The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > With our own 'counterfeit' democracy how can we possibly export it? > Comments

With our own 'counterfeit' democracy how can we possibly export it? : Comments

By Tim Anderson, published 14/2/2005

Tim Anderson argues that Australia is not a democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Trade, you mention that the problem with democracy is that it tends to put people against each other. It sure does. That’s the whole point. Any other system is a one party state and I hope none of us want that. Name calling etc. is a problem between human beings, not a problem of democracy.

I agree 100% with your second paragraph.

In relation to your 3rd I’d just like to say that Europeans are happy because they are also the “haves” (I’ve never associated this expression with politics at all). Why wouldn’t they be happy? I think everyone in the world gets on with their life in one way or another. They only time you don’t get on with your life is if you’re dead. Although never having been to Spain I have been to several European countries and my impression was that they’re mostly very politically aware. I would suggest that they are just as much, if not more so, influenced by political spin than we are.

Your last note is ridiculous. I suppose because the discrimination and oppression shown towards the Palestinian people is indicative of a Marxist state this proves your point. Israel has elections, everyone, including the Palestinians has a vote. Even though their lands are occupied this does not mean Israel is not democratic. It’s a bit unfair to construct a perfect model of democracy and then hold countries up against it. Every democracy on Earth would fall short.

Pericles, point taken with your reference to Castro. Your description can be applied to both extremes of politics hence the description of left and right is irrelevant. However we are not living in any political extremity and the terms left and right are understood by everyone.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 14 February 2005 5:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

'Isn't it long past time we ditched these meaningless little crutch-phrases, left- and right-wing? As labels they are well past their use-by date, and it won't be long before they simply indicate laziness and a shallowness of intellect on the part of the writer.'

Well said.

In the world of power and politics it is much easier to advance behind the smoke of lies, distortions, dishonesties and emotional manipulations. Emotion is a much stronger motivator than logic and the power hungry know this. It is much easier to do as it scarcely requires thinking. Fear and greed before facts and figures... every time. It

For most, Thinking Hurts and laziness doesn't.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 14 February 2005 5:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie,

l dont regard the point of democrazy as being about being against each other. That doesn't sit well with the idea of general unity. l think democrazy is just a popularity contest by mob rule. As Churchill said... 'its the best of a bad bunch.' But it is not without flaw. As it is, it does well enough in this country. But l think we've learned to live with the way the process has been subverted and just gety on with the things we can influence in our own lives.

The idea of 'have' and have not' is a Marxist concept. Its all about comparison to what your neighbour has. . Whether l am happy with my plate depends on what my neighbour has on his. It is a relativistic concept. It implies a redistribution of wealth or at the very least that the wealth of a nation is unfairly distributed. That term has become so ingrained in our thinking that its implications and origins seem to have been lost. This is the beauty of politcally touted Newspeak, where a word becomes redefined to denote the opposite of its true meaning. That in my opinion, is an example of how our consciousness has ben hijacked by political peddlers of spin.

Re my last note, lm not sure what point ridicule serves in contemplating a contention. The point of that note was not in any way intended to reflected upon the details of Middle Eastern politics. It was offered as an example of a) the manner in which language is twisted by politicians to serve their own ends and b)to illustrate that Marxism can hide behind democracy.

The whole model of delivering a promised land to an (allegedly historically) entitled people is pure Marxism. Recognising continuing entitlement to a diaspora of bretheren under the 'law of return' is the same thing. Deposing a group in order that another may reclaim their entitlement is Marxist.

There was no democtratic vote back in the late 1940s amongst all concerned parties regarding running the occupants out of their homes and off their land (the ones who were actually there, as opposed to the co-opted claims of those that selectively read the first testament).
Posted by trade215, Monday, 14 February 2005 6:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade, thanks, point taken.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 14 February 2005 6:22:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>the terms left and right are understood by everyone. <<

Are you absolutely sure about this bozzie?

A current country leader has massively increased public spending since he was elected; has introduced trade-protection schemes for his country's industry and agriculture; has increased his country's trade deficit to the point where the currency is under enormous pressure.

Sounds like a classic "left-wing" tax-and-spend scenario, doesn't it?

But "everyone understands" that George W Bush is on the right of the political spectrum.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 February 2005 7:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, left and right are broad general terms that most people understand. I agree that when you get into the miniature of anything, things aren't always so clear cut and the labelling of things in terms of left or right isn't helpful.

This article is about democracy and democratic principles etc. and I'm sure that most people understand the basic difference between left and right in this context. Let's not get too bogged down in pedantics.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 14 February 2005 8:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy