A "good" government means a government that supports economic interests. The Second World War drew the attention of every government, from Asia to Africa, from the Middle East to America, to the importance of economic growth. The economy is essential to a good life. A good economic system is very difficult to implement and still more difficult to maintain. The problem is poverty, indifference and the most neglected and disadvantaged are always those that suffer the most. All those in need should seek help - no one forgot. Good governance is a simple answer to restoring order and respecting the rights of all peoples. In a current political system, the people receive great social and political benefits. The best solutions are still open to the people. It's the only way.


Development is not a short term gain; it is long term, at least for the next few decades when it is expected to become so powerful that the living standard will rise.

That is always true, but unfortunately, there are unintended negative consequences of poverty. Thus, the only reason for the nation to build a good political system to safeguard economic growth, as it affects the standard of living. Each country is sufficiently different to make what works well in one country doesn't work in another. I think we broadly agree that I consider the use of human rights development, the rule of law, by the country.
Take the example of poverty. Poverty has willfully inflicted physical pain. Poverty in Africa, in Asia would certainly lead our system. But as a thought experience, suppose a person wants a meal or rice, unless he/she provides money? It's painful as I understand it, and it's almost as much pain as beatings or humiliation. Significant differences exist in the amount of pain provided by different methods of poverty.

The same kind of thought experiments may be applicable to human rights. So for me, it's always, "It depends on the right political system." I want people to stand up for their rights. I expect citizens to have access to equal opportunities to debate policy and development issues.

The core of the war on poverty is protecting the economy and protecting lives. They are the fundamental values of democracy. This sentimental concept is the type of strong system that the political system should put in place to persuade voters to allow their representatives to accept the war against poverty.

At the beginning of the 21st century, much time, effort and money was spent on reducing poverty. limiting child labor, improving food safety and medicines, establishing medical clinics and inoculation centers,School attendance, free school meals, minimum wage increases, and more.

Today, the fight to reduce poverty needs to be extended from the legal to the attitudinal level. It will only succeed by means of campaigns aimed at changing the political system.

Poverty is about living with inadequate food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical care. Its most common measure is disposable income per capital, which provides the means of purchasing those basic needs, but on the other hand,

Unfortunately, hidden assumptions, unsubstantiated assumptions, inaccurate statistics and incomplete solutions are deceptive and unconvincing. For the poor to have more money, social assistance reformers must devote more time and money to poverty. A strong political system has proven that welfare can make a difference to the poor by reducing poverty. Personally, I don't want bad leaders intruding on people's lives.

Copyright http://www.mediaforfreedom.com