Lifted from this page
Some reflections: -
What makes us so sure that the export of 'Democracy' to places like Afghanistan and Iraq is a good thing?
Democracy doesn't work in this country. It is cynically manipulated. Or the vast majority decline to get involved.
People vote for leaders that will make decisions for them so that they don't have to think for themselves.
The questioning minds that led to Greek Philosophy and spawned Democracy are a thing of the past with children and adults not encouraged to think. Education these days teaches them what they need to know - not to question. People give little spare time to think around the pros and cons of important topics - affordable housing, the raising of their children.
Gangs of young people turn to violence because they are told they are failures and feel excluded from society. We avoid engaging with them through fear - which encourages them to feel 'good' about themselves - this is their source of self-esteem - not what they have achieved.
Their parents have low self-esteem because they don't feel they are coping well with their problems, even their own children.
We need to encourage all people to talk to each other, debate issues, and have the belief that they have some effective input/control over their lives - to feel good about themselves and walk tall.
The export of democracy is a distraction - we need to sort ourselves out!
4 comments:
For certain the UK and the USA are not democracies in any real sense - I read just yesterday (where- I don't recall) tha if Robert Mugabe had adopted British democracy - an unassailable majority with only 26% of the electorate - he wouldn't have the problems he has now).
Is there a form of government which actually works for nation states of more than 10 million?
Have to think about this one!
But then is there any form of government that actually works - even for two?
I guess. . . Define 'works'
Could you explain the Mugabe statement?
I don't understand!
Taken me a while to get round to this, but, our present government, with its unassailable majority in the house of commons, was elected by 26% of the electorate. The other 74% either voted for other parties, or abstained.
This can hardly be considered democratic!
It is widely accepted that the "first past the post" method is the least democratic of all electoral systems.
It is very probable that Mugabe has, quite fairly, got more than 26% of the Zimbabwean vote, but the way the Zimbabwean election is run, this would not be enough to keep him in power. It is hypocritical for the UK government to lecture any other country on "democracy".
In terms of waht might be better, I ahve always felt that the single transferable vote was fairer, but really I feel that anyone who actually wants to stand for government has already disqualified themselves by wanting the position. Maybe a randomly selected parliment? It is considered good enough for criminal justice.
Post a Comment