there is no facts to remember or feel stupid for stumbling over or getting wrong. I hate social studies. I wish I was taking only English courses, but high school just ain't like that. And next year I am taking all science related courses. Humph!
Oh well, here is my sad attempt at a social essay.

Democracy: An Example of Choice in the Political System

Topic: To what extent should governments be formed through competition among political parties?

Running a nation is, by no means, a small task, nor is the decision of who should be ruling. The question of what system of leadership should be put into practice is one that many established nations have already answered. If the country in question is Canada or the United States, the answer would be democracy. If the country in question is Sweden, the answer would be socialism. If, however, a country is revamping the government, or even just starting out as a new, perhaps independent nation, it must find an answer. It has worked well in the past that democratic governments, that is to say, governments that are formed fully through competition among political parties, have faired well.

Everybody wants to have their opinion heard, and with a government with competing political parties, there is a better chance that more people will have their wants realized. A "majority rules" mentality is simple, true, but it has the interest of society (or at least the majority of society) in mind. For over a century, Canada has been the exemplar of working democracy. Rights and freedoms of Canadians have been protected over the years, and Canada has proven to be a nation capable of doing many great things. These great things are in part because of the government, a government that the people chose.

Having choice of government and freedoms in suffrage is not only good for people because it allows them to pick the candidate they feel will best represent them, but also because they feel as though they are part of the system, that they have a place in the nation and in the political process. Being given a leader, whether elected by a group of "higher ups" or someone self-elected, has shown to be a poor way to run a government in the past. Take for example, Nazi Germany. Hitler, through propaganda, scapegoating and scheming, was able to rise to power and rule the country, as well as a few others, as a dictator. That lasted just over a decade, which compared to the long standing life of democracy in North America, is nothing.

Democracy has flaws, as does every political system. It is naive and impossible to believe that every person can be completely satisfied with their government. The truth is that many people, sometimes the majority of people do not get exactly what they want, but some aspects of what they want are fulfilled. Having a choice in voting is good for people. Just as in gambling, there is a chance, if everything goes right, that you will win - that the political party you voted for will now become the government - and there is a chance you won't. Compared to a dictatorship or totalitarian government, democracy looks pretty good.

With many political parties to choose from, there is a better chance of people openly accepting the government. Democracy is the prime example of people choosing a leader. It is not every day you hear someone say, "I wish we lived under a dictatorship."