Politics and Degeneration

Denerick

Does electoral democracy ultimately always degenerate into a vain and irrelevant ego match between two groups who fundamentally have the same ideology?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Here's a better question; Is there anything inherently wrong with that?

turgon

There is everything wrong with that. How can we claim to be so democratic when, given that each of the 3 options are the same, we really dont have a choice?

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

Here's a better question; Is there anything inherently wrong with that?

Yes because it deprives the people of a real choice and is a sign of a failed political system.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

Does electoral democracy ultimately always degenerate into a vain and irrelevant ego match between two groups who fundamentally have the same ideology?

Electoral democracy on its own probably will degenerate into a vain and irrelevant ego match between two groups who fundamentally have the same ideology.
A Republic with
a well written constitution
separation of powers
independent free media
a political literate voting public
and strict term limits for all office holders might stand a chance.

Denerick

What I'm trying to get at is suggest that perhaps ego based superficial politics is the best of a bad situation (And there is no doubt in my mind that humanity is fundamentally greedy, power hungry, selfish, barbrous and murderous). The reason why I believe it is a good thing is because while a few people argue over essentially the same thing, the general public can get on with their lives free from their constraint. Its only when groups are fanatical or self righteous that liberty is threatened. Under a system where irrelevancy is the dominant political order, all people are free to live their own lives within a liberal social system.

So when I see Enda Kenny and Biffo argue over tax hikes, when FG would no doubt have done the exact same if in power, I can sit back and marvel that nobody is seriously considering any extreme measures - such as radical protectionism or the 'looting' of the banks and a degeneration to an anarchic state of nature. We all accept this political system, warts and all, and somehow it manages to preserve our liberty and at the same time consciously turn us off politics and focus on life.

Denerick

turgon wrote: »

There is everything wrong with that. How can we claim to be so democratic when, given that each of the 3 options are the same, we really dont have a choice?

I argue that we don't need or want a choice really. Liberty is threatened by extremists. By keeping irrelevant politicians in power (and accepting the prevailing political order) we are also guaranteeing our liberty. Personal liberty is much more important to me than some simple populist leader trying to look different and manipulate the simple. (Which is what seems to happen in South America quite a lot - think Chavez)

And I also strongly question the prevailing consensus that 'Democracy' is anything to be revered. Democracy is tyranny by any other name. Democratic Republics with strong power-reducing Constitutions work best.

Denerick

Another example of a corrupt populist in power, Mr. Berlusconi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/24/silvio-berlusconi-la-repubblica-inquiry)

turgon

Tbh Denerick, if personal liberty is a very important part of your dream for government, Im surprised your not lamenting the lack of a liberal party that would increase personal liberty, both socially and economically.

And when I talk about choice, I do not mean extremist or anything. Just to be able to choose different ideologies that are compatible with my own.

Denerick

Is political activism important really? Were a Liberal party to arrive they would eventually degenerate into the center - especially if they get into to power. We've seen it with both the PDs and the Greens.

is_that_so

Belfast wrote: »

Yes because it deprives the people of a real choice and is a sign of a failed political system.

Why is that a failure? What is your understanding of real choice? Political systems are not there to satisfy personal perceptions. Parties move to where they will generate most votes and justify their existence and therefore enact their policies.

A scenario with two major political forces merely emphasises the difficulty that we have seeing beyond two sides of the same argument. Parties mirror us to an extent. Too much choice risks producing instability. Israel and Italy are extremely good examples where this in fact can lead to a failed political system which produces no clear answers and is subject to the whims of smaller minorities.

If there is any failure it is in the lack of engagement of the public with political systems, partly due to its perceived complexity and mostly because the public at large couldn't be bothered.

turgon

But the PD's changed the country even though they arent around anymore. Low taxes became the slogan of every party. But I dont think they stuck to their ideals enough and that why they suffered.

I think ye are all just being fatalist. We have a **** political system in Ireland. The two parties came out of Civil War bickering and because of the ignorance of FF's founder. And we suffer to this day with two parties that mirror each other and give us no choice.

Ye seem to be arguing that the lack of choice is a good thing. But, as are some people opinions, the one choice we are given (DF: "social democracy) is not up to scratch to many. And yet ye say we should just accept this?

Denerick

turgon wrote: »

But the PD's changed the country even though they arent around anymore. Low taxes became the slogan of every party. But I dont think they stuck to their ideals enough and that why they suffered.

I think ye are all just being fatalist. We have a **** political system in Ireland. The two parties came out of Civil War bickering and because of the ignorance of FF's founder. And we suffer to this day with two parties that mirror each other and give us no choice.

Ye seem to be arguing that the lack of choice is a good thing. But, as are some people opinions, the one choice we are given (DF: "social democracy) is not up to scratch to many. And yet ye say we should just accept this?

I think we should. What difference will anything make? So long as my personal liberty and ability to live my life free from totalitarian government is secure then I am happy to live my life free from politics.

I just can't understand why people think politics is a good thing. Its best when its in the background.

In my opinion the function of government is to make sure the buses run on time, that hospitals have enough nurses and that taxes are collected in order to run adequate public services. The Obama-esque Camalot politics is just an illusion, a painful one at that.

The problem has always been, from the beginning of mankind when we decided to group ourselves into political units, that one person wants to manipulate other people so as to get political power. And the greatest achievement of mankind has been to find a way to limit anyone's political power. Which is why I think we have the perfect system.

is_that_so

The PDs did but like all small parties they fade away. They did not have strong enough ideology and much of what they ended up standing for was easily absorbed. The Civil War mentality persists because it suits us not to change it. Some of that is down to the generational votes but some is also due to the fact that the anger and apathy some parts of the voting public express towards it is not translated into votes for a different type of representation.

Wrapped in our traditional political conservatism our system serves us, even though we carp on excessively about it. If it is broken we are in part to blame as we continue to maintain the status quo. There are unquestionably some very serious issues about it that need to be addressed, but that does not make it a defunct or inherently broken system.

turgon

Denerick wrote: »

I think we should. What difference will anything make?

A huge difference. Consider the difference in the US if John McCain would have been elected.

Denerick wrote: »

In my opinion the function of government is to make sure the buses run on time, that hospitals have enough nurses and that taxes are collected in order to run adequate public services

I would disagree. Government is crap at running services. Take a look at Britian where privatised transport has lowered prices drastically. One of my friend was on a hour and a half train - return was £10. The 3 hour return to Dublin is 70. Its government incompetence.

And look at the health service.

Denerick wrote: »

And the greatest achievement of mankind has been to find a way to limit anyone's political power. Which is why I think we have the perfect system.

I would have to disagree. The idea of checks and balances doesnt even come close in Irelands government.

Denerick

John Mc Cain and Barack Obama did have differences but nothing which affects the fundamental structure - IE, Liberal democracy, reverence of the constitution etc. Bush was an evil man who took a piss on the constitution while in office. I'm not saying there aren't clear cut differences in American politics, but one must admit that its very much the case that in Ireland very little seperates the big three.

There certainly are checks and balances in the Irish government. Elections are a check on parliament. Parliament a check on the people. The constitution a check on the government. Parliament a check on the government. The rule of law a check on the government. The media acts as the oil which keeps the thing moving. We're supposed to be active and interested citizens, but it doesn't really matter if we're not. So long as the people in power argue over minutae and lock ego's, they aren't really considering anything radical, which in turn doesn't effect my personal liberty.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

John Mc Cain and Barack Obama did have differences but nothing which affects the fundamental structure - IE, Liberal democracy, reverence of the constitution etc.

John Mc Cain and Barack Obama do not have any respect for the constitution.

Denerick wrote: »

Bush was an evil man who took a piss on the constitution while in office. I'm not saying there aren't clear cut differences in American politics, but one must admit that its very much the case that in Ireland very little seperates the big three.

Bush did piss on the constitution while in office. no much difference between the big 3 here.

Denerick wrote: »

There certainly are checks and balances in the Irish government.

some but not enough

Denerick wrote: »

Elections are a check on parliament.

No elections are a method of choosing who serves in the Dáil not a check on the power of the government.
The elector register is so far out of date I doubt if any election could be considered valid.

Denerick wrote: »

Parliament a check on the people.

I do not understand that one

Denerick wrote: »

The constitution a check on the government.

true

Denerick wrote: »

Parliament a check on the government.

As the goverment has a majority in Parliament I do not see how it can be a check on the goverement.

Denerick wrote: »

The rule of law a check on the government.

Rule of law has been ignored here for years both by the people and the government.

Denerick wrote: »

The media acts as the oil which keeps the thing moving. We're supposed to be active and interested citizens, but it doesn't really matter if we're not.

In practice this does not happen.

Denerick wrote: »

So long as the people in power argue over minutae and lock ego's, they aren't really considering anything radical, which in turn doesn't effect my personal liberty.

They have been taking away our liberties for years and most people have not noticed it until in affect them directly or some one they know.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

I argue that we don't need or want a choice really. Liberty is threatened by extremists. By keeping irrelevant politicians in power (and accepting the prevailing political order) we are also guaranteeing our liberty. Personal liberty is much more important to me than some simple populist leader trying to look different and manipulate the simple. (Which is what seems to happen in South America quite a lot - think Chavez)

And I also strongly question the prevailing consensus that 'Democracy' is anything to be revered. Democracy is tyranny by any other name. Democratic Republics with strong power-reducing Constitutions work best.

If we do not need choice why not have a King then instead of elections.

Both ff and fg and labour are populists parties.

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

Another example of a corrupt populist in power, Mr. Berlusconi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/24/silvio-berlusconi-la-repubblica-inquiry)

Just like CJ here.

,8,1

The only thing liberals don't like about democracy is that sometimes the people vote conservatively. Then it becomes "tyranny" "the rule of the majority" etc.

On the whole though, democracy is easily tempered and fosters liberalism.

lmtduffy

Belfast wrote: »

The problem in Ireland is we have no choice. All political parties in the Dáil are pursuing more or less the same incompetent policies.
Having choices does not mean having extreme choices only.

incompetent in your opinion, are you really just angry that the vast majority of the people on this island dont want what your selling this goes for most of the posters on this thread.

I am Labour supporter so I do my best to convince people that the country would be better off with a labour government.

I suggest you do the same if you want to whatever your ideology(what ever that is worth) to be practised in this country.

Denerick

Elections get rid of parliamentarians who have performed unsatisfactorily. Parliaments have the power to overthrow governments. Government majorities are often weaker than they appear - all it takes are a few rebels and an entire government can be overthrown. Therefore parliaments are a check on government. Parliaments are a check on the people because the people cannot simply move on any whimsical desire they have at the time - parliaments are elected for a certain amount of years and in between that time the people have to put up with them, unless of course they can get enough political support to forcibly dissolve the government. In other words, the people have to wait to re-elect their parliaments and governments. The fact that parliaments are elected for a fixed term makes them a check on the people.

The media is the oil that keeps everything together; It is where us, the people, get our information from. Whatever you think about the media they still perform that function.

Belfast

is_that_so wrote: »

Why is that a failure? What is your understanding of real choice? Political systems are not there to satisfy personal perceptions. Parties move to where they will generate most votes and justify their existence and therefore enact their policies.

So you say the politicians are lead by the people and the purpose of a political party is only to be elected and has no other than to pursue populist short term policies even if they bankrupt the county and deprive people of liberty.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
Edmund Burke

Denerick

Belfast wrote: »

If we do not need choice why not have a King then instead of elections.

I probably shouldn't have said that but yes, a constitutional monarch with a reasonable support base within the population is an additional check on the power of governments and people = therefore it is potentially a positive institution.

I'm saying the choice is pretty irrelevant. Thankfully Irish political parties aren't ideologically based; they can meet crises with rational responses as the situation requires, not some preconceived internal ideological code.

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke

Take it easy on the quotes. Thats twice you've thrown in a quote without giving it much due consideration.

"And bewareth the man who shallst quote to thee, without thought of mind or reason, for that man is a cursed man." Deuteronomy 4:37.

Belfast

lmtduffy wrote: »

incompetent in your opinion,

who else's opinion would I be giving ?

lmtduffy wrote: »

are you really just angry that the vast majority of the people on this island dont want what your selling this goes for most of the posters on this thread.

Who said I am angry.

Now you are speaking for the majority of the people in Ireland ?

lmtduffy wrote: »

I am Labour supporter so I do my best to convince people that the country would be better off with a labour government.

What else would a labour supporter do?

lmtduffy wrote: »

I suggest you do the same if you want to whatever your ideology(what ever that is worth) to be practised in this country.

I do not understand that last point. Do you think I am try to purswade people that my ideas are wrong?

is_that_so

Belfast wrote: »

So you say the politicians are lead by the people and the purpose of a political party is only to be elected and has no other than to pursue populist sport therm policies even of they bankrupt the county and deprive people of liberty.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke

I can only assume the version you allude to (I think) is where we have ended up. There were ample opportunities to address it and in that Burke was right. However the guilt by association for every political entity in the country is illogical and suggests to me that the quote sums up much of your own perception of the reality.

I make no apologies for political parties, nor defend what they can become. Political systems return what we choose or not choose to return. Populism is part of politics and of many other parts of modern life. It is not ideal but it is not wrong. But if that populism is based on what I perceive is a reasonable attempt and judgement to do the best for the country I have no objections to it.

I also agree on the quotes, a bit wildly cast about tbh.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

I probably shouldn't have said that but yes, a constitutional monarch with a reasonable support base within the population is an additional check on the power of governments and people = therefore it is potentially a positive institution.

It would not be my choice, but I can see the logic behind the idea.

Denerick wrote: »

I'm saying the choice is pretty irrelevant. Thankfully Irish political parties aren't ideologically based; they can meet crises with rational responses as the situation requires, not some preconceived internal ideological code.

There is nothing rational about the responses come up with by Irish politicians . An ideological is a guide not a strait jacket.
Keynesian economics is the ideological that most political parties follow in Ireland in economic matters.

Denerick

Eh no, its not. We've either adopted a very light neo Keynesian but by and large we have been neo-liberal if anything. Its J.M. Keynes 101 to take money of the economy when its booming and punch it back in when its not. We punched bags and bags of money in when it was booming and we're taking ludicrous amounts of it now that its not. Not a semblance of J.M. Keynes there whatsoever.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

I think we should. What difference will anything make? So long as my personal liberty and ability to live my life free from totalitarian government is secure then I am happy to live my life free from politics.

I would like to live a life free for politics.
Unfortunately politics and the state intrude in to almost all aspect of life in Ireland.

Denerick wrote: »

I just can't understand why people think politics is a good thing. Its best when its in the background.

I agree.

Denerick wrote: »

In my opinion the function of government is to make sure the buses run on time, that hospitals have enough nurses and that taxes are collected in order to run adequate public services.

I do not think government should be involved those things.

Denerick wrote: »

The Obama-esque Camalot politics is just an illusion, a painful one at that.

True. You hailed that one on the head.

Denerick wrote: »

The problem has always been, from the beginning of mankind when we decided to group ourselves into political units, that one person wants to manipulate other people so as to get political power. And the greatest achievement of mankind has been to find a way to limit anyone's political power. Which is why I think we have the perfect system.

I agree with you that limiting anyone's political power is important. I thing the states political power should be limited to a minimalist level.

If we ignore politics in the present climate as you advise then the politicians will leave us bankrupt and rob us of our liberty.

We have far from a perfect system.

Belfast

Denerick wrote: »

Eh no, its not. We've either adopted a very light neo Keynesian but by and large we have been neo-liberal if anything. Its J.M. Keynes 101 to take money of the economy when its booming and punch it back in when its not. We punched bags and bags of money in when it was booming and we're taking ludicrous amounts of it now that its not. Not a semblance of J.M. Keynes there whatsoever.

You are right about one thing what we have is a very bad copy of Keynesian economics.

if we had followed what you said "ts J.M. Keynes 101 to take money of the economy when its booming and punch it back in when its not." then we would not have been is as much trouble.

I am not a fan of Keynesian economics or neo-liberal.

I am more into the Austrian school of economics.