Perfect government, as history has shown us, is nearly impossible. Although the caliber of many governments throughout history is quantifiable, none can be called perfect. Whether it is the size of the state, the complexity of time and issues, the rulers, the people or an unpredictable fact, whatever it may be, the human race has yet to find a perfect form of government. Consequently, in addressing this problem, the question is not: Which group is “right”? Rather, which system is most benevolent in serving the people, since “democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Although participatory democracy is the more democratic of the two systems of government, the feasibility and efficiency of representative democracy make it the more formidable for Mars. Participatory democracy, in its true form, is rejected simply because of its ease of use. With a population of 11 million it would be impossible for everyone to adhere to every legislation and law. Impossible as it may be, representative democracy is true democracy. People have absolute equality and freedom. Furthermore, considering the theory of the Marquis de Condorcet – which might imply that the majority will be correct – participation should lead to more utilitarian laws and legislation (pp 213). However, this argument has a flaw in application, because it assumes that voting is as simple as right or wrong. Yes, we could use technology to help us vote and learn about politics, but technology and especially the media are the biggest problem for this system. The media would outperform the government as they could manipulate people through information and advertising (not to say this isn't currently happening). Furthermore, who would set the agenda? Due to globalization and the complexity of the world problem, it is impossible for representatives not to be corrupt. For example, Hugo Chavez's relations with the United States led many North Americans to detest him, even calling him a dictator. However, in an effort to heal his country and especially the impoverished minority, he decided to end Venezuela's foreign policy with the United States. This allowed him to redistribute oil money in his country. Many Latin Americans would call it a smart and morally correct decision, but many North Americans (partly due to the media and conflicting information) condemn him and this policy. Although some may insist that adequate education would simplify this and similar problems, in contemporary society adequate education (not only from schools but also from the media) is impossible.