When we talk about foreign governments and how they work, Winston Churchill's famous quote comes to mind. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time. Churchill was obviously referring to World War II and the other types of government they fought against and which were fought and won by the Allied forces two years before. He was right, the Allies had won, democracy had prevailed and the world lived in peace under the world's first democratic regime for years to come. Any country wishing to prevail from 1945 would have to model itself on the forms of government approved by the Allies; if they did that, then prosperity would be guaranteed…right? Actually, no, that wouldn't be the case. Take a look at Nigeria, which modeled its own system of government after that of the United States (Nigeria's). Taking a closer look at the Nigerian government 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 the two 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 judiciary. In both cases, executive power is in the hands of the president elected following democratic elections. Both have a bicameral legislative system; a House of Representatives and a Senate. Finally, both countries also have a Supreme Court which is considered the highest law in the country (that of Nigeria). However, if one takes a closer look at the Nigerian government, one will find that Nigeria has very obvious differences from the United States of America. Nigeria, just like the United States, is in the middle of paper.... ..closer look, not much. The revolution ended because the oppressive Shah who censored the people had finally left the country, but he was quickly 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, but 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 got for the revolution. The revolution ended because Khomeini was able to crush his opposition with violence rather than diplomacy, so how does that make him better than the previous Shah? This is really not the case. Even though the revolution was finally over, who is to say that things actually got better for the people of Iran ??