Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Democracy, The Unacceptable Face?
I've been a lifelong believer in the democratic process. I have just finished a book on the history of Iran/Persia and it becomes clear that throughout that country's extraordinary history going from Zoroaster to the Ayatollahs of today, - and this is true for the whole of the middle eastern world I believe, there has always been a fear of confusion and chaos of government, and this is why they have always wished for strong, and hopefully 'good' leadership; Kings, Shahs and religious leaders etc. and this attitude still holds good today.
When looking at the today's news, Corbyn and Sturgeon in Brussels, ceaseless attacks against President Trump etc. they must see what appears to be little else but confusion, chaos and self-destruction and when I look at Britain tearing itself apart and also the US, I can see it myself.
I have no wish to live under a dictatorship but I can see that Democracy as I have known it seems to be changing for the worse, this could be due to the easy dissemination of real and false news perhaps or maybe other reasons. Do you agree and can you see how we are seen from outside?
When looking at the today's news, Corbyn and Sturgeon in Brussels, ceaseless attacks against President Trump etc. they must see what appears to be little else but confusion, chaos and self-destruction and when I look at Britain tearing itself apart and also the US, I can see it myself.
I have no wish to live under a dictatorship but I can see that Democracy as I have known it seems to be changing for the worse, this could be due to the easy dissemination of real and false news perhaps or maybe other reasons. Do you agree and can you see how we are seen from outside?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I tend to think our westernised democracy is perhaps a little too close nfrontational at times.
We have a democratic right to disagree and because of that it has morphed into I have a democratic right to demand, through Sudo democracy to overthrow the original democratic result because it isn't what I wanted. We have seen it with Brexit and although with politics there are always those opposed to the government of the time. In this case it has polarised positions more than I have ever seen.
It's people that are not content with democracy. Not that democracy doesn't work.
We have a democratic right to disagree and because of that it has morphed into I have a democratic right to demand, through Sudo democracy to overthrow the original democratic result because it isn't what I wanted. We have seen it with Brexit and although with politics there are always those opposed to the government of the time. In this case it has polarised positions more than I have ever seen.
It's people that are not content with democracy. Not that democracy doesn't work.
I think democracies are much more stable than they look - and autocracies are often much more fragile than they seem to be, largely because democracies handle transition of power much much better than autocracies do (it is only a matter of time before this problem will cause an autocracy to tear itself apart, even the ones which appear the most outwardly stable).
The best argument for democracy is that they tend to have far less abuse of power (though obviously not none). They aren't necessarily governed better, and they tend to produce far more convoluted and pointless laws, but it is much harder to abuse and exploit citizens in a functioning democracy than it is in either an autocracy-by-design or a failed democracy (which is what most developed autocracies are these days).
The best argument for democracy is that they tend to have far less abuse of power (though obviously not none). They aren't necessarily governed better, and they tend to produce far more convoluted and pointless laws, but it is much harder to abuse and exploit citizens in a functioning democracy than it is in either an autocracy-by-design or a failed democracy (which is what most developed autocracies are these days).
Not sure there is any confusion.
We have voted to leave the EU and that is something that has not been attempted before. So the process seems strange not chaotic.
The US have elected an amateur politician. He has not had any experience of public office before. The usual career path is, Mayor, Senator, State Governor. Trump has been a businessman, and a TV personality. He does not know the rules, and shows no inclination to learn them. The result is shambolic and amateur rather than chaos.
Strong Government does not mean we need a dictatorship. In the UK and US we have weak leaders mainly because the electorate is almost evenly divided. May is in charge of a Government without a majority, and Trump won the election even though he got 2 million less votes. It is us the electorate that has created this situation. No doubt we will tire of it and we will react against it at the next elections.
We have voted to leave the EU and that is something that has not been attempted before. So the process seems strange not chaotic.
The US have elected an amateur politician. He has not had any experience of public office before. The usual career path is, Mayor, Senator, State Governor. Trump has been a businessman, and a TV personality. He does not know the rules, and shows no inclination to learn them. The result is shambolic and amateur rather than chaos.
Strong Government does not mean we need a dictatorship. In the UK and US we have weak leaders mainly because the electorate is almost evenly divided. May is in charge of a Government without a majority, and Trump won the election even though he got 2 million less votes. It is us the electorate that has created this situation. No doubt we will tire of it and we will react against it at the next elections.
Gromit; I see your point, but can we avoid discussing the personalities of Trump or May please. What I'm suggesting is that if you were to substitute those two for say Clinton and Corbyn (God forbid) you would only have a similar situation and though I mention the UK and the US there seems to be such unprecedented bitter divisions all around; France, Italy and even Germany - which is so 'democratic' it is stultified.
I wish the democratically elected government just had more power for it's term of office to get on and run the country which is what they were elected to do, without these daily fights on every issue. I don't think a government should be beyond criticism, but I would like something which might be called a 'democratic dictatorship' in other words, strong fairly incontestable leadership.
Most of these party political issues need to be dealt with at general election level, not as power motivated contests which are creating instability at home and making, particularly Britain, look absurd to observers outside.
I wish the democratically elected government just had more power for it's term of office to get on and run the country which is what they were elected to do, without these daily fights on every issue. I don't think a government should be beyond criticism, but I would like something which might be called a 'democratic dictatorship' in other words, strong fairly incontestable leadership.
Most of these party political issues need to be dealt with at general election level, not as power motivated contests which are creating instability at home and making, particularly Britain, look absurd to observers outside.
//I would like something which might be called a 'democratic dictatorship' in other words, strong fairly incontestable leadership. //
I know what you mean but being fair, the UK has a system which delivers pretty much as close to that as you can get. If a PM commands a majority here, they can pass pretty much any law they want with remarkably few constitutional constraints in comparison to other countries. Likewise democratic presidencies - while in theory granting special power to the executive - in practice are obliged to function under much more severe constitutional constraints. The British PM has far more power to act in the UK's political system than the US president does in theirs. And I would wager moreso even than the French president too but I know less about that system.
Like Gromit says, the situations which are causing crises in the UK/US are arising out of real social divisions. You couldn't really have a democratic system that wasn't severely affected by those. But I also think those democracies are more stable than they look from the outside. It's looking very likely that American democracy will survive the Trump presidency (and keep all of its serious flaws, too). And like I said on another thread, I think the biggest threat to functioning democracy in British Isles would be a major reversal on Brexit, which is very unlikely.
I know what you mean but being fair, the UK has a system which delivers pretty much as close to that as you can get. If a PM commands a majority here, they can pass pretty much any law they want with remarkably few constitutional constraints in comparison to other countries. Likewise democratic presidencies - while in theory granting special power to the executive - in practice are obliged to function under much more severe constitutional constraints. The British PM has far more power to act in the UK's political system than the US president does in theirs. And I would wager moreso even than the French president too but I know less about that system.
Like Gromit says, the situations which are causing crises in the UK/US are arising out of real social divisions. You couldn't really have a democratic system that wasn't severely affected by those. But I also think those democracies are more stable than they look from the outside. It's looking very likely that American democracy will survive the Trump presidency (and keep all of its serious flaws, too). And like I said on another thread, I think the biggest threat to functioning democracy in British Isles would be a major reversal on Brexit, which is very unlikely.
// even Germany - which is so 'democratic' it is stultified. //
Germany, like many other countries has a PR vote not a FPTP system. These almost guarantee that a coalition of parties to take Government. The Government that results tends to more fairly reresent the more of the country than an either/or choice delivers. The result is stability, quite the opposite to chaos.
Iran is not a dictatorship. Though the Supreme leader has never been challenged, there is a committee to oversee him and has the power to remove him if need be. The rest of the system is based on a free democratic vote. The Parliament and the President are both contested openly and are very representative of the public opinion.
Germany, like many other countries has a PR vote not a FPTP system. These almost guarantee that a coalition of parties to take Government. The Government that results tends to more fairly reresent the more of the country than an either/or choice delivers. The result is stability, quite the opposite to chaos.
Iran is not a dictatorship. Though the Supreme leader has never been challenged, there is a committee to oversee him and has the power to remove him if need be. The rest of the system is based on a free democratic vote. The Parliament and the President are both contested openly and are very representative of the public opinion.
Gromit; that is a good assessment, but I didn't say that the government of Germany was chaotic, I said it was too democratic making it impossible to make any changes, though ironically the system didn't check Chancellor Merkel's disastrous unilateral decision to allow an unlimited flow of migrants into the country.
Regarding Iran //the Supreme leader has never been challenged//
well they did have a revolution in 1979 overthrowing the Shah!
however it was only to replace one type of autocratic leader with another, which demonstrates my point that it isn't really democracy which they and other middle eastern countries aspire to; a mistake made by Bush and Blair and still being made by Western leaders.
Regarding Iran //the Supreme leader has never been challenged//
well they did have a revolution in 1979 overthrowing the Shah!
however it was only to replace one type of autocratic leader with another, which demonstrates my point that it isn't really democracy which they and other middle eastern countries aspire to; a mistake made by Bush and Blair and still being made by Western leaders.
The Supreme Leader can be autocratic to a point. But there is a mechanism to reign in his power and remove him, if he is not acting in the interests of the country.
The Assembly of Experts, has never had to act, but the do have the power to do so, and therefore the Supreme Leader knows not to overstep the mark.
https:/
The Assembly of Experts, has never had to act, but the do have the power to do so, and therefore the Supreme Leader knows not to overstep the mark.
https:/
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News8 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.