Democratic Deficiency

@p1kef1sh (45640)
November 19, 2011 3:35pm CST
Here's a thought for us those that live in Democracies. How would you feel if your Head of State was to abolish your Parliament and impose unelected technocrats. Would that improve our economies or push us over the edge into anarchy and the dismantlement of society?
3 people like this
6 responses
@lilaclady (28240)
• Australia
19 Nov 11
Thats the good thing about being part of the Commonwealth and having the Monachy there to be able to stop that sort of thing...and lets hope the people would not let that heppen anyway..
@p1kef1sh (45640)
19 Nov 11
The Monarchy is a toothless tiger. The Queen may reign over us but she's not allowed by Law and convention to "rule". She is Head of State and not Head of the Government - that is the job of the elected Prime Minister. She can dissolve Parliament but that would almost certainly see a popular revolt against the Monarchy which would strip their powers further. Personally I am a monarchist and feel strongly that it is better to have an unelected, apolitical Head of State than an elected political one. However, the people that really govern are the ones that we elect to do the job. In my experience they do that job in a fashion that ensures that their interests come first rather than ours.
2 people like this
@lilaclady (28240)
• Australia
19 Nov 11
Well we had a Prime Minister sacked because he needed to be, Thank you for that, there is a safe guard there that is nice to have.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6342)
• Australia
20 Nov 11
The monarchy may be a toothless tiger but that is only because there was once a war between the monarch and parliament. In that war the army backed parliament and the King was forced to accept the loss of power and the constitution. If the parliament became rogue and started a dictatorship then the constitution would no longer hold and neither would the monarchs agreement not to interfere with parliament. If the Queen refused to accept the dictatorship, who would the army back? That is the key question since such a dictatorship can only survive with the backing of the armed forces.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
19 Nov 11
Today the parliaments are not elected by people.You can pick one or another of the candidates buy why only those 2-3 people ? There are countries where there are 20 or more political parties but only 3-4 will go to the parliament.So in fact we are electing our representative , we pick a guy from their poor offer ...like going to a cheap restaurant and to eat but they only have soup and hamburgers.You will take the soup or the hamburgers but that doesn`t mean you wanted to eat that.So it`s not a real democracy no one lives on a real democracy but some have better leaders like those in the northen european countries (Sweden,Norway,Finland ) and the others have only some puppets as leaders. USA,the rest of Europe etc.
@p1kef1sh (45640)
20 Nov 11
I tend to agree about your comments regarding democracy. However, we, at least in this country, do have a semblance of choice. Not a good one admittedly.
@dragon54u (31617)
• United States
19 Nov 11
I think the people would revolt here, but maybe not--we're so used to being pushed around there may not be much of a protest. Abolishing Parliament (or Congress) would turn it into a dictatorship. I would hope that the people would not allow it to happen.
1 person likes this
@p1kef1sh (45640)
19 Nov 11
There have been periods in history when democracies have been virtual dictatorships - WW2 for example. Italy has an entirely unelected Government now and seems to have accepted that fact. "We the people" only works when the People want it.
1 person likes this
• Australia
20 Nov 11
If this were a matter of a reasoned and well worked out meritocracy, with adequate checks and balances, I might not object, since I believe that representative democracy is a matter of government of the people by an elite for an elite. The devil, of course, is in the details. Perhaps limits to terms, a clear and unbiased testing process for appointing governmental officers, and detailed protections against nepotism might be a basis for a start. Otherwise it strikes me that everything depends on the reaction of the military. If it is led by true Warriors rather than mere soldiers, then they may take the view that such a step removes legitimation from the HoS and step in to block it. Otherwise, it would come down to the people, and there I have to wonder if a nation as apparently apathetic about its political leadership as ours would have enough outrage to fight the move. I would see this as a definite justification for civil disobedience, to the point of terrorism if necessary. Such a step unbalanced by some form of control is simply a Hitlerisation of a nation. Lash
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
20 Nov 11
@catdla1 (6005)
• United States
20 Nov 11
Pretty much already the way here. Politicians say anything to get elected, then do as they darned well please once they're in office. Let me know if it works better there....
@sharra1 (6342)
• Australia
20 Nov 11
It is an interesting question. We have had angry demonstrations over our last election. It was a hung parliament where one party managed to do a deal with the independents to form a minority government. Now the conservatives have never been happy with this because it was not them who formed government and they have been getting people to call for an election for nearly a year. They hoped the government would be unstable and collapse but it hasn't. If we can have such anger over a legitimate election process, then there might well be unrest. But if it was the conservatives who did it, the ones who think they are born to rule, then maybe not. It is hard to say but I would hope that the people would be angry enough to protest. The problem is that any such government would have the armed forces on its side and would our armed forces support this, quite probably. I am sure they object to democracy, many of them probably want to take over and run things their way.