[ahomescu1]

Except democracy has been around for at least 2500 years, and we still have it. It seems that all those other "awesome forms" fail and revert to the natural, default state of countries: democracy.

Which brings me to my second point: democracy seems to me like the natural order of a large group of people. It's natural for people to compete to achieve their goals, and democracy seems to be the only system that spreads success around.

[jeremyswank]

monarchy, autocracy, and tyranny have been around a lot longer than 2500 years. don't we still have those, too?

[ahomescu1]

We still have monarchies, but many of them are also democratic (hereditary monarch plus elected prime minister and legislature). I agree we still have tyrannies too, because I think there's a cycle between them and democracies. Democracy weakens, a tyrant takes power, this lasts for a while before collapsing, then his competitors take power themselves (in some cases, democratically).

[jacques_chester]

Democracies have collapsed and transformed into non-democracies and vice versa many times. States are shaped by their conditions, democracy does not seem to be any more of an attractor than various flavours of monarchism.

[ahomescu1]

I agree, there seems to be a cycle between democracy and tyranny. However, I think hereditary monarchies are on their way out (with notable exceptions). I don't really see the US or France (or many other countries) ever becoming a hereditary monarchy again. Even the communist countries weren't led by dynasties.

[pipnpip]

In the U.S.A, it seems hereditary monarchies have been replaced with hereditary presidencies(Adams, Harrison, Bush). Probably more loosely related ones to.

[jacques_chester]

It fits the greek concept that governments rotate between democracy, dictatorship and oligarchy.