Buffy
Chaosite
Posts: 786
|
Post by Buffy on Apr 27, 2005 14:30:10 GMT
Ok, here's a deep one for you to bake your noodle.
CAN Democracy continue to work in a Postmodern World? With out trust and hope in Government, can the people continue to follow it?
Democracy came about in the modern way of thinking, but this generation has lost hope in those perfect ideals and now moves on to declare the truth that there is no truth.
So... Can Government live on? If the people are cynics and dont believe they are doing the best they can do for the people?
Whats after Postmodernism?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 27, 2005 14:39:57 GMT
Democracy was always doomed to fail as a system of government once it become subject to the stratification of one or two dominant parties.
The selection commitees and general party hierarchy will act to suppress the ideas of anyone who makes them nervous - like genuine thinkers and real leaders - simply because they cannot bear to see the boat rocked.
Democracy - ultimately and inevitably - leads to mediocrity in govt, and the alienation of vast numbers of the electorate, whose needs and desires are not met by the pantomime of govt or worthless elections that change little of any real consequence.
|
|
Buffy
Chaosite
Posts: 786
|
Post by Buffy on Apr 27, 2005 14:40:38 GMT
So what next?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 27, 2005 14:45:52 GMT
The pretence of genuine democracy will exist for a while, as the people at the top continue to make money and push their own self-serving agendas while running their countries slowly to ruin through ineptitude, incompetence and stupidity. Sooner or later, though, people will realise that Democracy is a pretty poor system, and then we will likely see an attempt at elective Autocracy, which should be interesting
|
|
Buffy
Chaosite
Posts: 786
|
Post by Buffy on Apr 27, 2005 14:47:30 GMT
OK... and whats gonna consist of an Autocracy?
Hehe... trying to make a stone bleed here...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 27, 2005 14:52:44 GMT
OK... and whats gonna consist of an Autocracy? Hehe... trying to make a stone bleed here... Same as any Autocratic govt, Buff - one leader. An Elective Autocracy would be a single person elected to lead, who would then create their own party, as it were, by recruiting chancellors & other cabinet types from among the best qualified people in the country, if not the world. Imagine having , say, a Foreign Secretary who had a genuine idea of how the world actually worked rather than a career politician? Sounds like a good idea, right?
|
|
Dr. Doom
Apprentice
I will not eat cat poop.
Posts: 428
|
Post by Dr. Doom on Apr 27, 2005 17:50:33 GMT
Elliot's right about Decomcracies doomed to failure. The autocracy is a better option, but getting the populace to swallow that and finding a capable/effective leader is the tough part.
It's interesting to ponder where a democracy, such as the US, will be in the future, because you know the democracy won't last forever.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 27, 2005 18:24:03 GMT
The leader is indeed the hardest part. True leaders are incredibly rare.
|
|
Dr. Doom
Apprentice
I will not eat cat poop.
Posts: 428
|
Post by Dr. Doom on Apr 27, 2005 18:49:33 GMT
What we need is a good dictator, in which case I would be happy to step up and...er, nevermind. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 27, 2005 19:07:58 GMT
Autocracy is easily the best form of govt - providing you can create a system that produces good Autocrats every time. That's a little bit harder... That being said, Democracy produces plenty of useless leaders too...
|
|
|
Post by Duncan on Jun 6, 2005 0:21:26 GMT
I predict ultramodernism to follow.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 10, 2005 15:32:07 GMT
Buff, I'm an old guy but when I went to school we did not learn about democracies as such , we studied the US system which is in fact a Republic, not a democracy. The system where majority rules is always doomed to fail because most of the time it is run by the emotional swing of who can manipulate the emotions of the people till they can vote and then find out they were lied to. We elect people to represent our point of view, advise and consent, heated debates, name calling, etc..then the bodies of congress and the senate do their thing (lots of times I think wrong). Hence it is almost impossible to get an amendment to the constitution due to the built in delay whereas emotions can never get anything passed. People have time to think, research, expose lies, etc..which in principle works great..sometimes fails in spite, but I love the system and think it is (dare I say it) maybe--divinely inspired. Qualifying that of course that Christianity is the same form of representative system...Christ represents us because we have no way to represent oursevles before a Holy God..Christs work was perfect and He can truly represent all those who trust Him to do so....Same principle...
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 10, 2005 19:31:43 GMT
Sorry to get off topic here guys, but ... I have to step in for a second. ... but I love the system and think it is (dare I say it) maybe--divinely inspired. Qualifying that of course that Christianity is the same form of representative system...Christ represents us because we have no way to represent oursevles before a Holy God..Christs work was perfect and He can truly represent all those who trust Him to do so....Same principle... Even after you "Qualify" that, there is no way they are comparable. Christ was not elected to represent the people (although he had his followers of course), he was chosen (Born to do it, If you believe that). Also Christianity is based on a Dictatorship. not a democracy (or republic). One to rule them all (to steal a line from Lord of the Rings)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 10, 2005 20:12:26 GMT
A proper Autocracy then, Perry? Gets my approval, obviously ;D
|
|
tragic
Chaosite
Happiness is a cigar called hamlet
Posts: 627
|
Post by tragic on Jun 11, 2005 10:58:56 GMT
This is what i would like to see.
In England scrap the house of lords....then have a system whereby 501 people are choosen at random...like jury duty forming all ethnical and religous composistion of England as it stands....choosen for 1 year ...it would be called the House of people.
Get this.... if 450 of them say that a minister should resign then he should go...end of story...THAT would be fun. ;D
Tragic
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 11, 2005 17:35:39 GMT
Pffffft.
People get too much power as it is. I say we genetically engineer a Windsor to be a decent monarch and get rid of this who silly voting system ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 17, 2005 14:12:16 GMT
I personally think that the House of Lords and the queen are a good part of our govenment if they can do their jobs rather than being bullied through. After all the whole purpose of the House of Lords is to be a non political sanity board for the laws that come out of the house of Commons. After the house of Lords, the queen is supposed to be the final arbritrator of all laws as they all require her signiture.
What we have in effect is a limited autrocasy that doesn't work properly at the moment. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the way it is supposed to work is.
The representatives of the people bring the changes that they want passed into law to the house of lords.
The house of Lords then debates the issue and wether they think it is good for the nation as a whole and not a trivial matter.
They then advise the queen on their desicion or send it back to the house of comons.
Finally the queen, based on the advice she has received, signs the document into law.
In the 1940's, the house of commons forced law into place that allows them to bypass the house of lords if they feel that they are obstructing the due process of the govenment.
This, I fear is what is breaking our govenment system, more than anything else.
but hey, these are just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 18, 2005 10:27:56 GMT
POWER CORRUPTS
A law of nature?
Anyway - any form of non-autocratic government is based on the principle of mitigating or limiting individual power. ('individual' in this context can be groups also)
And any form of autocratic government is ultimately challenging the next 'strong' leader to contest for power.
A solution? I don't have one - but the wise guy stating that democracy is the lesser evil, may have had a point.
|
|
tragic
Chaosite
Happiness is a cigar called hamlet
Posts: 627
|
Post by tragic on Jun 18, 2005 12:37:53 GMT
The thing about the house of lords is that becuase of special legislation of 1940...the commons can force it through...the queen always signs the bills anyway and now there is legislation to remove that power from the queen.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 18, 2005 12:44:52 GMT
That's because they think that they are going to be trying to pass a few bills that the queen will not agree to sign even if it bypasses the house of lords. One of them is probably removing the monarch.
|
|