sfsfsdf

2956 Words12 Pages
When talking about foreign governments and how they work, the famous Winston Churchill quote comes to mind. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Churchill was obviously alluding to World War 2 and the other types of government they battled against which was fought and won by the Allied forces two years prior. He was right, the Allies had won, democracy prevailed and the world lived in peace under first world democratic rule for years to come. Any country that wished to prevail from 1945 and on would have to model themselves after the Allies approved forms of government; if they did that then prosperity would be guaranteed… or would it? Actually, no it would not. Take a look at Nigeria, who modeled their own system of government after the United States (Nigeria’s). When taking a closer look at Nigerian governmental structure and documents, it is very easy to see where the United States and Nigeria have similarities. For example, take a look at the general structure of both governments. Nigeria and the United States both believe in the separation of powers between three branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Both have the executive power lying in the hands of the President who is elected through democratic elections. Both have a bicameral legislature system; a House of Representatives and a Senate. Finally, both also have a Supreme Court which is regarded as the highest law in the land (Nigeria’s). However, if one takes a closer look at Nigerian government they would see that Nigeria does show some very obvious differences from the United States of America. Nigeria, just like the United States h... ... middle of paper ... ...a deeper look at it, not much. The revolution was ended because the oppressive Shah that was censoring the people had finally left the country, but he was soon replaced by a religious leader who was equally as oppressive (He just did not oppress the same group of people). The revolution was also a cry for economic stability, however, the Iranian economy did not stabilize until years after the revolution had ended. Khomeini, who was hailed as the new leader of a very optimistic looking Iran was the only blessing Iran had gained for the revolution. The revolution had ended because of the fact that Khomeini was able to crush his opposition with violence, rather than diplomacy, so how does that make him better than the previous Shah? It really does not. Though the revolution was finally over, who is to say that anything actually got better for the people living in Iran?

    More about sfsfsdf

      Open Document