How much influence do we have on our democracies ?

How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (9/30/2012 12:27:52 PM)
Again, this is a question inspired by Tweaks link on the Israel thread. We all like to thinkof our vote having a major impact on our gevernments policies. Is this actually the case. The writer Norman Birnbaum expressed the notion that US policy isnt decided wholly by the government, but instead is majorly influenced by business leaders, the media and the civil service. Each President or Congressman has his or her own policy advisers. Many, if not most of these advisers have spent a career in the job, be it military, civil court, finance etc. Several familiar names appear over and over, either after every election, or every time a new party is voted in. IE Democrat and Republicans, Conservaives or Labourites, the same names crop up. The UK and I am guessing other developed nations, is no different in this respect. Longstanding politicians also hold sway over party politics, many under Obama also served under Clinton, many under Cameron also served under Thatcher, Major etc. And so it goes on. We now have the leader of the Labour party claiming to split up the banking sector if he gets elected. This, from someone who made his name under the two previous leaders whilst they supported the banking system. Radical plans, such as Milibands will make UK move offshore, the only place to suffer will be the "City" of London and if all the bankers start to leave, the city as a whole. Think thousands of workers no longer living eating or shopping in the City. We had Thatcher, Blair and Brown listening to the banks and making massive inroads into de-regulation, the very reason the economy is in a mess. So given the US hold Elections every four years, and the UK every five, does this mean those that take office know they are there short term. If so, does this short term mentallity mean they are so in a rush to leave a mark on history (As Blair and Bush were with Iraq) that they do more harm than good ?

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (9/30/2012 2:19:04 PM)
Hence the Occupy movement springing up around the world. Is there really a way out though?

Politesub53 -> RE: How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (9/30/2012 3:58:38 PM)
I cant see it happening. I think the public can only influence a short term policy. Many of the Tories plans have been shelved but will probably appear after the 2015 election. Thatcher wasnt liked but at least she stuck to her guns and didnt back of because an election was due. Lets not forget that even in the cradle of democracy only Athenian men could vote, women couldnt that didnt change much worldwide until around a centuary ago. Add to that Socrates ideas on free speech and democracy were considered dangerous (To a democratic state) and the great thinker was forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock. One problem is the brainiest people around dont always run, and dont always get voted into office.

tweakabelle -> RE: How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (10/1/2012 12:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I cant see it happening. I think the public can only influence a short term policy. Many of the Tories plans have been shelved but will probably appear after the 2015 election. Thatcher wasnt liked but at least she stuck to her guns and didnt back of because an election was due. Lets not forget that even in the cradle of democracy only Athenian men could vote, women couldnt that didnt change much worldwide until around a centuary ago. Add to that Socrates ideas on free speech and democracy were considered dangerous (To a democratic state) and the great thinker was forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock. One problem is the brainiest people around dont always run, and dont always get voted into office. We have the same problem here. Foreign Policy is usually considered to be bi-partisan, which means that it rarely gets discussed. So we have Aussie troops getting killed and injured in Afghanistan in a war that practically no one thinks winnable, or even desirable. The Afghanistan and Iraq adventures were foisted on an unwilling public by a conservative Govt, and they have been kept going by our current Labour Govt. Effectively any public discussion is frozen out. We were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years before it was discussed by the Parliament! The Cabinet decided we were going in and that was that. So we have all the dreadful legislation (like the US's Patriot Act) where we lost our freedoms in order to defend those very same freedoms. The population is kept in a state of dread over potential terrorist attacks, even though the actual number of attacks (including those thwarted by the authorities)is minute. There's rampant Islampohobia to keep the population in constant fear. There's a growing cynical view of it all as a deliberate plot by the authorities so that they can extend their power and control over ordinary citizens, that the threat of terrorism is vastly over-exaggerated for political purposes and that Aussie lives are being wasted to defend one of the world's most corrupt govts in Afghanistan, purely to bolster our defence ties with the USA. A lot of people feel Al Quada is more myth than reality - it certainly suits the govt's goals to have such a sinister threat around. There's a growing recognition that most of the issues in the Middle East are consequences of foreign interventions, invasions and occupations, that the people of the region are best left alone to sort out their own issues. Translating that feeling into effective political action is difficult, despite the anti-war feelings of most of the population here.

epiphiny43 -> RE: How much influence do we have on our democracies ? (10/1/2012 1:02:03 AM)
The voter has very limited veto power and then only as one of a vast movement of dissatisfaction. The real power is held by those who are successful in defining the terms of public debate. Such as the multi-national corporations that have enshrined their oligarchy as a 'free market'. No market is free if dominated by a few colluding power holders. The function of government Was to be the regulator who maintained a level playing field, which is how I see breaking up the largely monopolistic banking houses. If any player is 'too large to fail', the market certainly isn't 'free'. The same with the US ideological arguments. I can't even count the number of neighbors who firmly believe Obama is Muslim, Socialistic and a secret agent in the demise of the US. In actuality he has strongly supported the existing US financial industry and continued the existing foreign policy of his predecessors, though with a degree of multi-lateralism unknown to the first Shrub administration. And for which the current House leadership wants to crucify him for 'appeasing our enemies', by showing other countries actual respect. When the individual voter rebels in mass and forces new terms of debate is the only time power isn't held by the usual media, opinion makers and political dealers it always has been. I can't think of any creative power that has come from the bottom of the 'democratic' political life. Mostly we choose from two pre-formated choices in the US two party system. The European parliamentary system may offer a few more choices, most being smoke and mirrors from the real power brokers, as with our system. A few remarkable personalities have done disproportionate work, such as the Feminists and Labor organizers who did transform society, though it took multi-generational efforts. I have to completely disagree on the Middle East. The turmoil isn't even recent. The region has been troubled by power struggles since before Mycenaean times. The only peace has been from hegemony, and usually brutally enforced, internally and externally in conquered territories. Democracy is a newly grafted on concept and only practiced to any degree by the ostracized Jewish state which has become as military as any known due to it's neighbor's attempts to eradicate it. And I have no doubt if they were successful the next war would be instantly in planning as the surviving rulers plotted expansion.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125