Come to think of it...I can't quite help but dislike the concept of democracy, the freedom of giving the right to vote to people.
Firstly, a populist leader with no substance would be able to gain power, which isn't exactly good. Any run of the mill person with an aptitude for speaking and pulling of heartstrings is going to get in.
Secondly, are the people even able to vote correctly? Would they be educated enough, or sensible enough to vote for a good stable government? I know how the West keeps baying for voting rights, , political rights like a pack of insatiable hellhounds, yet are the people or The Great Unwash able to govern themselves? Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Thirdly, it causes fragmentation. Different diverse groups are bound to form. Groups who stand for ridiculous reasons like the Pirate Party are going to pop up, grab some seats, and deal a deathblow to the bigger parties trying to cobble a coalition. So far last year, I've seen so many hung parliaments, or minority governments. Australia, Britain, Sweden went into a deadlock, the US seems kind of balanced between the two big parties. And these tend to fail or fare badly, the party can't even agree amongst themselves, let alone get many bipartisan bills passed.
Is sacrificing the rights of people to vote in favour of a system that would tolerate less internal division unjust? I still can't comprehend why the West slams China for it's style of government for one. It works perfectly fine, some people are sidelined, yet there are always casualties in any battle. Most of the people from China whom I have known for years tell me they don't give a hoot about voting, they put their trust in the CCP as they have for decades.
And before some people shoot off about how the Chinese stamp out dissent such as the jailing of that recent Chinese Nobel Laureate, I would like to stress that that person has caused more disorder in China than actually bringing peace thank you very much.
So is democracy really worth it? People get their vote? And knowing people tend to have a nasty habit of conceiving different opinions about everything and anything under the sun, this would lead to political fragmentation and ultimately stagnation.
I think that it's best for the country that not the communists, nor the kapitalists have the majority, or in less extreme terms, the socialist and the liberalists. you best have a multi-party system, you can vote someone else if something goes wrong, and the government will be formed from coalitions. in a two party system (like in the US), if the one party messes everything up, many will vote them because they don't like the only other party.
A hybrid system makes no sense if you understand what communism is. Its a completely antagonistic to capitalism. They cannot coexist. Welfare states do not constitute as "socialism".
A hybrid system makes no sense if you understand what communism is. Its a completely antagonistic to capitalism. They cannot coexist. Welfare states do not constitute as "socialism".
A hybrid system need not have Communist elements. Singapore has both authoritarian and democratic characteristics. For example, we can vote for whoever we like. But we can detain political enemies without trial under the Internal Security Act. It's a socialist state, but that does not mean it's a welfare state nor is it a Communist state.
in a two party system (like in the US), if the one party messes everything up, many will vote them because they don't like the only other party.
Coalitions are not viable most of the time. A hung parliament will have both sides at an equal level with differing views. The Weimar Republic was brought down by ineffective coalitions for one.
If a single party is really strong and dedicated to the people and the nation, it can change. It will evolve, instead of sticking to an ideological doctrine.
If a single party is really strong and dedicated to the people and the nation, it can change. It will evolve, instead of sticking to an ideological doctrine
The amount of power a single party would hold makes it too dangerous.
well, you know, most european countries are based on coalitions, and they don't have that much problems... because if both sides have to negotiate, something in between will come out. you have social policy, but with limits. some will have huge salarys: they will have to pay huge taxes too. but you need democracy for that.
Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Yes. It means that he's gonna vote for the party that gives farmers the most benefits, and that 18 year old who lives in his stepfather's mansion is gonna vote for the Australian Sex Party. It gives diversity of opinions.
