A 'concept' of Statehood is composed, by each and every 'Real Individual' at the Bottom of Government.

The concept of Statehood, is composed by each and every Real Individual, at the Bottom of Government. Its needless to add that the State cannot exist without its People. A State or a Government entity needs someone to govern; or its very existence is compromised. States cannot exist in a vacuum. States cannot exist without people, but People can exist without States. Hence, the implication is that the State is a necessary creation by the same People who 'seek' 'Statehood', and 'wish' to be governed. States are important and States are essential for the sole purpose of governing. If a State is said to exist, but does not govern, it can be said, that particular State is not an actual State. Why? The reason being that, the sole reason for a State to exist is to govern. The political issue becomes, "is it possible for non-democratic States to exist? Does the establishment of any type of government, meet the requirements of a 'properly established Top of Government', or is that, just another 'democratic delusion'? Does any Government, even the non-democratic ones, still meet the requirements of a necessary government for the Many. Obviously, the need for Government arises from the fact that the One is essential to Govern the Many. Hence, the problematic of the One and the Many is very 'abstract'. The 'abstract answer' is, every Individual, who lives in a 'condition of togetherness' needs Government. The less abstract, more practical answer, is that the Top of government gets its power to govern from the Bottom i.e., from the very people who will constitute the 'Governed'. Hence, every Form of Government, is essential; but, nevertheless, Democracy is the best form, and the more streamlined, and if properly 'conducted', can avoid many 'social problems'. The other forms, create dichotomies that cannot be resolved, except by Revolutions.

A 'concept' of Statehood is essential; in a Democracy, such a concept is 'real'.

A concept of 'Statehood' is essential for the sole purpose of 'governing'. A Democratic concept of the State is entirely dependent on the People at the Bottom of the governmental Structure, or Form. In an Autocratic concept, the Top of Government or the Form of the government, is not dependent on its People. Evidently, it is assumed, or presumed, to have 'existed' before the People enter the concept of, what 'constitutes Government'. In other words, the existence of the concept seems to be separate from the People it governs, and hence, may have had an 'existence', even before, the existence of any particular Autocratic government. Hence, in an Autocracy, the Government, or concept of the State, is more important than the People. In a Democratic form of Government, it cannot be said, that a Democratic form of Government can exist, separate from the People it Governs. If there are no People, who needs Government, and how can a Democratic form of Government, be said to exist, as a 'self sustained' form of Government, when there are no People to Govern. The people are essential to Democracy and the Democratic form of Government is essential to the People. One cannot have a 'chicken without an egg', or, an 'egg without a chicken'. The issue is from where does an Autocracy gets its 'authority' to Govern. Historically, the 'Divine Right of Kings' form of rule, purportedly, got its authority to govern from some Divine source. But, that theory doesn't work anymore. That failing, how can we justify the existence of the Autocratic Form of Government, and from where does it get its authority to Govern? Can it be, that it doesn't have the authority because the People have not given it? 'Real Government' needs permission, from its People, to be 'Governed'. That failing; we're right back to Government by the 'strongest'; and that's not Government, that's 'Rule'; that's 'Autocratic Rule'.

How can a Democracy become 'more democratic'?

How can a Democratic Form of Government, become more democratic? The answer is multifarious. Obviously, in the question, the Form of Government is already assumed to have been established. Some of the required Institutions are already in place in the social. Maybe, not all Institutions are in place, but the essential ones are properly established. The minute a Democratic form of government is established, the 'concerned Individuals' start to 'wrest' for advantage. Why? Well, when one realizes, that a Government that insures the Freedom and Equality of everyone, 'everyone' is in a 'political position', to become 'part' of the Institutional Structures that will be set-up. Hence, the instinct of 'self-preservation' in nature transfers to the social and becomes a 'competitive spirit'. The 'race' to occupy these Governmental positions, of course, is based on the fact that these political positions 'house political power'. ( Of course, there are altruistic motives also) Question? Is there any way to compete for these positions, without violating democratic principles? Well, maybe 'yes' and maybe 'no'. Nevertheless, the first thing the Individuals interested in these positions do, is that, they form into small groups of 'like-minded' individuals, or, in more political language, they form into 'Parties'. This immediately creates a dichotomy of 'us', and 'them'. Then, the 'competition' begins; needless to add, that not all political statements with regard to 'policy', 'programs', 'law', and, I must add, 'objectivity', are 'necessarily democratic'. Division into Parties creates an 'antagonism', somewhat 'mild', that mandates a decision; a decision that is 'required', if the individual wants to remain in that particular Party. Hence, divisions into Political parties, creates an antagonism, ( no longer 'mild') that easily becomes, what we call 'vicious political practices'. In other words, Individuals 'interested' in politics, usually forget their 'humanity'. How sad. We live in the best form of government there is, and yet, we 'lose' our humanity, when we 'vie' for political power. Can this be a 'real democracy'?

Nations and Governments have Power, but they are mainly Instituions of 'Servive'. They should 'serve' Humanity.

The biggest problematic on the Planet is the relation between the One and the Many. Allow me to reduce the issue to simple language. I am One, I am real, I am a Human Being You are One, you are Real, you are a Human Being We are all One, We are all Real, We are all Human Beings We are the Many, We are Real, We are all real Human Beings. But, The Many need Government The Many need to build Nations The Many need a Nation A Nation is not 'real', in the same way as You, and I A Nation is an Institution and it needs Power It needs Power to govern the Many. There is no other need for 'Power'. The 'Many' were here first. Don't get me wrong, at this point in history, we are all born into an existing Nation. But, a Political Institution should have a Government, of People, by People, and for People, because without People, or, the Many, there is no need for Nations. Nations need Power, so the issue is always ,from where does a Nation gets its Power, and why does it 'need' Power, if not to govern, the Many? Keep in mind, the human condition does not change, its always a 'chunk of Humanity'. Humans are 'born' and they 'die'. But, Nations arise as political Institutions; they don't die, they are eternal. So, why can't Nations use the Power they have to create a more peaceful and harmonious social? Sure, they are Institutions of Power, but also institutions of 'Service'. All Nations and all Governments are 'man-made Institutions'. The 'human condition' is always superior to the Political Identity. So, please do your Job.

Democracy, as a form of Governement, can be misunderstood.

Democracy as a form of Government can be misunderstood. Often, the concept is interpreted as allowing an Individual to do whatever s/he pleases and, also, as 'individually Equal' in the 'business world', the 'political world' and the 'social world'. From this negative posture, there follows the 'rationalization' that Individuals, in fact, are not equal in possessions, nor in wielding Power, nor in economic holdings, nor in having the same amount of money. In other words, we do not live in a Democracy, because we are not Free to do as we please, and we don't have the same 'power' or 'position' or 'influence' that some Individuals have. Actually, some of us 'don't want' all those things. The truth of the matter is that Democracy, as a form of Government, can not guarantee that we can have those things, only' that we are 'free' to pursue those 'goals', if we wish. Democracy does not 'automatically grant' or 'issue' anything; it only guarantees that we are free to pursue whatever goal we want within the confines of Law and Order, and assures us that we, all, are 'Equally human beings'. Our humanity is Equal, no one human being is 'superior', as a human being, than any Other human being. The social, 'playing field', must become 'well-balanced' in both, 'institutional structures', and legal boundaries, to 'insure' that our Freedom and Equality is not compromised. A democracy must protect and insure the Freedom and Equality of each Individual in the social. If that fails, we are free to "assemble and petition for redress of grievances" and that means, 'revolution'. "Occupy" is a revolution, but its 'limited' because of the divisions into 'private property' and 'public property'. The 'occupation' is 'real', but the occupation must 'take form' in our 'working knowledge' of a 'real democratic society', not a social, 'motored' by the economy, but, a social 'motored' by 'Freedom and Equality' of 'every individual'.

Government by a 'United Nations', must 'treat' or 'govern' all 'Nations' equally.

Government by a United Nations must treat or 'govern' all Nations equally. Each Nation, regardless its size, population, or the geographical area it covers, is 'equally' a Nation. As a Nation, it has the same 'political power', as a much 'larger' Nation. Geographical size or population has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty of a Nation, or pure power of a Nation, on the International sphere. On the International sphere, each Nation has the same power as any other Nation. On the International sphere, every political entity, or Nation, has pure power, and there is no distinction between the 'pure power' of a small Nation, and the pure power of a larger Nation. A United Nations is a 'Government' of equals. But, the 'equals' are all 'sovereign entities', hence have equal 'political pure power'. No United Nations Government can usurp or abuse the 'sovereignty' of any individual Nation nor can it interfere with the Domestic Government of any Nation. Of course, it can resolve disputes between Nations and hence can impose Law and Order between Nations. Every Nation in a United Nations is Free and Equal, i.e., free to do as it pleases within the confines of International Law, and within the confines of 'Humanitarian rules'; and, is an Equal in Sovereign power.

'Democracy' does not change; but, 'Capitalism' is constantly changing.

The Democratic landscape does not change; but, the Capitalistic landscape is constantly changing. The two institutions are essential to a 'viable democracy' and a 'successful economy'. When I say Democracy does not change, I do not mean that it does not 'evolve'. Certain aspects of democracy are always evolving, because new Individuals are born into it, some die in it, some move into it ( immigration), and some even move away from it. Of course, there's also the changes in Laws and social institutions that must accommodate these changes in the social. Nevertheless, the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, always remains in place, through all these transitions. The economy functions on different principles. There is nothing permanent about Capitalism, except that its a form of competition that must always be in 'motion'. Sure, the Corporations are always there, as are the factories, and the technology. But the whole economy is driven by 'profits' and hence must always remain 'profitable'. Hence, the 'economic motions' are always there, viz., production, development; amounts, or size; manufacturing; distribution, and the most important, Profits. Without profits, the economy loses its motor and becomes static or dead. However, the essence of Democracy is always the same and remains the same through all changes within the social. The Freedom and Equality of the Individual always remains viable, regardless the changes in the social, or the economy. However, both, the act of Governing, and economic activity, must be kept separate. Failure to distinguish between the two can lead to a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy.

The 'concept' of the 'State' is not a fiction.

J.J. Rousseau said the State is a Fiction. The State or the concept of the State is not a fiction. For sure, the concept is a 'general concept' that applies to each and every individual that resides under the auspices of the State. Hence, the concept is a general concept that houses political Power, otherwise it cannot function. The generality' of the concept arises from the need of the concept to be 'inclusive'. Of course, there is no question that 'anything' or 'anyone' who purports to Govern millions must have Power. Without Power the concept would not be functional or efficient. But, the fact remains that the concept, in a Democracy, has Power at the Top because all the Peoples that constitute its very 'nature' have 'institutionally' granted it Power. That is not a fictional process; its a reality. Without People the concept has no need for existing. For example; If a couple lives on an Island all by themselves, i.e. without any other individuals; they do not need a Government or a State on the Island. If the couple was to have a 'child', is that child born 'into' a concept of the State? No! Why?, because, on that Island, there is no need for such a 'concept' or for such an 'Institutional political entity'. However, its a fact that all of us are born into some particular State or 'political Institution'. Of course, in the latter situation, there exists millions of Individuals within any particular geographical area. Hence, the necessity of a concept of the State. But, that does not make the concept a 'fiction'. Its a necessity and its 'real', i.e., a 'political institution' that arises from the Many People that exist at the Bottom of Government.

Capitalism should be gratefull for Democracy.

Capitalism should be grateful for Democracy, but Democracy does not necessarily have to be grateful for Capitalism. Of course, if both systems work together, then both systems can be grateful for each other. Capitalism can only flourish in a Democratic society. But, a Democratic system should be able to flourish where there is Freedom and Equality in the Social. In a Top heavy system of Government, the power is allocated at the Top and the Bottom becomes somewhat inconsequential. Of course, there are many gradations of political organization, where the Power at the Top is variously allocated. However, in a Democracy the Power is also at the Top of Government, but it is 'granted' to the Top by the Bottom, or, stated differently, by the 'Many individuals' at the Bottom. Power is flexible in a Democracy, whereas; in an Autocracy, the Power is all at the Top, and remains at the Top, until, and if there is ever, a change in the form of Government. Many gradations of Autocracy exist; just as there are many gradations of Democracy. Nevertheless, Democracy is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". In a Democracy, Power for the use of Government is an Institutional 'grant' to the Office-holders, and only for a duration. Capitalism can only flourish in a Democracy. Democracy could never flourish in a Capitalistic form of Government, or, stated differently, in a Plutocracy.

A Democratic Government and a Capitalistic economy are usually at odds with each other.

Democracy can sometimes conflict with Capitalism. That's because each institution is driven by a different motor. The Freedom and Equality of the Individual, drives Democracy and the profit motive drives Capitalism. That's pretty obvious. Each institution must function within its particular domain. That's not as obvious. The two systems interact on a daily basis and both contribute to the success of the other. Nevertheless, the major problem in Democracy is that the Representatives in Government Offices do not properly represent the people within their particular areas, and instead have individual, selfish motives, for being in Office. Since Political Office 'holds' political power, many individuals compete for Office. While, the Capitalistic economy does not, in fact, have political power, it has great influence. That's why the rich and well-heeled seek political positions. In Office, they have power to try to help or structure the manner in which profits can be increased, guaranteed, or protected. They can pass laws that benefit the economy at the expense of the Freedom and Equality, of the individual. Profits are not a democratic value, and Freedom and Equality are not economic values. That's why most of the monies are held by the 1%. However, their comes a time when the social is confronted with a problem that does not respect 'democratic values' nor 'economic values'. That would be Ebola. Disease does not respect political or economic Institutions. That's the time when, all successful Governments, and all successful economies, can join hands to eradicate such a disease. If, before these events, the Country of origin was not helped to fight, its causes and its spread, its time that successful Nations and successful economies, come to the aid of that Nation. Disease is not a political Institution, nor an economic institution, and it does not respect any political Ideology. Its time that all successful Nations, and all successful economies, come together to fight a 'highly contagious enemy'; and, its time that everyone have more respect for the individuals who are on the 'front lines' trying to help those who have this disease.

The 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness' are 'stronger' than any type of Government.

A People, in a 'condition of togetherness' can be 'stronger' than any form of Government. How can that be, if power exists only at the Top of Government? Simply, Government has Power at the Top, because it is essential, that the Top properly Govern the Bottom. Hence, political Power is an 'institutional power', not a natural power. The People at the Bottom don't have an institutional power, but they have 'strength in Numbers', particularly, in the 'condition of togetherness'. That is a lot closer to a 'natural' source of strength in the 'condition of togetherness'. All the People at the Bottom of any Government constitute the Governed. As such, they exist in a 'condition of togetherness'. If the People in their 'condition of togetherness', peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, they can effect 'Governmental power', which exists at the Top, but it must be a justifiable 'assembly'. Of course, that Right to 'assemble, is limited in both an Autocracy, and a Democracy. However, in an Autocracy, an 'assembly' for that purpose would not be tolerated. In a Democracy, if it is a 'peaceable assembly', it must legally be tolerated. Of course, the issue is always the 'peaceable' nature of the assembly. In either case, an 'assembly' of millions of People, at the Bottom of Government, can be a powerful reminder to the Top, that 'all is not well' with the Governing process. People at the Bottom of Government are "not institutions". They are real, and they are human, and they deserve to be Governed in 'political Freedom, and political Equality'. The power at the Top of Government would not exist, if it didn't have People to Govern. If Governments take care of their People, the people will take care of their Governments.

The 'essence' of Democracy is with the People; but Government has a duty to 'institutionally' implement it.

The essence of democracy is at the Bottom of Government, i.e., with the People. However, the duty to implement it is at the Top, with the Three Branches of Government. Obviously democracy cannot be viable if the Top of Government does not 'implement' democracy, or, if the 'branches' of the Executive Branch, like the Police Departments, themselves, violate the cannons of Democracy. The Top and all its Agencies are duty bound to implement democracy. That's their Job, and they have no other job to perform, in the line of their duties. In other words, democracy can go wrong ,both, at the Top and at the Bottom. But, the Top only has a 'Duty' to the Bottom; it does not have a right to 'exercise' some 'preferential agenda'. We have already stated, that in a justifiable Revolution, or 'demonstration', its already time for the Top, to begin to 'listen' to the Bottom. Pure 'adversarial actions', or violence, toward the Bottom is not the answer. That only increases the 'tension' between the Top and the Bottom. The 'incidents' that gave rise to the 'tensions' must be addressed. There has to be a democratic solution, and if 'one' has been suggested, then the problem must be transferred to the 'democratic institution' that exists for the resolution of these types of problems; of course, that would be the Judicial Branch. In a Democracy, all problems of a governmental nature, whether the problem arises at the Bottom, or at the Top, must be 'properly' resolved, i.e., democratically, viz., by the Judicial Branch. Then the Judiciary is duty bound to resolve the issues by the proper 'interpretive practices', i.e., no 'Party loyalty'; no 'ideological differences'; no racial discrimination; or, simply, "no hanky-panky".

Governments may have political power, but the "People" have strength in Numbers.

Governments may have political power, but the people have strength in Numbers. All Governments exist for the purpose of governing their People. That should be obvious, but, unfortunately, some Governments think they have a right to exist as a separate political entity, without any concern or obligation to their people. In other words, some Governments believe they have a right to exist as a separate, independent political entity, with, or, without People. But, how can that be? A Government that has no People to Govern cannot exist. Regardless, the type of Government, People are essential to Government. That's why, a Terroristic Group, without a political agenda, cannot become a legitimate Nation or Government. Of course, the reason for that is that without a political agenda, their can be no 'intent' to set up a government. What, or, who, are they going to govern? 'Justifiable Revolutions' have a purpose and a political agenda, viz., to replace the existing Government, that is not perceived, as functioning properly. A 'Justifiable Revolution' has strength in Numbers, because it 'organizes' and 'animates' all the People at the Bottom of Government. Properly organized, a 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of Government, can reestablish a properly functioning Government; one that has the Welfare and the Well Being of all its People, as the primary reason, for existing.

A Government that purports to govern People, must be Triadic.

Any Government that purports to govern 'a People', must be Triadic. Why is that? because the triadic form allows for the interaction of all levels of the governing process. The Top must interact with the Bottom and the sides must 'interpret' that interaction. The Top can be called the "Executive"; the Bottom can be called, "the People" or the "Legislative", and the sides, can be called the Third branch, or the Judiciary. Of course, all Three Branches of Government must function properly. Any 'One' particular Branch, can 'upset the cart' or cause it not to function smoothly. For example; the Executive can abuse its political power; or the Legislative can abuse its 'law making' power, or the Judicial can abuse its 'interpretive function', or abuse its 'interpretive practices' by unjustly adhering to Party Ideology. All Branches are Representative in nature and hence exist only for the purpose of Representing all the People, at the Bottom, as well as the Top. The Executive can abuse its power, by 'causing a War'; 'leading' the Country, 'needlessly', into War; or being 'uninformed' about the International situation, which leads to War. The Legislature can get so involved in the economic situation, or 'money', that it does not consider the 'welfare of the people', and hence is not truly 'representative' in nature. The Judiciary can misuse its interpretive practices, for 'political', or 'Party ideology', purposes, instead of, Objectively interpreting the Constitution. So, the basic organization of Government into Three Branches, is only the 'beginning' of a viable Democracy. But,a Three Branch Government, can be caused to function properly by the very People who constitute it. A Good Government must function representatively, smoothly, and Democratically.

'Law and Order' underlie all Political Systems.

Law and Order underlies all political systems. Whether Autocratic or Democratic, Law and Order is a prerequisite to all Governments. However, the type, structure, or kind of Law is different in the different Governmental systems. In a Democracy the Laws are passed by the People in their Representative capacity and rendered into Statutes. That would be Statutory Law. There is also a Common Law which is something akin to 'common sense'. Law 'regulates' the interactions of the People with themselves and with their social Institutions. The bottom line in all legislative enactments is the Freedom and Equality assured each and every Individual. The Freedom and Equality of the individual cannot be usurped. To be sure, any Law that usurps the Freedom and Equality of the Individual can be challenged as being Unconstitutional. Of course, Law becomes a 'malleable concept' that is attuned to the evolving social. Law is an extension of the Power to govern. It is a necessity to the Top, because the Power, situated at the Top, must reach all the way down to the Individuals at the Bottom. At that point, Law becomes Order. The two terms are pretty much interchangeable. In an Autocratic form, there is a big difference in the source and application of Law. The People themselves do not pass law, but are subject to Law. Law emanates from the Top and its purpose is to protect the Power at the Top. All law comes from the Top and the People have very little say-so. Of course, they also require some kind of Order at the Bottom, but the purpose is to insure that the Power stays at the Top.

The Bottom of all Governments are real people. There is no real power at the Bottom, only influence.

The Bottom of all Governments are real People, but there is no 'real power' at the Bottom, only 'influence'. However, in a Democratic form of Government, the People at the Bottom, can ascend the 'ladder' of 'political influence', and acquire 'real Power'. Real Power exists only as a result of an Institutional grant of Power. The Top of all Governments have real Power; the Top of Democratic Government, acquires Power from its 'political Institutions'. Without political Institutions there wouldn't be any 'real Power' in the World. In a Democracy the People at the Bottom have varying degrees of political 'influence', but no individual has real power, unless s/he has assumed 'political Office', and then, only temporarily. Whereas, Autocratic forms of Government, have also, acquired political power at the Top, but, from, "I don't know where"? In Autocracies, People at the Top can have Institutional 'real Power', but, the Bottom doesn't have Power, or, for that matter, Influence, hence, the Bottom is relatively, helpless and at the mercy of the Top. Whereas, in a Democracy, the people can elect different Peoples to the Top. Usually, and unfortunately, influence is a concept 'tied' to the economic area of society, or, more plainly, "money". Money may have an influence in a Democracy, but its not Power; which explains why wealthy People compete for Political Office, and why money keeps making 'inroads' into Politics.

There is no Power in the human condition; there is only Freedom and Equality.

There is no Power in the human condition; there is only Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality means 'political freedom' and 'political equality'; and that, arises from the fact that the Bottom lives in a 'condition of togetherness' and the Top needs Power in order to govern, and its the Bottom that grants it political power, but it must do so, by respecting and protecting the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals. The Power of Government is a 'democratic grant' to the political organization, but the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, is inherent in the human condition. The human condition, or Life is the 'sacred possession' of each and every Individual that constitutes the Governed. One individual, may be different from another, but be assured, all are equally human and all are politically free. The political grant of power to the Top is an Institutional grant so long as the Government protects and respects the sacredness of the human condition. Without People to Govern, the Top would not exist. If there is no Top, there is no Government, and hence, no Political Power. But, since we must live in a 'condition of togetherness', the People need Government, and that Government, must be Democratic, and it must protect and respect the human condition, because its the 'condition of togetherness', that makes Government 'necessary', and its the Bottom, in a democracy, that grants the Top the power to Govern. Without Political Power, the Individual at the 'Top', is just another 'free and equal' human being.

In a World of human beings, 'Power', as such, does not exist.

In a World of human beings, Power, as such, does not exist. By this statement, I mean that power is not an attribute of the Human Condition. For example; The statement, "some humans are born with Power, and some are not", is not a valid statement. All humans are equal, regardless their Race, Color, or creed. Some, may be physically 'stronger', than Others, or, 'smarter', than others, or have more 'possessions' or 'money', than Others, but no human being is born with 'Power', or 'more Power', than another. Power is an attribute of the 'Polity', called "Nation"; its a political attribute, because political Power, is necessary in order to have some 'control' of the Many at the 'Bottom'. The need for a 'Top' is essential to all Governments. A 'Top' and a 'Bottom', is the only way to establish Government, by One, or a few, of the Many, at the Bottom. Of course, the Bottom is the Governed and the Top are the 'Governors'. In a Democracy the Bottom 'fills in' the Top. Nevertheless, all Governments, whether Democracies or not, should look out for the 'welfare of their own People'. Government has no other reason for existing. Its interesting to note, that on the International sphere, more and more Governments, are trying to become Democracies. That's commendable, but its no use trying to limit the political expression, of Democratic Government; your either a Democracy, or your not. The World belongs to all the People in the World.

No system of Government is perfect; even Democracy has many problems.

To be sure, Democracy has many problems, but those problems can be 'corrected'. They can be corrected because democracy is a government of the People, and hence the People are in a position to re-structure their social institutions, and pass laws, as the political need arises. Whereas, Autocratic forms are less susceptible to change, whether at the Top or the Bottom. Obviously, Autocracies will not tolerate 'free expression' or 'unregulated activity' as would a Democracy, and they do not tolerate, a change in the form of the Government. An Autocratic form is very 'fixed' and since it always acts from the Top, the Peoples at the Bottom are left 'unattended', whereas, in a Democracy, although the Top is also 'fixed', the Top 'governs' the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, at the Bottom. Hence, the welfare of the Individual is a big part of Government policy, in the Democratic form. Of course, there are still many problems, but the important thing is that once the problems are 'perceived', the Representatives are in a position to correct the problems. No system of Government is perfect. But, a Democracy is flexible enough to correct undemocratic practices, and to realign the 'institutions and laws' at the Bottom. Democracy is very flexible. Theoretically, Democracy cannot be improved, because its a Government, of the People, by the People, and for the same People who constitute it; nevertheless, its 'institutional and legal' implementation, can be 'smoothed out' considerably.