Turmoil in Egypt

No different to the US.
Their Politics has become very polarised to the same extent.

This is one of the down sides to a presidential system which eventually leads to just 2 candidates. You are also ostensibly voting for a person, rather than a "collective set of consistent ideas" with a person taking that manifesto (but hard to escape the image aspect in today's politics). Parliamentary systems are not significantly better either, yet at least one is voting for a party, of which many party's (ideologies) may take part and is done all at once. Not a protracted slowly but slowly removing those with less votes to become more and more polarised to separate the differences as "merits".

This is the "price" of democracy, in whatever shape or form one has. Hopefully over time you guys can modify it to be more representative of the general population and have the election all on one day too!

Good luck..

 

Soo tired of voting --does it ever do any good. Is it not becoming obvious that this democracy type party values is tediously boring and pathetic.

Not long after the afternoon of the results does another party try to get them out.

When politicians are no longer paid will we get commitment.

Greek results are so fine --do you think the trouble is over, its just started.

Any one on Mars would be looking down scratching thier heads.

 

I keep on asking how is so much power given to only a few that they can aparently do as they please.

There may be another option - considering that a government is supposed to be working for and on behalf of the people - why are there not a group of voluntary individuals that decide what and how the government official is to execute his task(s).

Seems to me if those that do the decision making do not stand to benefit financially then there may be better decisions made.

I'd stay far away from 'democratic' if I was you. Around here and it seems in the US too, 'democratic' seems to be a system where you exchange your rights and freedoms for paid for services. It's nothing else than communism.

 

Then' they' would have too much power.

It would be unthinkable in the past but with the advent of internet it could be possible for each and every individual to vote for every decision made in the Government house per day.

You could look on the internet see what was being voted on and "CLICK' If you not interested dont vote but shut up.

No reason to demonstrate------- vote.

A perfect democracy probably too democratic for even the most democratic politician.

The man in the street would have the same veto power as the president.

 

Most political issues are more involved (and complicated) than just selecting from a pre-decided choice of answers by popularity, and who decide the answer choices ?

There are some guidelines as well, any suggestions should be measured against the constitutional rights first, something that is all too easily tread on.

 

I don't agree --it could be a simple yes or no.

You can make it complicated if you want but its not necessary

 

Those who do the decision making always potentially stand to benefit financially, simply from the decisions they make. Making political office voluntary and unpaid would ensure that only those who are independently wealthy would be able to serve. Call me cynical, but I have no doubt they'd figure out how to make their positions pay one way or another....

 

Mars has global warming.

 

The above is not complex, thats catastrophic !!!

 

To quote a friend of mine:
"Democracy is gaining power using larger number of voters. Who cares if you have the IQ of a baboon , as long as you have the bigger numbers your in business."
"Democracy is 51% controlling 49%"
------

He wasn't in the best of moods this morning i guess ...

 

Well, it usually beats having 1% control 99%....

 

indeed he wasn't in the mood for political debate so i let it slide

 

- please do!

- I don’t think politics really starts by moving things forward, it starts by giving folk something better to do than shooting guns to get their views heard. It’s not particularly efficient or necessarily just. Initially it requires candidates to at least claim they have the best everyone’s interests at heart instead of just their own; later that may become the mind set of a few who will be the one’s to get things done. I fear that real solid progress requires the entire Middle East to set aside parochial interests and embrace peace.

- I have that problem too and I live in Canada.

 

Unlike most other forms of government, democracy is hard, particularly initially. Everyone wants change and quickly, but this isn't the way democracy works, which is why many fail in their attempts.

Democracy only works when several things are in place and these are usually in scarce supply in poor, turmoil ridden and under developed countries. Couple this with the several versions of democracy, such as; presidential, parliamentary, representative, monarchy, direct, etc. and things get difficult right from the start. The USA had 14 presidents before Washington and two different (democratic) governments before Washington took on the 17th administration as the first constitutional president. We were a country for 21 years before a construction was ratified and another 4 more years before the Bill of Rights was accepted. That's a long time to wait when you've just tossed out the government you've been disenchanted with. It was another 50 years and about a dozen wars, before the USA found it's footing. This is typical. A people has to establish a democratic identity, separate from that previously understood, under what ever tyrannies or oligarchies they endured.

Just look at "old" Europe. Many where fascist or dictatorships until the 1970s, and many of the newer EU countries were tyrannies even into the 1990s. Some of them still barely qualify as functioning democracies - oligarchies is probably a closer match. Don't even get me started on the middle eastern nations ideas of government.

Democracy is hard and requires a lot from their people and their government. Corruption is the biggest problem most often. This and old rivalries, left over from the previous "guard".

I firmly believe it boils down to several things and a society that will stop at nothing to achieve them.

Education has to be at the top of the list, as it's the only way a society can advance and understand the problems of their nation.

Only a free press can be acceptable. The moment you censor or restrict, trust goes away and there goes the ball game.

A trustworthy and independent judiciary must be established, as a nation without rule of law is helpless and falls into tribal or drum head law.

Related, but a separate issue is rule and respect of law. We went through this process out west in the mid and late 1800's, but rule of law and respect of rule has to apply nation wide.

Elections have to be free, for obvious reasons.

Social stratification or social mobility are hugely important. Folks come here to "live the dream" and only a society where this is possible can succeed.

Lastly I think pluralism (a multi-party system) is necessary, other wise it's not going to work for long.

Place any of these things in a grab bag and the attempt dies. This is why democracy is hard to establish. A dictatorship or other form of centralized government, is much easier and bring results much faster, though not particularly just, righteous or fair.

Simply put, a nation as a whole as to want it, because it's hard, but also because it offers opportunity, fairness, respect and most importantly, makes the whole of the society better across many areas of common concern.

Damn, maybe I should have run for office . . .

 

If the naval architecture thing doesn't work out, it's something to fall back on
Or if your eyesight ever fails... politicians don't read half of what they sign into law anyway