There are ways we could try to improve. Clearly we have almost no effective 4th Estate and much politics is parochial to within a few hundred yards of where the parliament buildings are - yet as soon as one starts one only has to think of the European Parliament and the Strassborg gravy-train every month! I'd take a guess that the kind of glad-handing and so on it takes to get on in a party situation (and the possible influence of vested interests very early on) actually exclude the honest.
On 1 Mar, 14:34, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > "On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available at > the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting > personally involved - yeeuuch!" > > My sentiments exactly. Not to mention the cesspool the press will > drag your family through. I suppose if you're already rich and famous > you're used to it but no one as anonymous as you and me would be > stupid enough to do it. It's just insane. > > Maybe it's time to read Federalist No. 10 again. Revisit what James > Madison wanted for the young republic. It's amazing how much things > stay the same. The issues Hamilton and Jefferson struggled with are > alive and well in today's politics as well. Fascinating. > > dj > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:46 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Parties - one of the most important components of modern > > representative democracies, and one of the most difficult. Their role > > has developed historically over centuries to the stage where many more > > modern constitutions actually accord them a formal role. Yet there is > > something basically undemocratic about them. The basic idea behind > > representative democracies is that citizens elect a representative, or > > representatives to the legislative assemply to represent them. > > Ultimately, the representative is responsible to his/her constituents > > and must return to them regularly to have his/her madate renewed. End > > results of this tendency include pork-barrel politics, sectionalism, > > corruption and chaos. > > > In the original British and US systems, elected representatives made > > common cause with others of similar views within the assemblies and > > the roots of parliamentary parties were born - Tories and Whigs > > (although the tendency is much older, going back to medieval Italian > > Guelphs and Ghibbelines or republican Roman boni and viri novi - > > probably a deep-seated geneto-cultural grouping tendency). Today, > > parties have - in many cases - a stranglehold on politics; many > > European countries work with a "list" electoral system, which allows > > for a proportion of representatives being elected on the basis of > > party lists. There are positive aspects to this - proportional > > representation is guaranteed (unlike in the British [or US] system > > where, given three parties a party which obtained an [admittedly > > unlikely] even geographical constituency spread of 34% of the vote > > could obtain 100% of assembly seats) and legislators are protected > > from narrow constituency pressures to concentrate on their real job - > > legislating. Such systems also offer stabilising mechanisms, such as > > minimal levels of votes necessary for party representation so as to > > avoid the chaos caused by profligate party splintering, which can also > > result in minor parties exerting undue influence in the negotiation of > > coalitions (Israel is a cautionary example here - in Germany, on the > > other hand, a party has to have 5% of the vote before it gets > > representation in parliament). > > > Of course, the down side is that elected representatives become mere > > ciphers, cloned nonentities, whose only function is to vote according > > to party policy. Literally, toeing the party line. Many western party > > systems (and there is no significant difference across the political > > spectrum) allow their parliamentary representatives less freedom of > > conscience than Stalin's CPSU. You can buck the party whip all right, > > but then, you'd better start looking for a new job after the next > > election. And then the questions arise as to where the control within > > the parties really lies, who is responsible for the formulation of > > party policy, and whether these processes have anything to do with > > democracy. > > > I won't even go into one-party systems here - although they are not > > always as un- or anti-democratic as one might think. > > > As Neil says, it takes more than just a few bleats about transparency. > > We have become cynical and resigned about politics and increasingly > > disengaged in the representative democracies. Those who really profit > > from this process are those interested in manipulating power for their > > own ends. > > > On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available at > > the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting > > personally involved - yeeuuch! > > > Francis > > > On 1 Mrz., 08:30, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Getting to the meat is key. Access to justice is still poor in the > >> West and I suspect lawyers don't help this because of the money > >> system. We need to be able to say boo to various gooses and I suspect > >> we need a kind of constitutional reform pretty much not discussed. > >> This isn't proportional representation or whatever, but about > >> recognising how rotten power becomes. That senile old bastard Mugabe > >> is a current classic - we need to be able to call him this, not 'Mr. > >> President'. I remember being inspired by his intellect and rhetoric > >> as a young man. New Labour in the UK look nearly as bad - maybe all > >> that stops them giving us starvation and cholera is that we could rise > >> up? Party politics, whether of the one-party state or multi-party is > >> a major problem, not a cure. We have been taken into an unjust war > >> and killed thousands in a manner as evil as anything Mugabe has done, > >> and could not stop this by street protest or voting. I see a > >> corruption of reason everywhere and am pretty damned sure I'm not > >> paranoid. I believe we could find structural ways to prevent the > >> corruption, but we need more than a few bleats about transparency. > > >> On 28 Feb, 14:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess one could say the same > >> > about the worst of any group and perhaps the woman might be a bit > >> > uniformed in that light. She seems to have partitioned a single > >> > group. The chosen people concept surely would not bring about much > >> > more that condemnation of the unchosen. I would welcome a similar > >> > tirade against western ideologies as a whole. There have been some > >> > strides in identifying the inconsistencies as of late but I don't > >> > think it delves into the meat. Avoidance of exposure in political > >> > circles may keep a quietus on such matters for quite some time. At > >> > least we have the freedoms to carry out our tirades and diatribes > >> > against anyone, with slight exceptions alluding to illegal > >> > incitements. Wafa at least opens the door for this examination style > >> > of Muslim terrorist tactic in a comparative sense. There are always > >> > extremist views and overly zealous movements that initiate radical > >> > communication methods. It actually happens on the local level in the > >> > form of community outbursts stemming from disproportionate > >> > distribution of resource. The Watts riots of 1965 Los Angeles may be > >> > an example of such extremist tactic as it was a result of too many > >> > requests falling on too many deaf ears. In the end I don't think > >> > there was much justification or accomplishment in the destruction, > >> > equally so with terrorist bombings. Making the right argument > >> > definitely may effect the end result if the argument overcomes > >> > cultural barriers. There is much to be debated. > > >> > On Feb 28, 5:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > We have our own fundamentalists of course. One could say much the > >> > > same as Wafa Sultan against the worst of the Xtians and Jews. Chosen > >> > > people mentalities are always bad. What might such a sensible tirade > >> > > against Western foreign policy look like? In it all, how do we put > >> > > forward reason without ditching the passion in which we hold it? Can > >> > > anyone imagine our own politicians facing the concerns most of us in > >> > > here share? Or even anything like this Al-jazeera debate? > >> > > Thinking small, we have a massive problem in the West with an > >> > > underclass we have created. Our 'answers' have been to create ghetto > >> > > situations and hapless rhetoric that doesn't suit or even identify the > >> > > real problems. If our bwankers have been little more than self- > >> > > satisfied thieves running Ponzi schemes, our local authorities have > >> > > also been run by people on fat salaries living away from the problems > >> > > and making sure their own cozy lives are kept well away. We can't > >> > > even get a review of how we were plunged into wars that make no sense > >> > > - it may even be that we have not fought the right one. What have we > >> > > done about our own medieval - the Undead? > >> > > My general sense is that we can't make the right arguments. Racism > >> > > has often seemed a good example. It's disgusting, yet partly genetic > >> > > and common to us all. To have made this into a white man's burden and > >> > > subject to political correctness has been to bury most of the > >> > > problem. Our own general system has been shown to be disgustingly > >> > > corrupt and even now we seem incapable of fixing it on the basis of > >> > > discovering what was good in it and how we might move away from the > >> > > inducements of massive (libidinal) riches as reward - perhaps our own > >> > > virginal paradise? > > >> > > On 28 Feb, 05:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > One just as to say the woman is right. Towards the end she is given > >> > > > a > >> > > > massively patronising look by some hatted votary, which says it all. > >> > > > I know there is more to the story in history, but she is right in the > >> > > > passion. > > >> > > > On 28 Feb, 03:58, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > Kudos, she says pretty much what I would say to the Arabs, > >> > > > > Taliban, Al > >> > > > > Quaida, the Pakistani ISI, the Chinese Communist Party and all > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > extremists who > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
