It is really a pain worthy effort to understand how the political/administrative functions determine political results and this would require an accurate analysis on the functioning of the political frameworks and institutions. Sometimes, it becomes difficult even to define what actually constitutes an institution and definition is often far away from being realistic. The simplification levels of the discussion may serve to focus on several points. All regimes confront the same essential choices, and all leaders confront the fundamental issue of getting backups for themselves and their policies. The nature of democratic leaders, their vision, and the limitations on what these leaders can do to get their support may contrast quite substantially across countries (between developed and developing) and their democratic frameworks. The developing nations of today’s generation do look significantly different than the early developing nations in their political results, proposing models to drive through diverse things.
Unlike highly developed nations like Britain, Norway, Denmark, etc., there are a number of nations where government has lost its administration to function through their own botch of the political system. For example, in case of Pakistani democracy, government effectively squandered away their validity where the arguments between the military and government to rule the nation were not welcomed by the individuals. In Peru and Venezuela, the breakdown of political parties that were seen as corrupt and profane, created a leadership gap that was filled in no time by popular leaders with tyrant inclinations. These leaders ascended from the debris of defamed gatherings and their vision went on to further weaken their country’s democratic framework, including legislative assemblies, as a means to retain power (Wollack, K., 2002).