1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Democracy needs to change

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ultralaser, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,345

    I've said for quite some time now that I view social media as malevolent. It can and is used as a rallying point for some of the worst excesses we have seen in politics for decades. Fake news has been shown to influence a great many people and as many politicians have realised it's very difficult to counter/control. I fear it will be democracies undoing.
     
  2. BowdonUK

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,888

    I think the breakdown of democracy is coming from that everyone living in the country now has different allegiances. People don't all believe in the same over arching principle anymore, and its become a dog fight with population factions arguing for their point of view (Brexit and Trump issues are the best examples of this).

    This along with the objectification of the 'other' that as emerged in the last 10 years I find disturbing.

    I have thought about these kind of issues for quite sometime. It didn't used to be like this. But then our parents and grandparents generation were heavily influenced by 2 world wars. I think people were more humble and appreciative of the system we had and were more respectful of each other. The nearest we get to that these days is if there is a natural disaster or a terror attack going on.

    So I agree with some others on here that democracy is an empty shell. A dead man walking until a collapse. Until someone takes their objectification of the 'other' and does something physical. Dark days ahead.
     
  3. Zethor

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2013

    Posts: 4,294

    It didn't used to be like this because the (mostly) losers who now support populism, xenophobia and/or nationalism used to blame people closer to them for their problems, such as spouses, family or community. They would rant, they would start fights but they didn't really have a voice at national or even international levels. Now they do and they allied themselves with other losers such as the traditionalists and the religious who have been losing battle after battle of the cultural war. The third element of this mix are the old who are nostalgic about the 'good old days'.

    This isn't about Left or Right, these 'other' people, who represent at least 25% of most Western nations don't just want alternative political directions, they want to see the current society burn.

    Democracy doesn't need to change, it's not failing, it's just that the rest of us have become complecent, we often don't even bother to show up to vote, foolishly thinking one vote doesn't matter while the 'others' come at the voting booths in droves. A child molester is about win in Alabama, a lying, clueless clown won the US Presidency and a Brexit which will damage everyone, particularly those who voted for it, is looming. The fact that so many people vote against their interest shows that their only intention is to cause an earthquake so they would support ANY person and ANY idea as long as that has a chance of happening.
     
  4. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,172

    This is true and the predictions now are that capitalism will fall because of natural disasters which will unite people and make them more caring about themselves. Not like now dog eats dog fight and extreme egoism.

    Democracy has never existed. The decisions are made by those who count the votes and your individual vote has value only if it's part of the majority that won.
    And even then, it isn't 100% probable that what you propose (for the better) will happen. Because someone higher than you will say the final word.

    Why does Formula 1 want a budget cap for the teams?
    Because the gap between the super rich teams and the ones who can't invest so much money, will be reduced and the game will become more interesting for all of the members in it.

    The same with the wealth. Why some have to be billionaires and all the others have to struggle to make the ends meet?
     
  5. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,295

    none of which actually negates democracy existing, I think you're confusing 'democracy' with something rather narrower such as 'direct democracy'
     
  6. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,412

    No. There was a thing called deference in society. About the time of WW1 people accepted their 'place' in society. WW1 destroyed that to a large part although it was still in place during WW2. After the slaughter of both wars it ended. Churchill the supposed great war leader was kicked out for a more socialist Govt that brought in the NHS etc. This trend continues today and no person no matter how high is viewed in the same way. Churches have fallen to new lows with paedophile priests and ministers or abusive nuns who were meant to be caring for people. All the various 'Estates' of this country have let themselves down and are now viewed with suspicion or derision. At the top Royalty is not immune any more to criticism or worse.
    The problem is the link between you and Govt. Your MP used to be a local person who knew the local area and problems and generally kept in touch. Today we have Corporate politics where your MP may have been parachuted in to make up the Party's quota on woman or whatever the current fixation is. The person may be the relative of some MP or an ex SPAD who is in favour. The solution is in the hands of people but they are sheep and are treated accordingly. Instead of the omnishambles that is Brexit the public should have voted for anyone who was not a representative of the three main parties.
     
  7. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,172

    Something similar to castas hierarchy in India? How is this hierarchy defined, who is at the top and who is in the bottom?

    Because idiots are praised while the smart are treated badly and laughed at... :rolleyes:
    This is the society that we live in today.
     
  8. BowdonUK

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,888

    I agree with what your saying about the world wars. Also I agree on your points about politicians having no connection to the people they are representing.

    I would restrict the eligibility for someone to be able to stand in an area so that unless its their first time they should have stood for 5 previous elections, either national or local in that area. This would make it so that parties can either keep standing the same person, or they have to keep choosing new people who havent stood anywhere else before. This would be in addition to the current rules.

    I'm not sure if this will be an unpopular opinion on this thread. But what are you guys opinions on restricting voting rights? I would charge a small fee to cover admin costs and also introduce a very basic knowledge test.
     
  9. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,653

    Wealth caps in society are pretty much arbitrary and don't achieve anything - the efforts are better spent ensuring the baseline rights and opportunities for people.
     
  10. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,172

    The baseline rights are extremely different from country to country. Imagine the baseline rights of the poorest in the UK, and the baseline rights of the poorest in the poorest region of Africa or Asia.

    Think about the society as a whole, not opportunities for certain individuals or certain groups of people or nations. Because, one successful indivudual won't compensate for 100 "failed".
    Or ensuring that the poorest areas have what to eat, proper infrastructure which complies to some international standards, serious education for the children, lack of corruption, mafia, etc "basic" rights.
    The poor should be allowed to travel the world more, and the rich should be restricted a so often access (to paradise islands, I mean).

    This should force the rich to become smarter, will motivate them for further contribution to the society and not only themselves.
     
  11. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,412

    It was all there in the post and you quoted it below. At the top is the clergy then the nobility ...

    An old concept now but still in use up to WW2. As I said the clergy and the nobility have shot themselves in the foot.

    I never said anything about the cult of 'celebrity' which could be seen as raising the mediocre to prominence.
     
  12. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,295

    are you saying you want to return to the sort of society we had pre-WW1?