PDA

View Full Version : What is Democracy?



John Little
17-Apr-13, 10:37
In the UK particularly.

What is it?

What should it be?

Or could it be?

How do we vote? How can we register public opinion?

What is the purpose of government in a democratic society?

How do we balance the rights/needs of individuals against the state?

Do we need a written constitution?

Is representative government truly 'representative' or are our MPs just representing themselves?

Are Parties anti-democratic?

Should the UK, assuming its survival, be a proper Federal State with checks and balances between the states and central government?

Is the First Past the Post system justifiable?

Just a few questions.

Flynn
17-Apr-13, 10:51
I quite like the Icelandic model: http://www.opendemocracy.net/thorvaldur-gylfason/iceland-direct-democracy-in-action

John Little
17-Apr-13, 11:32
Well that's not bad at all - but their population is a bit smaller than ours.

Abolition of parties might help... The Highlands seem to be showing the way somewhat in their preference for Independents.

Phill
17-Apr-13, 12:00
What is it? Corrupt.

What should it be? Fair & honest.

How do we vote? How can we register public opinion? By collectively and in unison break the Party political system, Sounds like an oxymoron I know. *1

What is the purpose of government in a democratic society? To deliver the will of the people, to service state needs, and manage the country in its obligations.

How do we balance the rights/needs of individuals against the state? Democratically obviously! (catch 22, see what I did there) *2

Is representative government truly 'representative' or are our MPs just representing themselves? Selves and their paymasters.

Are Parties anti-democratic? Yes. *1

Should the UK, assuming its survival, be a proper Federal State with checks and balances between the states and central government? Maybe. Something has to change.



*1 Whilst many people berate the Liberals for their alliance with the Tory's how much thought has been given to what a majority Tory government would have got away with? (I realise that the votes were stacked against the tories but clearly not enough labour support either)
Is an alliance a bad thing? I think not because it gives the opportunity to centre policy. If more people stopped with their historic / family allegiances to Parties and looked at what was on offer from their candidates, and thought seriously as to whether they are serving them or towing a Party line I would say many more independents and smaller parties would flourish.
The electorate swing between the two because we have started to give up on democracy, we know in the back of our minds we are just trying to get the lesser of evils.
If there are fewer Labour & Tory MP's but more Liberals, Greens, Independents, UKIP and dare I say Trebuchet Party MP's :D It would become very difficult to push through things like the bedroom tax. The country would not grind to a halt as it clearly hasn't under this coalition, there may be more debate, some policies may take longer to get through and that is no bad thing.
Broadly speaking when we look back at recent history we are lurching from boom to bust, spend to cuts but no overall benefit to the UK & society. Things need to be more balanced, longterm and sustainable.
This cannot be achieved when bouncing between two parties that are now effectively the same but different. With a Party system utilising whips we have effectively a dictatorship. Remove that element with a broader range of representatives and there is a chance that the masses will start to be heard and there may be true democracy.

*2 If the state is truly democratic then the rights & needs should become broadly balanced. It is a catch 22 but it can be broken.

ducati
17-Apr-13, 12:14
What is democracy? None of my business, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

Phill
17-Apr-13, 12:24
What is democracy? None of my business, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.Yeah, get back in yer box.

John Little
17-Apr-13, 14:24
The trouble with our form of Democracy, or so it seems to me, is that we actually elect a party which is then in a position of being able to 'dictate'. That is to say that they can have everything the way they want it to be, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it, even if the party in power represents a minority of opinion. Until the next election.

Phill
17-Apr-13, 14:37
The trouble with our form of Democracy, or so it seems to me, is that we actually elect a party which is then in a position of being able to 'dictate'. That is to say that they can have everything the way they want it to be, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it, even if the party in power represents a minority of opinion. Until the next election.
That's pretty much as I see it.

But why elect a Party??

Why not elect a representative that fits best your convictions and is interested in the constituents of their locale as opposed to a Party filled position, dictated by central Party (London based) officers and frequently by people outside of the constituency?

Drifting slightly, Nigel Farage here on one of his ranties but he hits a point about the accountability of those in office:
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_649_Farage-You-are-common-criminals.html

John Little
17-Apr-13, 15:46
Well at least he tells it how he sees it. You can get a straight answer from him which is rare in politics, but I would not vote for him.

What he does not grasp is why the Cyprus thing was done and it's simples. When the survival of your economy is at stake, money is a national resource just like oil, coal or steel. To keep afloat, you nationalise it - which is what was done.

But again, the fundamental problem is not Capitalism but how it is structured - it is not structured to benefit the many but the few. The problem is the grossly uneven distribution of wealth - and ultimately that is in no-one's interest. Any society needs differentials, incentives, profits etc but when the wealth gets too concentrated then societies fall. And countries fall apart.

rob murray
17-Apr-13, 16:34
The answer is an illusion : 7 posts in a row now...amazing what boredom can do a sane man eh !

John Little
17-Apr-13, 17:05
And now it's Npower.

Have not paid a penny in Corporation Tax for 3 years it seems.

Is Democracy a one way street then? Something we pay for but THEY don't ?

Phill
17-Apr-13, 22:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IE6Fvc4s_M

John Little
18-Apr-13, 08:04
There's a few lines in one of Bergman's films which also fits adversarial politics.

"There's a species of ape which resembles human beings".

"What of it?"

"Just that".

MerlinScot
18-Apr-13, 11:09
The trouble with our form of Democracy, or so it seems to me, is that we actually elect a party which is then in a position of being able to 'dictate'.

It is not 'our' form of Democracy, that's Democracy. There are different ways of electing parties worldwide but the final goal is always the same, you elect a party then it will be in a position of being able to 'dictate'.
My question for you would be... Isn't that what Democracy is about? Voters electing parties? Countries where you can't vote have usually a form of government called 'dictatorship'.

John Little
18-Apr-13, 12:39
I think parties are only one form of democracy.

But yes - In Democracy you get a vote, but why does that involve parties? It would be useful here to have some comments from anyone connected with Highland Council because that is not run by parties I believe?

Independents have control,do they not? How does that work in practice?

Oddquine
18-Apr-13, 16:42
I think parties are only one form of democracy.

But yes - In Democracy you get a vote, but why does that involve parties? It would be useful here to have some comments from anyone connected with Highland Council because that is not run by parties I believe?

Independents have control,do they not? How does that work in practice?

Currently Highland Council is run by a Coalition of SNP, Lib-Dems and Labour, not Independents, or it was the last time I heard.

Moray has an Independent/Conservative Ruling group. But the perception in Moray, and perhaps in Highland as well, is that generally Independent=Tory when it comes to Group Think and political actions.. In Moray this perception was prompted by, on the demise of Regional Councils, an influx of Independents standing for election locally, who had been proud Tories on Grampian Regional Council. (The Current administration does have an Independent who is a member of the Labour Party though)

I'd have to compare Highland Council and Moray Council Policies....particularly Budget Cuts, to come to a conclusion in favour of either type of administration....though I'd think there would be more compromise in Highland and more dictat in Moray, though I could be quite wrong there. I do know that most of Moray is up in arms re where the Budget Cuts are falling.

I seem to remember that the last Highland Independent/Lib-Dem/Labour Administration ended up with three Independent groups after disagreements..though I could be wrong there as well.

John Little
18-Apr-13, 16:57
So the "Tory" brand is unsaleable and Tories have to resort to being "independent" in order to be elected?
Interesting development. All parties are umbrellas are they not?

Without parties our reps would actually have to discuss stuff, take a position, be individually accountable and form groups on particular issues.

I must have a look to see if there are-any countries without parties. And if so, do they work?

crayola
18-Apr-13, 19:49
There is an Independents group on Highland Council that behaves like a party with party discipline and all that. Bill Fernie is I believe one of them. Then there are the independent Independents who are a ragbag of loners and ne'er-do-wells. Some of these are entertaining but useless. :(

John Little
18-Apr-13, 19:56
Encouraging Crayo!
It also appears that non partisan government is not unknown. I never realised until I read this that the Confederacy was non- partisan.
And the US was also initially without parties. Etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

crayola
18-Apr-13, 20:00
The US congress has a substantial non-partisan majority in favour of the public possession of assault rifles. Shall we emulate that?

John Little
18-Apr-13, 20:03
Now we need some thoughts on the legitimacy of lobby groups and PACs in a Democracy.

crayola
18-Apr-13, 20:12
What is PAC code for?

John Little
18-Apr-13, 20:15
Political Action Committees are a cunning device to get round spending limits on political issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

John Little
18-Apr-13, 23:10
Sometimes Democracy works but leaves a lump in the throat...

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=DW4DXOAXF8U&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDW4DXOAXF8U

Flynn
19-Apr-13, 08:17
The US congress has a substantial non-partisan majority in favour of the public possession of assault rifles. Shall we emulate that?

Actually they don't (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators). They are very partisan.

crayola
19-Apr-13, 10:37
I was being slightly facetious. Do you know the breakdown of the vote on party lines?

Flynn
19-Apr-13, 11:26
When over 60% of Britons think utilities and transport should be renationalised, but no political parties agree with that, you have to wonder at the existence of
'democracy' in the UK.

MerlinScot
19-Apr-13, 11:32
I think parties are only one form of democracy. But yes - In Democracy you get a vote, but why does that involve parties? Just my two cents but..when thousands of people gather and they have the same political ideas... Is that not a party? I don't think there are any countries in Europe with no parties at all. Although there are two countries that due to party disagreements are without a ruling government (Belgium and Italy...? ).The ones I found with no parties have dictators or monarchs ruling the country.

MerlinScot
19-Apr-13, 11:36
When over 60% of Britons think utilities and transport should be renationalised, but no political parties agree with that, you have to wonder at the existence of 'democracy' in the UK. I'm usually someone who's not interested in politics but in this case I could defend the politicians... Wouldn't that be too complicated to achieve? It sounds like the health reform in Usa, it goes against so many business interests that it seems impossible to have the bill passed.I feel that there is no democracy when in every situation people are ignored, freedom of speech included.

John Little
19-Apr-13, 11:44
Just my two cents but..when thousands of people gather and they have the same political ideas... Is that not a party? I don't think there are any countries in Europe with no parties at all. Although there are two countries that due to party disagreements are without a ruling government (Belgium and Italy...? ).The ones I found with no parties have dictators or monarchs ruling the country.

Not two cents worth - it's a good thought.

I can see where you are coming from but parties in the way that we have them set up with Whips and block manifestoes are devices for pushing through a particular agenda. That becomes a form of dictatorship because it actually prevents our elected representatives from thinking for themselves - they must toe the Party line all the time or else rebel. If they rebel then they are outside their party, away from its influence, its funding and its patronage.

Before formal parties existed people used to group more round individuals or causes- to some extent this situation still exists in the factions we se within the parties. Peelites in the early Conservative Party went against their Party's own line and brought in Free Trade. Earlier than that, Foxite Whigs were against the war with Napoleon.

I think I would prefer a system where our MPs were freer to rally round and vote on particular issues according to what we wanted or conscience dictated- instead of just being lobby fodder, blindly voting where they were told to go.

MerlinScot
19-Apr-13, 14:15
I think I would prefer a system where our MPs were freer to rally round and vote on particular issues according to what we wanted or conscience dictated- instead of just being lobby fodder, blindly voting where they were told to go.
I totally agree with you John. The main issue is... Would British elected MPs go against their party's lobby if their main concern is to protect their own private interests?
It seems that even the Labour Party, in theory started as a 'commoners' party (forgive me if I use unappropriate terms/words, I never talk about politics) and..look how its MPs are acting nowadays.
So, how can 'us people' revert this process and convince politicians that they need to listen to what the working classes speak about, thus following people's interests and not theirs?

John Little
19-Apr-13, 16:13
You have lit on the very question I have been asking myself recently. When I was young I used to think that our 'representatives' represented our wishes. Now I know different - they are 'representative' only in that they are like us - ordinary people who get elevated by votes to extraordinary positions.

I think that in the US the Senate vote on assault rifles this week showed how presentative they are...

But in this country our reps do not represent us but a party programme.

The answer? If all the major parties are too much to the right then it is probably time to move them back to the centre. I have been considering joining the Labour Party and making my voice heard - but of course even the Labour Party is representative of interest groups - the money which set it up was Trades Union cash and it always went for a form of Guild Socialism I did not like.

And should I join a party if I do not like parties?

Maybe the problem is Whips?

And perhaps Whips should be abolished, leaving parties as loose organisations of like-minded people who are freer than now.

orkneycadian
20-Apr-13, 11:11
If the UK population can vote for a Eurovision song / talentless entrant on a talent show / even less talented "contestant" in a building under surveillance 24/7 (delete as applicable) using their phone / mobile / IPad / Laptop (also delete as applicable) in the time it takes for some adverts to run on a Saturday nights televised "entertainment" schedule, then it cant be beyond the wit of man to implement the same technology to ask the public to vote on democratic matters.

"Tomorrow the House of Commons will vote on re-introduction of Capital Punishment - Do you think Capital Punishment should be re-introduced? Text "Let em hang!" or "Maybe the murderous bar-stewards are actually innocent, even though they have been caught on 27 independent CCTV systems, and were witnessed by 200 members of the public whist they killed the policeman" to 12345 depending on your opinion. Texts will cost £1.50 plus 1 standard network message. Texts received after 10pm may not count in the vote, but could still be charged. Always seek the bill payers permission."

macadamia
20-Apr-13, 11:41
I think you hit the nail on the head. If all decisions were left to a crowd of Joe Public, the death penalty would be reinstated, all immigrants would be sent "Back to where they came from" (including the generations born here!), all sex offenders would be publicly lynched without trial, banks would be abolished, parliamentary procedures steamrollered, and I hae me doubts that an ugly mob in its tens or hundreds of thousands is any better at making decisions than a handful of people who have the blessing of some brain cells and some sense of justice.

So however tainted what passes for, but isn't, democracy that we "enjoy" today, it is a damn sight better than a bunch of hotheads filled with hate seeking kerbside justice on "those people who don't agree wiv my mates"

Terms and conditions apply.

Phill
20-Apr-13, 12:22
If the UK population can vote for a Eurovision song / talentless entrant on a talent show / even less talented "contestant" in a building under surveillance 24/7 (delete as applicable) using their phone / mobile / IPad / Laptop ..............When you actually look at it, it turns out that the 'UK population' voting in these things are just a handful of 'Directioneer's', or an X Factor candidates mum calling a few thousand times. With the recent Maggie Ding Dong record it was only about 60,000 sales that put it to no 2. Hardly representative of the entire UK population.

There is quite a large 'silent' majority that know the value of £1.50 for a text V a walk to the polling station.

I think its widely ackowledged that one of the reasons behind low turnouts in elections is that many people don't see the difference between Labour & Conservative so don't bother voting.


than a handful of people who have the blessing of some brain cells and some sense of justice.Sadly these are not the expenses fiddling cretins currently residing in parliament voting through things like the bedroom tax.

John Little
20-Apr-13, 15:01
So it's actually not democracy? It's an elite running things cos they know best.

Phill
20-Apr-13, 15:09
So it's actually not democracy? It's an elite running things cos they know best and are bankrolled by old school chums protecting their own interets.Fixed it for ya!

crayola
20-Apr-13, 15:19
When over 60% of Britons think utilities and transport should be renationalised, but no political parties agree with that, you have to wonder at the existence of 'democracy' in the UK.There's a similar situation with the death penalty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx John Little is in favour of the state killing people. Are you?

John Little
20-Apr-13, 17:53
There's a similar situation with the death penalty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx John Little is in favour of the state killing people. Are you?.

Do we really have to go there again?

John Little, during a long career at the chalk face, had to deal with the murder of five of his Students. He also had a number of students who murdered people.

Therefore his reasons for thinking as he does are not based on ideology but a deep rooted feeling that if first degree murder carried the death penalty, then 5 lads, a policeman and two men who got stabbed to death might just be alive today.

John Little does not assume the position that being anti death penalty carries the high moral ground. It is not, by default, a strength in a liberal democracy to be unable to protect its members from being killed. John Little, in point of fact used to be against the death penalty, but when faced with people he knew being murdered finds it quite reasonable to hold his own opinion.

He does not expect others to believe as he does.

crayola
20-Apr-13, 21:38
We have to go there as long as you want to kill people by proxy. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It's the justice system of prehistoric peoples.

John Little
20-Apr-13, 21:58
Clearly your opinions are formed by your own experiences as mine are by my own experiences.

As my opinion is not based on ideology but on what I have been touched by, my opinion is my own.

We differ.

I do not proselytise: you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

John Little
21-Apr-13, 08:00
I think you hit the nail on the head. If all decisions were left to a crowd of Joe Public, the death penalty would be reinstated, all immigrants would be sent "Back to where they came from" (including the generations born here!), all sex offenders would be publicly lynched without trial, banks would be abolished, parliamentary procedures steamrollered, and I hae me doubts that an ugly mob in its tens or hundreds of thousands is any better at making decisions than a handful of people who have the blessing of some brain cells and some sense of justice.So however tainted what passes for, but isn't, democracy that we "enjoy" today, it is a damn sight better than a bunch of hotheads filled with hate seeking kerbside justice on "those people who don't agree wiv my mates"Terms and conditions apply.

Interesting take.

In terms of evidence only your first statement can be supported. As to the others, I hae my own doubts, unless a survey on the matter had a rather exclusive sample. Ugly mobs are not as common in our society as they once were in ruder times, though they sometimes do still occur.

I suspect that you refer to 'the bewildered herd' but in the context of a western democracy; and I also suspect that Phill is right in why people do not vote.

Same boss, old boss.

If what we call Democracy is just a mask, then why is it superior as a form of government to out and out dictatorship or of Monarchy?

If our vote is a meaningless exercise and more and more people see it that way, then our system will surely wither away?

macadamia
21-Apr-13, 09:42
Democracy is a better form of government because, by providing an explanation for its actions, it dilutes dissent.

Voting is a meaningless exercise only in that you are choosing, in most cases, the least worst person or people to represent your interests and/or beliefs. There are so many caveats invested in human nature that the chance of voting for a Supergov which will Cure All Ills is miniscule. But another part of human nature is that we tend to live in hope.

In the meantime, most human activity should be ordered as in the instructions given to actors "Just say the words in the right order, and don't bump into the furniture", or the dictum offered many years ago as the mark of an upright citizen - "don't fart in church, or frighten the horses"

MerlinScot
21-Apr-13, 10:23
If what we call Democracy is just a mask, then why is it superior as a form of government to out and out dictatorship or of Monarchy?


Because in a dictatorship you have no choice, included the fact that you are posting on this forum and nobody bothers you. I've lived in a country riddled with issues and nearly no democracy and no freedom of speech at all.

I can tell you that Britons should appreciate more what they have now, after two centuries of battles to get UK where it stands today.
I keep reading complaints about this and that and most of you ignore how 'lucky' you are. I'm not syndacating personal situations here (of course there are people better off than others) but many of you can afford to go food shopping, pay a rent and live a 'normal life'. I've seen few Britons (or Scots) to queue for bread, to count the money at home because it is already over midmonth.
Try to live in a place where pensioners suicide or unemployed people rob a bank because they have nothing to eat and they're due months in arrears in rent (I've been a hostage in such a robbery so it happens, yes), in many countries in Europe social welfare doesn't even exist, as well as freedom of speech (you can't go on tv or blog about something controversial, you get arrested).

John Little, the issue isn't about 'feeling' that your vote is wasted, it isn't. The issue is to convince any of the MPs that once they're elected they should't play by their 'rules' all the time. We should remind them we're still there after the elections.

John Little
21-Apr-13, 10:43
Well that convinces me well enough. I shall indeed contact local party HQ because you have given me a signal reminder that unless we involve we should not grumble. Thank you for acting as an echo to my thinking: this forum is very useful sometimes to help your thoughts take shape by just bouncing ideas round.

ducati
21-Apr-13, 10:47
Well that convinces me well enough. I shall indeed contact local party HQ because you have given me a signal reminder that unless we involve we should not grumble. Thank you for acting as an echo to my thinking: this forum is very useful sometimes to help your thoughts take shape by just bouncing ideas round.

Don't forget to cough up the membership fees, afterall, the 20 odd millionaires on the front bench didn't get that way easily. :lol:

MerlinScot
21-Apr-13, 10:48
Well that convinces me well enough. I shall indeed contact local party HQ because you have given me a signal reminder that unless we involve we should not grumble. Thank you for acting as an echo to my thinking: this forum is very useful sometimes to help your thoughts take shape by just bouncing ideas round.
Glad I could be useful. I'll also kick my hubby's a**e a wee bit, so he can do the same, he's grumbling a lot of late ;) (I can't vote, fortunately...I'd be such a troublemaker ;) )

MerlinScot
21-Apr-13, 10:51
Don't forget to cough up the membership fees, afterall, the 20 odd millionaires on the front bench didn't get that way easily. :lol:
Given that the elected mob does whatever after being elected, we should go there and deny them the membership fees. See how they act promptly later.... ;)

crayola
21-Apr-13, 15:05
Clearly your opinions are formed by your own experiences as mine are by my own experiences. As my opinion is not based on ideology but on what I have been touched by, my opinion is my own. We differ. I do not proselytise: you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.You want to kill people who kill people and you tell it to the world. Keep your opinions to yourself if you don't want them to be discussed in public.

John Little
21-Apr-13, 15:17
There's a similar situation with the death penalty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx John Little is in favour of the state killing people. Are you?

I started a thread on the meaning of Democracy.

I made no attempt to discuss the death penalty.

The only person to mention the death penalty was Orkneycadian; I did not reply to that post.

The only post linking me to any discussion of the death penalty is the one above,

I still have no desire to discuss it.

John Little
21-Apr-13, 15:43
Democracy is a better form of government because, by providing an explanation for its actions, it dilutes dissent.

Yes - I can go along with that view too. In the reality of it then, the voting exercise is little more than social control, and especially so where the two main parties are so close that you could barely fit a Rizla between them. There appears to be so little of clear blue water between them at the moment that it's almost frozen in aspic.

Perhaps some good old fashioned ideology is the cure?

crayola
21-Apr-13, 16:55
I started a thread on the meaning of Democracy.I made no attempt to discuss the death penalty.The only person to mention the death penalty was Orkneycadian; I did not reply to that post.The only post linking me to any discussion of the death penalty is the one above,I still have no desire to discuss it.But you have been discussing it in this thread. And you are still discussing it. It is profoundly relevant to a system of government by referendum yet you don't want to discuss it. That's not very democratic.

John Little
21-Apr-13, 17:22
But you have been discussing it in this thread. And you are still discussing it. It is profoundly relevant to a system of government by referendum yet you don't want to discuss it. That's not very democratic.

I am not discussing it at all. Orkneycadian introduced it, Macadamia commented on it then you linked to a table and brought my name in.

I then asked if we had to go there, stated my own position, stated that I did not expect anyone to share my views, and indicated that I had no wish to talk about it.

If I am discussing anything at all, discussion being a two sided procedure, then we appear to be discussing why I should or should not take part in a discussion on the Death Penalty.

The answer is, again, that I have no wish to.

I am sure that you can find plenty who will.

Flynn
21-Apr-13, 17:27
Crayola, maybe you should leave your wooden spoon in your cauldron instead of bringing it to the org.

orkneycadian
21-Apr-13, 19:00
Sheesh. Was only an example of the kind of thing that could be voted on in a true democratic country that used the same means of information gathering as the "alleged" entertainment on the TV.

Could just has easily have been....

"Should we spend £10m on a funeral for a deceased Prime Minister? Yes / No"
"Should the UK be part of the EU? Yes / No"
or even
"Do you agree that Scotland would be a much better place if it cut its ties with England and became the independant country that William Wallace wanted it be, and that there will be heaps of oil money to make us all rich beyond our wildest dreams and we won't have to share a penny of it with England and everything will be pure dead brilliant, so it will? Yes/No"

John Little
21-Apr-13, 20:05
I like this.

"The politics of Switzerland take place in the framework of a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic, whereby the Federal Council of Switzerland is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by the government and the federal administration and is not concentrated in any one person. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. For any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory; for any change in a law, a referendum can be requested. Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland the closest state in the world to a direct democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

ducati
21-Apr-13, 20:22
I like this.

"The politics of Switzerland take place in the framework of a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic, whereby the Federal Council of Switzerland is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by the government and the federal administration and is not concentrated in any one person. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. For any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory; for any change in a law, a referendum can be requested. Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland the closest state in the world to a direct democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

You may like it but it doesn't breed the kind of state you would want to live in. Utterly reliant on the banking sector. When did you last buy anything made in Switzerland if it wasn't a watch or cheese?

John Little
21-Apr-13, 20:38
You may like it but it doesn't breed the kind of state you would want to live in. Utterly reliant on the banking sector. When did you last buy anything made in Switzerland if it wasn't a watch or cheese?I was thinking more of their forms of Democracy rather than of their economy. You think that a democracy and a diversified economy don't mix?

Phill
21-Apr-13, 23:10
You may like it but it doesn't breed the kind of state you would want to live in. Utterly reliant on the banking sector. When did you last buy anything made in Switzerland if it wasn't a watch or cheese?They do a good line in knives, I picked this little one up last time I was there:

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/knife_zps57788ad3.jpg

crayola
21-Apr-13, 23:46
Why do you lot chicken out of proper discussion? Direct democracy of the sort brought up by Orkneycadian and macadamia is likely to result in the reinstatement of the death penalty in this country. Flynn wrote a serious post on the other thread. Most of the rest of you are cackling childishly about pigs and ham on another thread. John Little doesn't want to discuss his views when challenged. That's not good enough. He wants the state to kill people on my behalf and he expects me to sit back and be silent. Or to join in his thread that he started to make fun of my objection to murder by the state. Isn't that sick? Flynn thinks I'm a stirrer. That's his right and I respect his view. I also support his clear forthright view on state sponsored murder as expressed on the other thread.

Phill
22-Apr-13, 00:12
I don't see the link between UK democracy and that being a mandate by the people to re introduce the death penalty.
To turn it on its head, to save the potential deaths of those convicted of murders, in a democratic system. You think it would be better to have a dictatorship?

ducati
22-Apr-13, 07:41
I was thinking more of their forms of Democracy rather than of their economy. You think that a democracy and a diversified economy don't mix?

I think that the form of democracy will influence the kind of economy, along with things like natural resources and how well you did out of the last major global conflict.

John Little
22-Apr-13, 08:00
Why do you lot chicken out of proper discussion? Direct democracy of the sort brought up by Orkneycadian and macadamia is likely to result in the reinstatement of the death penalty in this country. Flynn wrote a serious post on the other thread. Most of the rest of you are cackling childishly about pigs and ham on another thread. John Little doesn't want to discuss his views when challenged. That's not good enough. He wants the state to kill people on my behalf and he expects me to sit back and be silent. Or to join in his thread that he started to make fun of my objection to murder by the state. Isn't that sick? Flynn thinks I'm a stirrer. That's his right and I respect his view. I also support his clear forthright view on state sponsored murder as expressed on the other thread.

If you read through the posts again you will find that John Little was not 'challenged'. He did not even bring the subject up and did not attach his name to the issue of the death penalty in any way- you did that.

You may also reflect that there may be a certain insensitivity in attempting to frogmarch somebody into a 'discussion' when you are well aware of what their views are upon an emotive issue.

I have no intention of digging my memories out of their grave at the behest of anyone who has an axe to grind. There are plenty of people who will be only too happy to discuss this matter with you.

There is no particular importance to what I think.

MerlinScot
22-Apr-13, 08:58
I wouldn't bother to reply to stupid provocations, John ;) the 'stirrers' must always be ignored. Call it 'net-etiquette' :)
Nobody can be forced to express an opinion, especially in a 'democracy'.

Oddquine
22-Apr-13, 11:45
Democracy should be something which empowers the whole population to make their views known...by voting...whether by plebiscite or within a political system which ensures that the majority view is heard and the minority view is not simply swept under the carpet as the Government caters only to the majority which voted for them.

I am very inclined to agree with Tony Benn thoughts here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zxxrw7PwVQ&feature=player_detailpage

Our Government and opposition do not want anything approaching democracy.....because if democracy is one person, one vote which counts for something, their fight against the adoption of the flawed AV system, which would possibly have changed the political landscape, even if only slightly, illustrates that they much prefer to hold onto their jobs, and the power to set the agenda to favour their own ideology at the expense of the general population.

I, personally, would make voting compulsory as it is in Australia...but I'd also have a "none of the above" box..so that dissent doesn't get hidden within a total of "spoiled ballots". With proxy and postal voting, there is no longer the need to get off the backside on a wet and miserable Thursday every five years to put a cross in a box.....so nobody has to make any real effort to vote any more.........and disenchantment with a bad system which means you don't bother to vote at all simply leaves that bad system in place as long as it suits the politicians.

Have to say....I wonder what would happen if the majority vote was for "none of the above" in that scenario....maybe a coalition of all those actually elected, a rush of compromise commonsense to the collective self-interest and political parties having a damn good look at themselves.......or more likely.....the immediate repeal of the compulsory voting law and the collective sigh of relief as they collapse back into their cushy comfort zone unbowed and unchanged! :D

John Little
22-Apr-13, 12:01
He talks a lot of sense actually - I recognise what he is saying completely.

I have wondered about compulsory voting in the past and had doubts about how well it sits with the general UK culture. On the other hand if there was a small tax rebate to be gained by turning up and voting it seems to me that turn-out might soar. You know 5% off your council tax if you vote.

No compulsory voting because you don't know what they do in the booth - and sort of 'bribing' folk to turn up. Or an incentive, depending on how you look at it.

'None of the above' is a good idea though.

orkneycadian
22-Apr-13, 17:30
Direct democracy of the sort brought up by Orkneycadian and macadamia is likely to result in the reinstatement of the death penalty in this country.

So aside from the debate on the death penalty (which was only cited as 1 example....), and replacing it in the above quoted statement with any other matter of public debate and concern, does this not suggest that we do not have democracy? If the majority of the public want sanctuaries to be built for fluffy bunnies, and no sanctuaries for fluffy bunnies get built, the democratic wishes of the population have not been fulfilled and we have no democracy?

Here's hoping that fluffy bunny sanctuaries are a safe example to use....

crayola
26-Apr-13, 21:11
Murderers are murderers irrespective of who does the murdering.

John Little
27-Apr-13, 09:22
Well now.

I started a thread on the meaning of Democracy- it was a perfectly good thread, but despite my best efforts it has turned into something else entirely.

There is another perfectly good thread running now on the death penalty, with a range of hard-held and honest views that I am sure that you take issue with.

But you did not comment on that all week until yesterday.

Why I wonder? It obviously mattered a lot so you would not just leave it…

Can it be because that discussion HAS to take place here on this thread and no-where else? I daresay that some of the folk over there on the other thread were wondering why you had not graced them with your presence after such a palaver on this one.

The Democracy thread has been murdered by somebody who wishes to talk about something else.

Now, when I look at the death penalty thread which I started but have taken no further part in I am minded of the words of Charles 1 when he waved the Earl of Strafford’s death warrant at his queen;

‘There Madam – do you see what you have made me do?’



Okay. I know when I’m beaten.

He who screams and runs away lives to chat another day.

I void the field, quit my thread and make it over to you as a gift to do with as you wish without let or hindrance.

I shall not post on it again; I give up!

Thank you to everyone whose comments helped to solidify my thinking over the last few days of bouncing my ideas round - they really were helpful.


It’s all yours Crayola- talk about whatever you like.


I think though you maun bear in mind that in future when you post a thread there may well be some caring souls who will enquire of you solicitously;

“Are you sure now Crayola, that you don’t want to talk about the Death Penalty?”

crayola
27-Apr-13, 16:17
I was responding to Orkneycadian's post. :p I've had more pressing and important things to do this week. I don't have to make excuses to you or anyone else so don't flatter yourself. :p

ducati
06-Jul-13, 22:06
In Egypt? It looks like they have the kind of democracy some of you want.