1.30.2005
Here is a question... I have been trying to figure this out but have been unable to really find a good answer.
Why does the US sponsor parliamentary-style democracies? In the denazification of Europe, and similar efforts in Japan, parliamtentary governments were set up, with prime ministers, and opposition parties, and the whole thing. Iraq is having the same thing. It seems intuitive to me that the US would propose a style of government closer to its own. I think that they are both democratic in the sense that the people ultimately rule, though the US may more correctly be described as a republic.
Has anybody heard anything about this?
Why does the US sponsor parliamentary-style democracies? In the denazification of Europe, and similar efforts in Japan, parliamtentary governments were set up, with prime ministers, and opposition parties, and the whole thing. Iraq is having the same thing. It seems intuitive to me that the US would propose a style of government closer to its own. I think that they are both democratic in the sense that the people ultimately rule, though the US may more correctly be described as a republic.
Has anybody heard anything about this?
< 23:00 >< /j >
Comments:
Yes. The Iraq constitution says that the people will elect their leaders directly. just like a whole host of democracies that followed the Republic of America... from brazil to india... they all have more 'democracy' in their government than ths USA does. We claim however, to be experts of spreading democracy like so much peanut butter accross the desert.
Right, but why are *WE* taking this approach? I can see why the UK or Canada or others would advocate this, but it is confusing that the US would. Perhaps it is easier to set up this type of government in hostile territory? On the surface, it would seem that the powers-that-be are saying that a parliamentary-style government is preferable to our Executive/Legislative duality, though I don't really have a solid reason for thinking that. The actual definition of democracy and republic are becoming somewhat blurred to the point where they are becoming (I think) interchangeable. When people talk about democracy, they are thinking of the population having ultimate political power, not so much that there is no intermediary representation.
But I dunno. Just something to ponder on.
Sustaining a trusted republic over a democracy is one of the few ways to avoid overt fascism, avoid socialism, and retain our individual-based civil liberties in general. Direct democracy is a crock.
Interim, I've no clue why the neocons and new-wave Dems keep blathering on about "democracy". It doesn't say "democracy" in the US Constitution. I am certain there must be some ulterior motive, but something I can't pinpoint, aside from it now being a 'buzz-word'.
Makes me angry, really.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik
I agree that direct democracy is a crock... essentially no more than mob rule. Plato said that democracy could only work for societies of less than about 20 people. But the idea of a representational government ultimately accountable to its population is what I think the common perception of democracy is, though it is really better described as a republic. Personally, I favor a more state-centered government. This may be part of being an Alaskan, but I think that the people who best know how to operate a state are the people who live there. I must sleep now, but I will write more on this...
Post a Comment
<< Home
< /
~ chad >
~ chad >Yes. The Iraq constitution says that the people will elect their leaders directly. just like a whole host of democracies that followed the Republic of America... from brazil to india... they all have more 'democracy' in their government than ths USA does. We claim however, to be experts of spreading democracy like so much peanut butter accross the desert.
< / j >
j >Right, but why are *WE* taking this approach? I can see why the UK or Canada or others would advocate this, but it is confusing that the US would. Perhaps it is easier to set up this type of government in hostile territory? On the surface, it would seem that the powers-that-be are saying that a parliamentary-style government is preferable to our Executive/Legislative duality, though I don't really have a solid reason for thinking that. The actual definition of democracy and republic are becoming somewhat blurred to the point where they are becoming (I think) interchangeable. When people talk about democracy, they are thinking of the population having ultimate political power, not so much that there is no intermediary representation.
But I dunno. Just something to ponder on.
< / Lee >
Lee >Sustaining a trusted republic over a democracy is one of the few ways to avoid overt fascism, avoid socialism, and retain our individual-based civil liberties in general. Direct democracy is a crock.
Interim, I've no clue why the neocons and new-wave Dems keep blathering on about "democracy". It doesn't say "democracy" in the US Constitution. I am certain there must be some ulterior motive, but something I can't pinpoint, aside from it now being a 'buzz-word'.
Makes me angry, really.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik
< / j >
j >I agree that direct democracy is a crock... essentially no more than mob rule. Plato said that democracy could only work for societies of less than about 20 people. But the idea of a representational government ultimately accountable to its population is what I think the common perception of democracy is, though it is really better described as a republic. Personally, I favor a more state-centered government. This may be part of being an Alaskan, but I think that the people who best know how to operate a state are the people who live there. I must sleep now, but I will write more on this...
<< Home
