h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"They do have to be educated in how the electoral process works, but not in the fundamentals of democracy. You have that by being born human."

Right. So you'd better let us know what your idea of democracy is Zagreb. If it's what I *think* you mean then as a UK citizen I certainly don't have it. A democracy would indicate that someone represents my interests. The guy I voted for as my MP didn't get in. A Tory got in instead - therefore I have no representation.
I don't know what you mean by democracy, and I have supposedly been living in one all my life.
So Zagreb, could you please enlighten me as to what the fundamentals of democracy are? I may be alone here, but I don't think I had them pre-programmed when I was born. And let's face it, if they were that universal and fundamental, everywhere would be a democracy. Hell, even America.

"Right. So you'd better let us know what your idea of democracy is Zagreb. If it's what I *think* you mean then as a UK citizen I certainly don't have it. A democracy would indicate that someone represents my interests. The guy I voted for as my MP didn't get in. A Tory got in instead - therefore I have no representation.
I don't know what you mean by democracy, and I have supposedly been living in one all my life."

In the west what we call "democracy" is actually a republic. We call is democcracy, probably to explain those republican systems that have a monarch as head-of-state (eg Britain).

A republic works by voters electing representatives. In your consituency, more people voted Tory than whoever you voted for. That's why the Tory got in, you are in a minority in your constituency. Power exclusively to who you peronally want is not a democracy but your own personal dictatorship.

"So Zagreb, could you please enlighten me as to what the fundamentals of democracy are?"

First, I believe in liberal democracy. It is possible, for example, to have a democracy where people of one race are put in prison camps because this is what the majority voted for. A liberal democracy resepects the human rights of all it's citizens, whatever the majority feeling. Outwith these boundaries, policy is decided in a "senate" or "parliament" by representatives of the people (rather than through the people directly via referendum on every issue, as in a true democracy (which has still never been used)). This political body is elected regularly. Often, in a federated or devolved system, the state is split along regional or often ethnic boundaries (as will probably happen in Afghanistan and Iraq) to prevent a "strong" central government being dominated by a strong region or tribe. This means that different peoples within the state decide their own policies for themselves, with central government controlling a few fundamentals.

Tacsatduck - good toon

Why does "homeland security" frmind me of WWII history classes?

----------

Democracy - conservativism and democracy don't mix. Conservative parties are in a bad way here after changing from the UK system to democracy. America is conservative and I don't see America installing democracy anywhere it has economic interests.

"frmind" should be remind

It's morning and that's my excuse

"First, I believe in liberal democracy. It is possible, for example, to have a democracy where people of one race are put in prison camps because this is what the majority voted for. A liberal democracy resepects the human rights of all it's citizens, whatever the majority feeling. "


By your statement above, you use the term "liberal" to describe a system that respects basic human rights. Takes your use of the term "liberal" in an insulting context into a completely different light.


I think you'll find that any form of government that hopes to be supported in the long term, by the majority, will need to strive for equality and observation of basic human rights. I've never heard of people protesting a government because it was too fair or too just.

"By your statement above, you use the term "liberal" to describe a system that respects basic human rights. Takes your use of the term "liberal" in an insulting context into a completely different light."

You'll notice I put "liberal" in inverted commas when challenging some opinions on this thread. This is because these ideas are touted as liberal in the mainstream media when I believe they are anything but. At heart, I think they are often selfish and reactionary.

"I think you'll find that any form of government that hopes to be supported in the long term, by the majority, will need to strive for equality and observation of basic human rights."


You assume a great deal of the human race. States have often had popular support when their policies have been divisive or illiberal. I agree we need to strive for a better standard of living and human rights for the third world, but we can only do that with *intervention* and often not under the most pure of motives. Remember, Afghanistan has a brighter future now the Taliban have gone. This was achieved because of Western intervention for selfish reasons but the result is still the same.

"I've never heard of people protesting a government because it was too fair or too just."

They often do, but people dress the protest up with different phrases. If a state, for example, tries to give a hand-up to it's poorest citizens, it is accused of "giving taxpayers money to people who just need to try harder". If it gives money to help overseas developing economies it is "ignoring it's own people's problems and only caring about people far away". People will find morally-justifiable reasons for being selfish sometimes.

"Democracy - conservativism and democracy don't mix. Conservative parties are in a bad way here after changing from the UK system to democracy. America is conservative and I don't see America installing democracy anywhere it has economic interests."

Or "I'm not conservative, but I am a democrat". I don't like the conservatives either, but I don't kid myself that they are not compatible with democracy. America has a representative government but is, as you said, largely conservative.

And please don't bring up the Bush's alleged interfering in Florida to "prove" America is not really a democratic republic and that Bush was effectively installed by a junta. It's been gone over already.

"Power exclusively to who you peronally want is not a democracy but your own personal dictatorship."

Sh*t. So does that mean that the people who voted for him are dictators?

Zagreb, you have a wonderful knack of trying to make other people look stupid by stating the alarmingly obvious.

When I asked what your idea of democracy was, I wasn't in fact asking what the usual defintion of it *is*. You came out with some fanciful notion that all humans are born pre-loaded with an uncorruptable notion of democracy. I merely inquired as to what you thought this could be, as all humans don't seem to be in agreement on the subject.

"And please don't bring up the Bush's alleged interfering in Florida to "prove" America is not really a democratic republic and that Bush was effectively installed by a junta. It's been gone over already."

Regardless as to whether it might be relevant or not.

"I merely inquired as to what you thought this could be, as all humans don't seem to be in agreement on the subject."

Politics is about controlling your environment. Everyone has an opinion about his or her environment therefore everyone is "ready" for a democracy where everyone expresses their opinion through voting, that's what I meant. Ok?

And the award for rushing to the defence of conservativism in record time goes to...

Fact is - the less democratic a country is the more control conservatives seem to have.

No, birth, I am not 'kidding with you'. Where is your evidence that Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac, or psychotic? (BTW, I am not saying he is not, necessarily, but I won't believe he is just on Dubya's say so!)
The last lot of Inspectors (whom Dubya doesn't wish to believe) established that the hidden stockpiles are myths!

>>Or "I'm not conservative, but I am a democrat". I don't like the conservatives either, but I don't kid myself that they are not compatible with democracy. America has a representative government but is, as you said, largely conservative.

And please don't bring up the Bush's alleged interfering in Florida to "prove" America is not really a democratic republic and that Bush was effectively installed by a junta. It's been gone over already. <<

Zagreb, here in NZ we have a form of proportional representation, which means that the situation where a Tory gets in tho' few voted for him, is much less likely! Maybe such a system should be considered elsewhere?

Bush's stealing of the 2000 election still matters - you can say 'oh, I am bored with that' til the cows come home, but it's the reason we are in this Iraq mess today!

Now you've done it Della. Americans get all agitated when NZ is mentioned, esp starbirth.

"Zagreb, here in NZ we have a form of proportional representation, which means that the situation where a Tory gets in tho' few voted for him, is much less likely! Maybe such a system should be considered elsewhere?"

The Scottish Parliament is partly elected through PR. The rest is through First Past the Post. For the UK Parliament, it's FPTP all the way.

I'd prefer more PR government, because it prevents the "wasted vote" syndorome and represents the voting public more accurately. It has it's problems, though. They use it in Italy and part of that countries endemic corruption is caused by the multitude of small parties in their parliament caused by PR.

Might work differently over here, though.

"but it's the reason we are in this Iraq mess today!"

Gore would have attacked Iraq, too. In fact, judging by his old boss Clinton, he'd have lobbed a few missiles at Baghdad first.

We already know from experience the a bush lead war will kill thousands of civilians through pummeling from high altitude. Then a "provisional" leader will be protected by armed american guards.

Perhaps there is a reason so many people want to kill the leader in afghanistan.

And then again perhaps not. Could it be that OBL, in Bush, saw a simple man with a simple language and simple reactions which could be easily predicted?

______________


I heard today (tue.), that Australian prime minister (sorry I forget his name) said that Australia would consider pre-emptive strikes against any asian countries, harbouring or aiding terrorists. After asian countries responded with consternation, some other goverment representative said, that it didn´t mean Aus. would attack friendly-minded countries adding even more confusion. Apparently NZ keeps a very low profile in this matter.

One can hardly blame them.



TD.

Our PM was trying not to make a big thing of it, adding "although we knkow that some of our neibours have terrorists"

I think you'll find, T'mershi, that unless you speak of war then no one listens. NZ doesn't speak of war.

There is a lot of talk on this thread about what democracy is and is not. Everyone seems to have a different opinion as to the finer points. Most people seem to find fault in there own goverment and seem to have no problem in openly critizising it. Esoterics aside the ability to publicly discuss and openly critisize your goverments with out fear of retribution says more about democracy than any introspection will ever yield.