The timeframe for Europe is today, how can Europe (France, Germany, Italy) move forward and abandon their "state capitalism" left over from the end of WW2 for a schumpeterian model,
à la carte to prevent the social models from being shattered. Europe holds many advantages over the rest of the world, yet the rest of the world advances leaving Europe behind, Europe once owned the world, now the world is divided between the USA and China, Europe must rise again as a 3rd dominant force, that won't happen without drastic changes, if that means Germany needs a suicidal politician to climb to power and push through his reforms, burning himself and maybe even his party forever, so be it. And that's why Europe can learn from the rest of the world.
Argentina still exists because a few bold presidents decided to burn themselves to save the country, today the country is in terrible hands, the president does whatever suits him on each particular day, I guess when he wakes up with his left foot first, he chooses to speak against "neoliberalism", when he wakes up with his right foot first, he chooses a Nazi stance and speaks against globalization and how Argentina should shut its borders. This man is temporary, but the country was saved from extinction and social chaos by the kamikaze politicians who managed to do what needed to be done, at the time it was uncertain, would it be worth it? Would it work? Angela Merkel doesn't have the strength to do anything similar, so here we go again spend a few more years with palliative bluffs.
We fail to reach an understanding on the majority/minority deal, the point is: Without a minority, there is no Democracy, without someone to contest instead of consent, there is no Democracy, if everybody agrees on everything, there is no Democracy. I'm scared when I agree with SubSim members, I expect to disagree whole-heartedly from almost everybody, and if I agree with someone, I have to stop and check myself again, because I tend to think I'm probably wrong.
So, even if one majority elected "democratic" government is not democratic at all, but oligarchic, without a minority complaining and denouncing it there is not even a mask of Democracy, so it is the minority that keeps alive an oligarchy indeed, by action (being active, giving the impression there is opposition or freedom) or inaction (by joining in and being the oligarchy itself).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Democracy only would function with small communities, and if people made their votes basing on reason and logic, knowledge and awareness of what the previously elected people have acchieved, or failed to acchieve
|
I agree with what follows below these lines, to some extent, what I contest is this quote, with a small community anything works, I don't think that's fair, you have hippie anarchich or communist camps, you have kibutz, and even democracy afterall. But if we are to have a larger scale Democracy, we have to make concessions indeed, most people are not ready, informed or prepared to vote on technical or some juridical subjects, though examples would be highly regional, such as the Death Penalty, because if people are concerned and angry because of crime and they are seduced with a quick "solution", they might aswell vote for it due to what we already agreed upon, short-term magical solutions are much more appealing than long-term plans that usually require "sacrifices" or hard work.
So, a death penalty, for instance, is probably unconstitutional or illegal in most nations today, those who have it are, often, left-overs from the past decades. So the anual budget, the death penalty, immigration policies, might be better left for representative Democracy, because if you ask directly, you can get a result that represents the instant unthought desire, without further consideration into the future, or forgetting the past. These examples are only examples, and should differ significantly from nation to nation.
I don't remember attacking you on the American election, but indeed you are correct, it was split in half, a majority is still a majority, it's up to the winner to be the president of everybody or ignore half the nation. There are different electoral procedures around the globe and there isn't really one single "best" model, the American model worked for centuries, it's not the latest fellow who's going to ruin it.
I can't open the link you offer, but I believe you are speaking about the European constitution, thank you, we can go back to Castro now, did you knew some European figures travelled to South America to discuss the European constitution with people who believe they can build a socialist utopy in the 21st century? Inspired by the Cuban example, led from the backstage by Castro himself.
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/
I can't find the transcripts, I spent hours translating Spanish, printed it and deleted that abomination from my hard-drive, but I remember watching the live transmission from one of the seminars and in the end some French man said he was very happy with the collaboration of the organizations to help improve the constitution, I don't remember what they added after this meeting, but they did added something and it's there in the ratified constitution, aided by the most radical self-entitled socialist organizations from South America, a gift from the new world, I suppose.
But I agree with you, I believe a constitution must be voted, if it takes 6 months for the people to learn what they're dealing with and discuss it, so be it.