Contributions to politics.

[Phrixos]

I have been reading the constitution of Athens and translated manuscripts supposedly by Aristotle and I am starting to find that politics of old age was intent on implementing order through reason. In my opinion that is contrary to modern politics. Times are a changing and there is a lot more to consider but in a broad perspective I'm not sure if the current political methods are aiding us or hindering us in progression of civilized society.

I feel that political issues were determined more on the merit of the issue back then, where as today, I find that the most concentrated point of political parties are their leaders personal affairs, rather than their proposed methods and protocols they wish to implement.

An example of this is the American presidential race, where Senator Clinton and Senator Obama whom seem intent on discrediting each other rather than elaborating and making awareness for their agenda.

Are we even that politically aware, really?

Is Democracy generating more problems than solutions?

Are we doing the wrong thing by limiting terms of our leaders in regards to giving them a time limit to identify and resolve problems? I mean, a 4 year terms is not necessarily enough time to reverse a pending recession is it?

I don't know, I guess I feel that politics in ancient times was much more to the point, on the issue and would be implemented based on the credibility of the proposition, not the credibility of the person.

I guess this is a trivial issue, I just want to hear opinions. especially from someone who believes modern politics is hitting the nail on the head.

[Aronnax]

Democracy is effectively a political pressure valve, it exists to allow the government to be replaced without an armed revolution. It's strength isn't that it provides a powerful, effective government. The strength of Democracy is it allows citizens enough power to protect themselves from their Government and live their own lives.

[Phrixos]

Good point. Though what is the problem with armed revolution???

As far as I'm concerned it worked under the circumstances for Cuba. Fidel Castro has run the country extremely well under huge pressure.

The problem with Democracy is that we keep electing people with very little experience in running a country and by the time they have gotten the experience to effectively run a country, the term is over. So much money in abolishing previous parties implementations if they are opted out.

For instance: Australian Work place Agreements.

The Howard government invested considerable time and money into this, only for it to be abolished in the new government costing taxpayers and businesses huge money.

[Aronnax]

The problem with armed revolution is it disrupts a nation for long periods of time, causing a large loss of life and capital as well as destroying a large portion of the infrastructure. The more sophisticated the country is the more catastrophic an armed revolution is.

Cuba has been operating in survival mode for the past 50 years. Castro has done a good job with what he's been handed but his nation is hardly thriving and it's not just because of the trade embargo.

[Phrixos]

A lot of the problems with Cuba stem from the trade embargo.

With democracy, the general populace is subject to censorship that doesn't actually allow us to make an informed conclusion on whether or not the system is, as a whole; beneficial.

If for instance this happened in democracy.

*Majority Rule*
At the current birthrate of Lebanese muslims, we could be looking at a much different majority in years to come. And sharia law.

= Armed Revolution.

So prevention of this is not feasible under current constitutional law.

But the majority can alter the constitution.

= fundamental flaw.

note: I have nothing personally against Muslims. Just Sharia law because I am a firm believer that state and religion should always be separated.

[Homini Lupus]

I won't give any easy solution but I'd like to share some toughts.
1) On ancient democracies: they were generally based on two pillars wich is to say small number and slavery. They gave us a lot of ideas wich we elaborated further and were more advanced than other systems but they were far from perfect.
2) On armed revolution: democracy is somewhat a fake armed revolution where the violence is kept at bay; the idea is that if my group is larger I would win the civil war. But if I use ballots instead of bullet I can avoid damaging our country.
Well, at least this works for most cases. I can understand that in an extreme situation an armed revolution may be the answer; also in some systems (like the Italian one) you can't legally change some principles of the constitution (like the repubblican form) and you would need to overthrow the state to chenge them; this should prevent a new dictatorship (or sharia or whatever crap of that kind) to become the rule in legal ways.

This said, I don't love democracy or think it as absolute but it's the best set of constitutional rules i've seen so far. I think the real problem of modern political world is society and you can't change society with a law. When I was a boy I dreamt of different possibilities but none worked so far; by example communism is perfect on paper but in Russia and CEE it lead to disasters, and not just under Stalin's rule (by example Kruscev's agricultural policy damaged a lot Russia's and Ukraine's land). Fascism looked a bit more balanced with their corporative ideas instead of the rule of one social class but turned out as the rule of the strongest.
This is why I came to the conclusion that democracy is the best system for now. Authoritative systems sometimes work really good at first but have always fallen to corruption and lack of new ideas.

[Aronnax]

A lot of the problems with Cuba stem from the trade embargo.

A lot of the problems also stem from the loss of capital and educated citizens that fled during the revolution. Dictatorial Socialism also impedes growth, but that's a discussion for another thread.

A revolution is a political reset button, when it happens you throw the baby out with the bath water. The social elite frequently flee, taking their expertise and capital with them. Depending on how many flee it can take decades to rebuild the knowledge base and reaccumulate savings.


With democracy, the general populace is subject to censorship that doesn't actually allow us to make an informed conclusion on whether or not the system is, as a whole; beneficial.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are staples of modern democracy, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Most of the censorship, at least in the US, is self imposed. The citizens get crappy news only if they refuse to go find out the facts for themselves.


If for instance this happened in democracy.

*Majority Rule*
At the current birthrate of Lebanese muslims, we could be looking at a much different majority in years to come. And sharia law.

= Armed Revolution.

So prevention of this is not feasible under current constitutional law.

But the majority can alter the constitution.

= fundamental flaw.

note: I have nothing personally against Muslims. Just Sharia law because I am a firm believer that state and religion should always be separated.

I don't see how any other system would change that. If there's a majority who wants to implement Sharia law they could use bullets to change government if the ballot option wasn't available.


Out of curiosity are you writing from Lebanon?

Edit~ One of the advantages of Democracy is it tends to have a moderating effect on society. When change can be enacted in a nonviolent manner citizens tend to be more tolerant of other belief systems. When the "others" aren't as threatening it's easier to leave them to their own devices.

[1OFMANY]

I have found that only people raised under the protective shield of a democratic and free government have the ignorance to doubt them.

[thod]

I have found that only people raised under the protective shield of a democratic and free government have the ignorance to doubt them.

That it works does not imply that is optimal. Take the US elections, the Clinton's report 100m in earnings. She is running for the more left leaning party, the party of common man, the poor and the downtrodden. Yet she is not one of them.

Everyone wants someone like themselves in office. I you had a clone of you in office, you could be sure he would decide like you, make decisions to benefit yourself, legislate on your issues etc.

The US is a plutocracy, government by the rich for the rich. Only the rich ever get elected, only they seem to have the funds. It could be corrected. It the state gave them 50m to spend and they were not allowed to use personal wealth you would get a an even contest based on merit. The sums involved are tiny compared to what is spent on better governance programs elsewhere. It is not going to happen because the ones that can change it are happy.

The same is true with the two party system. You could have proportional representation. This would allow you select from a number of policies. But they gain from it so keep it two party. You get very similar policies and so very little real choice. Most of them couldn't care less about the voters. They are running for office to pursue their own agenda and the voters are just a means. They are not representing at all, they will say whatever is needed to get to do what they want. Once in office, if the voters dint like it then tough.

There is no political debate, those few that would listen and be able to understand it are too few to matter. What matters is paying for commercial sound bites, a nice haircut and not frightening anyone. Thus those economists that understand the effects of the candidates policy are swamped by ignorant voters that do not. Policies do not matter at all, elections are Hollywood popularity polls about who is the brightest star this year. In no way does it ensure the best man gets the job or even that a good man gets the job. After all they voted Bush in backed by his neocons and oil buddies.

The only good thing about democracy is you get to throw them out. It is this constant churning that allows for the next guy to correct the mistakes of his predecessor that make it work. The old guy would have continued on with failed policy forever, Iraq anyone?

[Latte]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Myeah...

Todays democracy basically gives people a free choice, whilst ironically, what they choose is often based on things that doesn't really affect anyones lives if the person is in power, and which way they swing on things that matter that their choices may be influenced by is highly affected by the "wrapping" of the content they are reviewing (how it is presented, that is).

Basically, people are manipulated through the power of clever wording on the issues that matter, and care about bullshit issues as well.

This creates, as said above, a more... manageable and docile population.
The opportunity to choose what's bad for themselves disguised as what's good for themselves with only themselves to blame afterwards (quote time) keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

Reminds me of another quote. "You can have the model T in any color, so long as it's black."