# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about democracy and the characteristics of this type of government including direct and indirect democracy, how it works within the United States government, the realities of today, and fun facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Direct democracy, sometimes called "pure democracy," is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives who are elected by the people.

In a true direct democracy, all laws, bills, and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens.

Brief History

The first examples of direct democracy can be found in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens, where decisions were made by an Assembly of some 1,000 male citizens. During the 17th century, similar people's assemblies were used in many Swiss towns and town meetings in colonial America. By the 18th century, early U.S. states started using procedures in which constitutions or constitutional amendments were ratified by direct democracy. During the 19th century, Switzerland and many U.S. states incorporated direct democracy in their constitutions. The continued use of direct democracy originated from three major types of developments:

Attempts by social classed to curb the political power of a dominating oligarchy.

Processes leading to political or territorial autonomy or independence for legitimizing and integrating emerging countries.

The transformation from authoritarian rule to democracy, as in Germany's regional states after World War II.

Modern democracy developed as people gradually demanded a larger share of political representation and extension of representative voting rights. Constitutions, civil rights, and universal suffrage became identified with "democracy" based on the principles of popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality.

Direct vs. Representative Democracy

Direct democracy is the opposite of the more common representative democracy, under which the people elect representatives who are empowered to create laws and policies for them. Ideally, the laws and policies enacted by the elected representatives should closely reflect the will of the majority of the people.

While the United States, with the protections of its federal system of " checks and balances," practices representative democracy, as embodied in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, two forms of limited direct democracy are practiced at the state and local level: ballot initiatives and binding referendums, and recall of elected officials.

Ballot initiatives and referendums allow citizens to place-by petition-laws or spending measures typically considered by state and local legislative bodies on statewide or local ballots. Through successful ballot initiatives and referendums, citizens can create, amend, or repeal laws, as well as amend state constitutions and local charters.

Direct Democracy in the United States

In the New England region of the United States, towns in some states such as Vermont use direct democracy in town meetings to decide local affairs. A carryover from America's British colonial era, the practice predates the founding of the country and the U.S. Constitution by over a century.﻿﻿

The framers of the Constitution feared that direct democracy could lead to what they called the "tyranny of the majority." For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, specifically calls for a constitutional republic employing representative democracy over a direct democracy to shield the individual citizen from the will of the majority. "Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," he wrote. "Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

In the words of Declaration of Independence signer John Witherspoon: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state-it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton agreed, stating that "a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

Despite the framers' intentions at the beginning of the republic, direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives and referendums are now widely used at the state and county level.

Examples of Direct Democracy: Athens and Switzerland

Perhaps the best example of direct democracy existed in ancient Athens, Greece. While it excluded many groups including women, enslaved people, and immigrants from voting, Athenian direct democracy required men over the age of 20 to vote on all major issues of government. Even the verdict of every court case was determined by a vote of all the people.﻿﻿

In the most prominent example in modern society, Switzerland practices a modified form of direct democracy under which any law enacted by the nation's elected legislative branch can be vetoed by a vote of the general public. In addition, citizens can vote to require the national legislature to consider amendments to the Swiss constitution.﻿﻿

Pros and Cons of Direct Democracy

While the idea of having the ultimate say over the affairs of government might sound tempting, there are both good and bad aspects of direct democracy that need to be considered:

3 Pros of Direct Democracy

1. Full Government Transparency: Without a doubt, no other form of democracy ensures a greater degree of openness and transparency between the people and their government. Discussions and debates on major issues are held in public. In addition, all successes or failures of the society can be credited to-or blamed on-the people, rather than the government.

2. More Government Accountability: By offering the people a direct and unmistakable voice through their votes, direct democracy demands a great level of accountability on the part of the government. The government cannot claim it was unaware of or unclear on the will of the people. Interference in the legislative process from partisan political parties and special interest groups is largely eliminated.

3. Greater Citizen Cooperation: In theory at least, people are more likely to happily comply with laws they create themselves. Moreover, people who know that their opinions will make a difference are more eager to take part in the processes of government.

3 Cons of Direct Democracy

1. We Might Never Decide: If every American citizen were expected to vote on every issue considered at every level of government, we might never decide on anything. Between all of the issues considered by local, state, and federal governments, citizens could literally spend all day, every single day voting.

2. Public Involvement Would Drop: Direct democracy best serves the interest of the people when most people take part in it. As the time required for debating and voting increases, public interest and participation in the process would quickly decrease, leading to decisions that did not truly reflect the will of the majority. In the end, small groups of people-often with axes to grind-could control the government.

3. One Tense Situation After Another: In any society as large and diverse as that in the United States, what is the chance of that everyone will ever happily agree with or at least peacefully accept decisions on major issues? As recent history has shown, not much.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Direct Democracy and the Pros and Cons of Everybody Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Direct democracy, sometimes called "pure democracy," is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives who are elected by the people. In a true direct democracy, all laws, bills, and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contrasting Direct and Representative Democracy - A-Level Politics Revision Video - Study Rocket

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is a Representative Democracy? - Follow My Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about what exactly a representative democracy is and how it works. Also find out what countries are currently using this form of government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The structure of a representative democracy allows individuals to vote for a specific elected official who can represent their needs within the government. Instead of requiring a vote from everyone, every time an issue arises, the representatives are able to vote on the behalf of their district. This simplifies the process of the democracy while ensuring all parties receive representation.

One of the disadvantages of this system is that the elected official may decide to vote in a way that does not represent the majority of their district. They could choose to make a vote based on their own personal preferences or choose not to show up for the vote and leave their representatives without representation.

As with any form of government, there are additional advantages and disadvantages of a representative democracy that must also be considered.

The Advantages of a Representative Democracy

1. When operating as it should, it is a highly efficient form of government.
A representative democracy incorporates balances and checks within the structure of government so that one group doesn't gain more power over another group. When each party is performing their duties as they should, a representative democracy is quite efficient because it is designed to have people work together so there is a spirit of cooperation.

2. People still have a say in how their government operates.
Although a representative democracy takes away the direct decision-making power of individuals over national policy, it does not completely eliminate their influence on the government. If the population is dissatisfied with the performance of their elected official, they can vote to remove that person on the next election cycle.

3. It provides thorough representation of the general public.
Elected officials are tasked with making decisions for their entire district or region. Everyone who lives in that area benefits from the official being part of the government. Even individuals who are not engaged in the political process benefit from this representation. This allows more people to benefit from the decisions the government makes when compared with other types of ruling structures.

4. People still have a voice.
Individuals may not be voting on individual issues within a representative democracy, but they can still have their opinions heard. Letters can be written to their representatives. Meetings with their representatives occur frequently during times of governmental recess. If the population feels like their voices aren't being heard by their elected officials, there is always the option to legally protest.

5. It simplifies the decision-making process.
Instead of forcing everyone to vote on everything, a representative democracy allows decisions to be made by a group of elected officials. In some instances, the leader of a nation may be given the power to make certain decisions on behalf of the electorate. Because of this assignment and delegation, decisions can be make quicker and this makes the government more responsive to a potential emergency situation.

6. Controls can be put into place to limit the individual actions of an elected official.
Recall petitions and similar rules can be used within a representative democracy to allow a district to remove an elected official who is not meeting their expectations.

The Disadvantages of a Representative Democracy

1. It can easily devolve into gridlock.
A clear majority does not usually rule in a representative democracy. There are 2+ political parties in most systems that each have a specific platform of priorities they wish to pursue. When those platforms are polarized from one another, it creates gridlock within the government and that stops most of the work from being done. Even when there is a clear majority, as evidenced by the 2016 US political cycle, it can still be difficult to avoid gridlock because each representative as their own priorities to pursue.

2. Trust is required to make this government structure work.
Once an official is elected to represent them, the population must trust that their representative will pursue their needs as efficiently as possible. There is nothing that they can offer from that point forward besides faith in the political process. Someone with a secret agenda could co-opt an election, become a representative, and then pursue something entirely different than what their election platform stated.

3. It requires frequent and open communication to be effective.
A common complaint about a representative democracy is that the elected officials are "out of touch." This occurs because a representative must be present where the government meets, which could be thousands of miles away from their district. Some districts may also have highly varied socioeconomic groups that have conflicting needs. Without frequent and open communication with everyone, this system of government breaks down quickly.

4. This form of government encourages deception.
Because the power of the people is typically over after the vote takes place in a representative democracy, it encourages officials to be deceptive. Once they win the vote, they can pursue their own agenda and little is in the way to stop them for several years. In the United States, for example, a Senator is elected to a 6-year term.

5. It is still a costly form of government.
Although the costs are lower in a representative democracy compared to a true democracy, there are still frequent votes which must take place. Millions are spent on each election. For the two major political parties in the United States, they spent a combined $1.6 billion on the 2016 Presidential election alone. To put that cost in perspective, a community food bank could provide over 5 billion meals to the hungry with that level of investment.

6. The majority still rules at the expense of the minority.
From the Civil Rights Movement in the United States to Apartheid in South Africa, there are numerous instances throughout history where the majority ruled at the expense of the minority. A representative democracy still depends on a majority rule structure to implement policies and make most decisions. When the majority is not ethically or morally right, the structure of government can put the lives of people who are in the minority at great risk.

7. In some ways, it discourages participation.
People know that they will receive governmental representation, whether they choose to vote or not, when there is a representative democracy in power. For some, that means they choose not to participate in the voting process because they automatically receive this representation. Others choose not to participate because the officials running in an election do not represent their needs. In some situations, it creates a situation where the minority can usurp the majority when there are high levels of non-involvement.

The advantages and disadvantages of a representative democracy show us that, with balance, it can be an effective form of government. As long as communication lines remain open and elected officials act honestly, the people can still have a voice in how their lives will evolve over time.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Representative Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The structure of a representative democracy allows individuals to vote for a specific elected official who can represent their needs within the government. Instead of requiring a vote from everyone, every time an issue arises, the representatives are able to vote on the behalf of their district.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Representative Government Definition for Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Advantages and Disadvantages of Constitutional Monarchy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constitutional monarchies are a system of government where there is still a sovereign serving as the head of the government in some way. How they can legally interact with the rest of the government, which

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we should choose monarchy | Noah Wiener | TEDxYouth@ISPrague

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The pros and cons of the monarchy I CBC Kids News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A form of government wherein power and sovereignty is given to one person or several individuals is known as monarchy. Duration of the reign remains until the time of death or if the monarch in position abdicates or gives up the throne, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II who became the Queen when her uncle abdicated his throne to marry a non-royalty American actress.

Monarchies have different forms, depending on the process power is handed down to the successor or successors, with the most common type being constitutional monarchy.

Different Forms of Monarchy

Diarchy
This is a form of monarchy with two individuals share the position of heads of state and which has its origins from 5th century B.C.

Tyranny
This form of government is usually one of oppression and aggression and also originated during 5th century B.C.

Absolute Monarchy
Said to have started during 16th century A.D., this monarchial form of government is one which gives absolute power to the monarch over the people.

Elective Monarchy
With a period of origin from 13th century A.D., a monarch rules over a sovereignty through an election.

Emirate
This monarchy is a type of government ruled by an Arab said to have a period of origin from 6th century A.D.

Constitutional Monarchy
In this monarchial form of government, the Sovereign is the Head of State but legislation is made and executed by an Elective Parliament.

A monarchial form of government has supporters and critics who express opposite views regarding its significance and effect on the nation it rules over. Here are some of the pros and cons of monarchy.

List of Monarchy Pros

1. It does not incur election expenses.
One of the points raised by supporters is that there is no need for an election in this type of government, except from an elective monarchy wherein a successor is elected by a body and will hold the position for life. Because of this, the government and taxpayers' money need not be spent for campaigns and other expenses for election. Since succession is based on different methods other than electing new leaders, there are no election costs to prepare for.

2. Succession is smooth sailing.
Advocates for monarchy claim that with this form of government, sovereignty is passed on to a successor who is a family member or an elected monarch who will stay in the position until death or abdication. This method of turnover of power is, more often than not, more peaceful and less complicated, according to those who are in favor of this form of government.

3. There is balance in governance.
Monarchy supporters maintain that with monarchial rule, as in the case of a constitutional monarchy, there is limited power given to the head of state. He or she remains to be a figurehead, someone who symbolizes his or her sovereignty and policies and laws come from a legislative body.

4. Monarchs are suited to rule and have the qualities to run a nation.
Since successors are usually from the same dynasty or bloodline, the order of succession is already determined and this gives enough time for the next monarch to be given the education, experience and knowledge to take over in the future. Moreover, future Kings or Queens start at a very young age and are honed to be rulers since birth. That said, they are expected to act as royalties and trained emotionally, physically and mentally to fulfill their duties.

5. Monarchies usually are revered by the people under their power.
With the long history passed on to the reigning monarch, people usually have the respect for their Queen or King. The Head of State, along with the family, is respected by most people of their country, which is a great way to have unity in the nation.

6. There is less corruption.
Succession in a monarchy happens upon death of the one in power or if he or she opts to leave the throne. Because of this, duration of tenure can last for a very long time, which gives the reigning monarch no reason to be corrupt. This is also one of the benefits supporters prefer with a monarchial form of government.

List of Monarchy Cons

1. There is only one person, family or body in control of a country.
Critics of monarchies argue that this type of government only gives control of the whole nation under selected individuals, leaving the people voice, whatsoever. The public is not given the freedom to meddle with making and implementing laws. They are concerned that if the monarch is selfish and self-gratifying, this is not good for the people and yet they cannot do anything.

2. Monarchies have expensive lifestyles.
Some opponents are complaining that the monarchs are provided with all the luxuries, including upkeep of their royal residences, which come from the Sovereign Grant, as in the case of the Royal family of the U.K., is the public's money. This is not supported by some taxpayers, despite announcements that the Queen's expenditure is not as lavish as it appears to be.

3. If a monarch is oppressive, nothing can be done about it.
With the tenure of a monarch only ending with death or abdication, he or she will stay in power of for decades. If the monarch is a bad person, the people have no way to end his or her wrong doings unlike in a democratic form of government wherein people can choose who they want to rule their countries.

4. Not all members in order of succession are competent.
Another argument raised by opponents is the fact that in hereditary monarchies or constitutional monarchies, there is an order of succession and whoever is in line will be the next ruler regardless if he or she has the qualities of a future head of state. They added that ruling over a nation should not be handed down to a person simply because he or she is born to it.

Conclusion

The debate on the relevance of a monarchy will remain a contentious issue between proponents and opponents. This form of government works in some but not all nations. However, for opponents, it will take a long time for them to achieve what they want because changing a type of governance is not a simple thing to do.

About the Author
Brandon Miller has a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a seasoned writer who has written over one hundred articles, which have been read by over 500,000 people. If you have any comments or concerns about this blog post, then please contact the Green Garage team here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A form of government wherein power and sovereignty is given to one person or several individuals is known as monarchy. Duration of the reign remains until the time of death or if the monarch in position abdicates or gives up the throne, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II who became the Queen when her uncle abdicated his throne to marry a non-royalty American actress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An absolute monarchy is defined as a government that is headed by a ruler that is not restrained or limited by a constitution, laws, or regulations. Even if broad privileges are granted to the general population, if this structure is in place for the government, then it meets the qualification of being an absolute monarchy.

Here are the pros and cons of this government structure to evaluate.

List of the Pros of an Absolute Monarchy

1. Laws can be passed quickly to adapt to changing circumstances.
An absolute monarchy can act very quickly during extreme or emergency situations that may occur. There is no need to go through a congressional or parliament body to have decisions made. The monarch in this government structure has the final say on what can happen. If they decree that resources must be made available to a community, then actions can be taken right away to help people.

2. The military within an absolute monarchy tends to be stronger.
An absolute monarchy creates a defensive force that protects their country from harm that is as strong as possible. This is done to protect the family, which also protects the general population at the same time. Many absolute monarchies require able-bodied individuals to serve a minimum amount of time in the military as well, which allows each household to be invested into the welfare of the country in some way.

3. Security levels are high within an absolute monarchy.
Crime can happen anywhere. Within the structure of an absolute monarchy, a strict set of laws that are consistently enforced creates higher levels of security for the general population. To enforce these laws, a higher level of military or police presence is usually seen throughout each community. When laws are broken, actions are swiftly taken to limit the harm an offender might try to cause to others.

4. There is one consistent face for international negotiation.
The international community knows, at all times, who has the final say for any treaty or political negotiation. Monarchs may decide to take on these duties themselves, or they may appoint a specific individual to represent their best interests. Even if they are not directly involved, the final word on any matter of government rests with the monarch when the government is structured as an absolute monarchy.

5. It allows long-term goals to be implemented for the society.
In the United States, a Presidential administration has a maximum of 8 years, under elective circumstances, to implement a strategy to achieve specific long-term goals that benefit everyone. Under the structure of an absolute monarchy, a ruler has a lifetime to implement long-term goals. A family that stays in power can work for multiple generations toward a specific agenda. That makes it much easier to establish oneself as a global leader in a specific area while addressing societal concerns and needs simultaneously.

6. An absolute monarchy can save people a lot of money.
Billions of dollars are spent every 2 years on new election cycles in the United States, and the figure keeps rising. Since 1992, the U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $40 billion on elections. Similar figures are found in other republics and democracies around the world. Within an absolute monarchy, those funds can be directed toward other needs the society may have. Using the U.S. figure as an example, even if a monarch took a 25% cut off the top from that figure, there would still be enough money left over to solve issues like hunger and poverty.

List of the Cons of an Absolute Monarchy

1. In most instances, citizens in lower socioeconomic classes receive fewer privileges.
The goal of an absolute monarchy is to retain power for as long as possible. To do so, it becomes necessary to place any competitors for the ruling position at a disadvantage should they attempt a coup. Reinforcing power structures by rewarding faithful individuals in the noble class, while restricting the rights of the general population, is a common method used to retain control.

2. Bad leadership can take an excelling nation and cripple it.
Within the context of an absolute monarchy, what the ruler decrees becomes the law of the land. This power can be used for good. It can also be used to commit terrible atrocities or bankrupt the economy while funneling resources toward personal wealth. Because there is absolute power involved, it is difficult for anyone to stop someone with ill intent, since the leader can simply outlaw any opposition to their point of view.

3. It increases the potential of societal rebellion.
An absolute monarchy is able to stay in power for as long as the people allow it, either through desire, intimidation, or outright fear and oppression. Eventually, if the people are being treated poorly for long enough, there is a higher risk of some form of rebellion forming within the country. Rebellions within an absolute monarchy tend to be violent and deadly on both sides.

4. The line of leadership is already established.
People within an absolute monarchy have no say in who gets to be the leader of their nation. Most absolute monarchies are governed by a single family, which then declares, through a line of ascension, who will become the next leader to govern. This type of structure further increases the chances of a rebellion occurring because there is no guarantee on how well a future leader will govern. Some leaders may be forced into the role, even if they don't want to serve in that position.

5. Military might can be used against the people.
Although having a stronger military can be beneficial within the structure of an absolute monarchy, it can also be problematic for the general population. The military can be used domestically to enforce laws, just as it can be used internationally to protect or expand borders. The structure of an absolute monarchy funnels tax dollars toward the very forces that can be used to oppress the general population in the first place.

6. Popularity becomes a component of governing.
Absolute monarchs are not bound by any restrictions. They must simply stay in power. Remaining popular means ensuring that key components of a society stay pleased with what they are going. Governing within this structure of government becomes less about what the people need, and more about what will keep the monarch popular enough to remain in power.

7. The minority can suppress the majority.
There is no elective process within the structure of an absolute monarchy. Even if the privilege of voting is permitted, the monarch has the final say on all matters. They can simply throw out the vote.

The pros and cons of an absolute monarchy show us that the speed of governing increases under this structure, though that may not always be a benefit. Monarchs are permitted to do virtually anything they want to do in this structure as well, which can lead to oppression and tyranny.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Important Absolute Monarchy Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An absolute monarchy is defined as a government that is headed by a ruler that is not restrained or limited by a constitution, laws, or regulations. Even if broad privileges are granted to the general population, if this structure is in place for the government, then it meets the qualification of being an absolute monarchy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world’s leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theocracy is a form of government that regards a religious deity or philosophy as the source from which all authority is derived.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theocracy Facts for Kids | KidzSearch.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Theocracy, a form of government, the institutions and people that govern the state are very close to the leaders of the main religion. If the religious leaders do not directly run some bodies of the state, they influence them very much.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A theocracy is a government which features a religious person, being, or idea as the highest ruler within its structures. The population might elect a President, but the President would be viewed as required to report to a god. This type of structure tends to support the majority position within the country and allow for less overall societal conflict within that majority because everyone believes something similar.

A theocracy can also create discord because it is directly tied to religious beliefs. If someone disagrees with what the government is doing, their own religious ideas or freedoms can be placed at-risk.

Here are more pros and cons of a theocracy to consider.

What Are the Pros of a Theocracy?

1. It operates efficiently.
A theocracy keeps people united under one large umbrella. Because faith is directly tied into government operations, there are fewer delays in the implementation of operational policies. There is rarely an opportunity for debate when new policies are implemented or current policies are changed. The government decrees what needs to be accomplished. Religious institutions then implement this decree from the pulpit, classroom, or other location of influence.

2. Law enforcement efforts are streamlined.
In the United States, there are four basic levels of government: local, county, state, and national. Each has its own form of law enforcement. A community has police officers. Counties operate with a Sheriff's or Marshall's office. State law enforcement also exists. A national-level law enforcement entity would be like the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. In the US, there are dozens of national-level government agencies that employ full-time officers who can make an arrest. Within a theocracy, this would become a centralized structure instead of having each be independent of one another.

3. It is a form of government which has higher levels of societal compliance.
Arguably, the greatest fear that humans have is of the unknown. There is nothing scarier, therefore, than what will happen to someone after they die. The hope that a religion offers for what happens after death can help to take that fear away, which is how compliance throughout a society is generated within this type of government. If a person's salvation is threatened because they won't comply with the government, a faithful person may choose to comply to limit their risks of eternal damnation.

4. A theocracy could do amazing things for people in need.
If a theocracy were to follow the edicts of their holy books to the letter, it could change the world in several incredible ways. Hunger could be eliminated because neighbors would share with neighbors. Everyone could have access to proper health care. No one would be living in poverty unless they consciously chose to do so. There would be more helping hands available to those in need.

5. There is no longer a need to find a compromise.
Because the majority is already on the same page for governmental policies and procedures, there is less time spent trying to find a compromise between ideas. Even if there is a "conflict" between two groups, the supreme overseeing the government would have the final say. People would come together, pray or worship, and come away with a common goal.

What Are the Cons of a Theocracy?

1. Minority groups are not often tolerated within a theocracy.
Theocracies demand conformity. One may be allowed to believe in a variation of the overall religious beliefs that form the backbone of the government, but not in something completely different. In a Christian theocracy, being a Baptist or a Catholic might be allowed, but being a Muslim may not be allowed.

2. It is a governmental structure which encourages discord.
In a theocracy, because a religious being or god is the head of the government, discord is invited within the population. These religious ideas are supernatural, even if a human is representing themselves as a god, so it becomes difficult to question the ideas that come from such a governmental structure. If you question the government, you question God - and that's a battle the faithful within a theocracy will not allow someone to win.

3. Businesses can operate only if they follow the same religious principles.
Hobby Lobby sued the Federal Government over the mandate to provide insurance that included birth control because it went against their organizational beliefs. In a theocracy, the ability to sue would be limited. If a business was not following the mandates of the government, then their activities would be against what the supreme being in charge would want and the government would simply shut the business down.

4. Unique individuals each have their own unique faith.
For this reason, conformity is either forced or impossible to achieve within a theocratic society. Everyone has their own reasons for believing what they do. Their faith, whether it is in God, science, or the lack of a supernatural being, comes from individualized perspectives, research, and philosophical pursuits. An attempt to bind different people together, even when they may believe in the same religious being, will eventually shatter because there isn't a "group" truth. There is only an "individual" truth.

5. A theocracy alters fundamental religious beliefs.
Going back to the Christian theocracy example, a New Testament command dictates that people should "love God" and "love their neighbor as themselves." The "sum of the law" is found in these. Is it loving to declare war on another nation? Does one serve God if they exclude one group from healthcare? Is testing for drug use something that is loving when people are hungry and need food, but have been unemployed for a lengthy period?

6. It is selfish.
People within a theocracy are looking out for their best interests first. They want to work on their own salvation before trying to help someone else achieve success. That is why this form of government often fails. The humans at the top of the government have the most power to ensure their own salvation, so they work on that before they help the rest of the people.

7. Facts are ignored if they don't agree with the holy book.
Imagine if the creationism vs evolutionism debate were held in a theocracy. Would the idea of evolution be able to exist if the process wasn't outlined in the holy book?

The pros and cons of a theocracy show us that it is an idea that might seem like it can bring people together, but what it tends to do is tear people apart. This is one of the reasons why the United States was founded on a principle of separating the church and the state from each other. Religious beliefs can work with government, but they struggle to be effective when working as government.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A theocracy is a government which features a religious person, being, or idea as the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Difference Between Monarchy and Dictatorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democracy and Dictatorship - Current Affairs 4 Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By definition, a dictatorship is an absolute authority in any sphere. It often refers to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copy of your description...-- Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/join -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free tool that allows you to develop cool animated clips and animated presentations for your website, office meeting, sales pitch, nonprofit fundraiser, product launch, video resume, or anything else you could use an animated explainer video.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dictatorships for kids - Teaching Wiki and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here you’ll find information on dictatorships for kids - what a dictatorship is, how it differs from other forms of government, and how to teach about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What’s a Dictatorship? | Politics on Point | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dictatorships are notorious for being scary, evil, and dangerous, but they still exist today. Nick runs through the basics of this government type.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Learn Government Part 2 : The Types of Government