ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RoboCod said:
By definition, the UK is a full democracy, Syria is Authoritarian. If your own personal perception differs then so be it, I'm going to go with the reputable Economist analysis though.
Click to expand...

According to the definitions provided by that reputable economist analysis Syria should be a "flawed democracy":

Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free, but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement), and basic civil liberties are honored. Nonetheless, these nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Jack said:
Nope. Syria literally made up the number of votes recorded for each candidate.
Click to expand...

Are you being silly or do you actually mean that? Dude their elections were legitimate, even western sources and their enemies (I.E Qatar) found no fault with them. Hell they even made it possible for refugees who had left the country to vote from abroad (NB: This wasn't possible in the USA because they banned Syrians form taking part).
 
ubersonic said:
Are you being silly or do you actually mean that? Dude their elections were legitimate, even western sources and their enemies (I.E Qatar) found no fault with them. Hell they even made it possible for refugees who had left the country to vote from abroad (NB: This wasn't possible in the USA because they banned Syrians form taking part).
Click to expand...

The "most democratic" nation on earth bans voting?

Explains a lot.
 
Mr Jack said:
Compete and utter rubbish.
Click to expand...

Actually while not entirely accurate it is somewhat correct within the realms of the discussion. As mentioned before Syrians can elect their government AND their executive leader (president) in separate elections. In the UK we elect our government and then our executive leader (prime minister) is the leader of the majority government party.

This is how Gordon Brown and Theresa May became prime ministers despite 0 people voting for them.
 
Harlequin said:
according to the UN monitors - it was a free election
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You've completely made that up.

"Attempts to hold an election under the circumstances of an ongoing civil war were criticized by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon,[21] and it was widely reported that the elections lacked independent election monitoring.[22] However, an international delegation led by allies of Assad[23] from countries including Brazil, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela[24] issued a statement claiming the election was "free, fair and transparent".[25]"
 
Dis86 said:
"Attempts to hold an election under the circumstances of an ongoing civil war were criticized by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon,[21] and it was widely reported that the elections lacked independent election monitoring.[22] However, an international delegation led by allies of Assad[23] from countries including Brazil, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela[24] issued a statement claiming the election was "free, fair and transparent".[25]"
Click to expand...

So basically, the guy in charge of the UN whined that the election should be delayed due to the rebellion (in which case western leaders would have claimed Assad was no longer the legitimate leader due to missing an election).

But the independent monitors who actually went there form a dozen countries to observer the election (including the president of the World Peace Council) found no fault and some even praised the way it had been conducted despite the issues presented by the rebels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom