When talking about foreign governments and how they work, Winston Churchill's famous quote comes to mind. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms which have been attempted from time to time.” Churchill was obviously alluding to the Second World War and the other types of government they fought against and were defeated by the Allied forces two years earlier. He was right, the Allies had won, democracy had prevailed, and the world would live in peace under first world democratic rule for years to come. Any country that wanted to prevail from 1945 onwards would have to model itself on the forms of government approved by the Allies; if they did, prosperity would be guaranteed... or not? Actually, no, he wouldn't. Take a look at Nigeria, which modeled its system of government after the US (Nigeria) model. Looking more closely at the Nigerian government structure and documents, it is very easy to see where the United States and Nigeria have similarities. For example, let's look at the general structure of both governments. Both Nigeria and the United States believe in the separation of powers between three branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Both have executive power in the hands of the President who is elected through democratic elections. Both have a bicameral legislative system; a House of Representatives and a Senate. Finally, both also have a Supreme Court which is considered the highest law in the land (Nigeria's). However, if you take a closer look at the Nigerian government, you will see that Nigeria shows some very obvious differences compared to the United States of America. Nigeria, just like the United States, is......middle of paper.... ..a deeper look, not much. The revolution ended because the oppressive Shah who censored the people had finally left the country, but was soon replaced by an equally oppressive religious leader (he just didn't 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 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 was over because Khomeini had managed to crush his opposition with violence, rather than diplomacy, so how does this make him better than the previous Shah? In reality this is not the case. Although the revolution was finally over, who's to say that anything actually improved for the people living in Iran?