US to withdraw from UN?

Sparks

The only way for people of average background to successfully populate a parliament is for the education system of that state to be 100% equal access for all. This is not the case in any democratic country that I know of, and in this country it is getting worse, not better. But that's another debate.

*cough*switzerland*cough*

But yes, another debate...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
*cough*switzerland*cough*

I know this is heading off topic...but its struck me as interesting how often I - and others - hold up Switzerland as an example of how a democracy can work, or how it is "real" democracy, or whatever....

I assume that everyone here is aware that when the current Swiss nation was founded (only in the mid 1800s), its governmental system was based on what was perceived to be the best and fairest system at the time.....the United States of America.

I always find it ironic, therefore, that the US system is so often knocked as a sham of democracy, and the Swiss system held up as a "shining" example of how it should be done.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

True, the Rockefellers and co. were probably seriously lobbying to go to war with Nazi Germany on economic grounds, but unless the entire US was morally incontinent at the time, I'm sure there were many who were lobbying for war on grounds other than economic ones.

Nope. If you remember your history, the majority of people were lobbying for peace and isolationism to continue.

that the US was far more concerned with the idea of Nazi Germany and/or Communist Russia running Europe, as they posed greater threats to the US as a whole rather than to particularly large powerful industrialists.

And why? Not a military threat at least - the US was very far ahead of both in the military sense - the German nuclear program couldn't even have been a reason as the Germans were still experimenting with Heavy water and enriched uranium when the Third Reich fell - many years behind the US. The reason was that they feared Nazi Germany was a serious economic threat with links to the one area all European powers daren't go - South America. Stalin's USSR, if you know anything about Stalinist era politics, made an almost paranoid point out of not being interested in threatening the great powers - Germany, France and Britain - even the intelligence network at the time was benign (check internet entries for Sorge, Cairncross, Philby, MacLean, Burgess and Blunt).

may not be a perfectly idealised democracy, but it is a democracy with all the flaws that come with that style of government. Don't get me wrong, I disagree wholeheartedly with their particular democratic method when it comes to electing a President but to say America is not a democracy is incorrect.

No. It is a nation that is governed by wealth - and yes this is true to some extent in the UK, in Ireland, in France and so on but more so in the US - actually go and look up the three presidents that I mentioned and what they had to say and when you look up EV Debs you will really hit paydirt - it will save me the bother of fighting a slightly off-topic point.

Sparks

bonkey,

I always find it ironic, therefore, that the US system is so often knocked as a sham of democracy, and the Swiss system held up as a "shining" example of how it should be done.

It's not really that ironic - the swiss system sees the people retaining actual power while the US one doesn't. And since the same can be said of every representative democracy, there's a lot to be said for the swiss way of doing things.

bonkey

Sparks,

I mostly agree, but the point I'm driving at is that principally I see any failure more as one of the people than one of the system itself.

In a similar light, I see a success of a system as being largely of the people, rather than of the system as well.

The system being held up as a success, compared to the one it is being used to criticise are - in many respects - the same.

I agree the Swiss system was an improvement in that it kept the power firmly in the hands of the people, but I am not convinced that this is the sole - or necessarily even a significant - reason that it has succeeded in the way that it has.

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
I don't know about that - if I could make one and only one change to either our political system or that of the US or UK or any other state, it would be to enshrine the right of the people to call for a binding referendum on a topic by submitting a petition with a preset percentage of the populations (say 4%) signed up to it. How many decisions in the past decade would have been prevented or passed in Ireland alone through that mechanism? No need for anti-war protests, just force a referendum. No need for protesting the amendment to the FOI act, just force a referendum preventing it. And so on.

That seems to be the main difference between the swiss system and others. And it's not so much down to the people as a function of the system. I am rather convinced, for example, that if there was a system in Ireland whereby an individual could influence policy items, that we wouldn't have the problem we have with voter apathy. I mean why be concerned with politics in Ireland when honest politicians are like hen's teeth and the government merrily ignores the largest protests in the history of the state, where health and education budgest are slashed while happily ordering new jets for the government, incredibly incompetently sourced helos for the gardai, hundreds of thousands are spent on makeup and hundreds of thousands more on image consultants?
It's horribly obvious that our opinions don't count and since we don't have any other route, most people just say "fcuk it" and try to get on with their lives, or emigrate, or whatever.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
That seems to be the main difference between the swiss system and others.

Not really, when you consider that up until a few years ago, it could take 10-15 years for a public initiative to make it to a vote. Now, that has dropped to somewhere in the region of 3 years, I believe, due to some beuraucracy changes.

So its not much use for things like anti-war voting, unless something like this war and the use of Shannon brought an initiative to decide what the government was permitted to do in future.....but then you're back to voting about issues when they're dead and forgotten, rather then when they're current and people actually care about it. Try raising the Shannon question at the next general election, and you'll more than likely get a "Christ, you're not still on about that, are you" response, rather than a "this is a valid point about the people we consider electing" one. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats my genuine belief.

I am rather convinced, for example, that if there was a system in Ireland whereby an individual could influence policy items, that we wouldn't have the problem we have with voter apathy.

Agreed, mostly...its not just that you have a system, but you have a system which itself is not too subject to apathy.

Then again, if you are correct, does this not open the way for a potentially massively successful election platform....the aim to get elected to initiate constitutional change to put more power in the hands of the people.

Sounds a bit socialist though - doesn't it

jc

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by QBall

In 1998 the UN pulled its weapons inspectors out of Iraq due to the fact that Iraq was not fully cooperating, and was in fact deliberately frustrating the UN's attempts to carry out inspections.

I think you forgot to mention that the US/UK had spies in the weapons inspectors who were more intrested finding bombing targets then looking for WMD.