Economic effects don't matter during election time. The central parliament will be dissolved in about three months, and there's going to be the world's biggest democratic election in the month of May. That aside, those in power also gain from such policies.
I totally agree! But does economical success outweigh political failings on this scale? I mean even if people don't want to vote for another party, there are other means to be heard. Yet the citizens remain largely silent over this issue.
As long as rich is getting richer and poor is getting better services, which has been consistently the case for the past decade, majority doesn't care about who rules what and what their agenda is. People just want the status quo. People do think extraditions and finger pointings are increasing to insane levels, but as long as status quo is kept and lost services are replaced, they will keep on voting for their beloved somewhat-islamic somewhat-secular government.
Except lately the economy has been getting much worse.
This is a regular pattern with right-wing populist governments. When they get into power they institute a set of economic policies that lead to wide-spread prosperity in the short term, but in the long-term are a disaster.
As far as elections go, the government pretends to be in favor of free and fair elections, but its political philosophy is a set of arguments as to why they are a terrible idea and ought to be eliminated. Which is just what the Ergogan goverment has been attempting to do in a step-by-step fashion.
This is issue of representative democracy, by design. Representatives, sometimes have too wide rights and have not strong enough constraints, hoping, elections will choose very good guy, who will use his opportunities wisely.
But unfortunately, in real world, exists deficit of good leaders, and it is much worse on local govt level, because this is like second league (supreme league are govt of country, country parliament, top scientific organizations, military tops, and tops of top corporations).
This is spot on and one of the reasons why I think that running countries on a timescale of four year election cycles will not work in the very long term. It almost guarantees short sighted policies especially if there are no term limits or multiple runs for the incumbents. This is a very hard problem to solve, we've settled on democracy as the least of a bunch of bad solutions but we have yet to find something better and this more or less is baked into the system.
Free trade did the world a lot of good. At the same time it caused a lot of problems, mostly offset by the good but not all of it. It's a bit like controlling a model airplane before the days of proportional control. You get to 'yank the lever' every so often and you always end up overcorrecting. And that's before we get into even more complex issues such as corruption (which is part and parcel of every political system in one form or another) and simply dealing with human nature.
It’s tough. If economic interests dominate the political scene in that region, then the vote of the people may have little effect on the broader situation. We would do well to remember that the idea of a perfect democracy is certainly a huge simplification that we regularly see proven wrong. So it may well be that the voters of that region are not well represented by their “representatives”.
Sure, but grinding for power was allways sickness of elected politicians. It just escalated into whole-socio-economical problem. Which proofs why globalisation is dangerous and decentralisation so important.
Video of parliamentary debate and voting in the various (parliamentary system) countries I've lived in and visited just make me shake my head.
What it looks to mostly be about is "being the winner", regardless of what facts say are right. That, and keeping the gravy train going in regards to the daily expenses (300+ euro a day last I checked), big wages, and of course those wonderful pensions.
I've had very little hope since I first started voting 30 years ago. Nothing has improved in my opinion in global politics since then (wars, arms deals, greed, censorship etc....), including the never ending stream of - what eventually turn out to be -self serving politicians.
And given the political mind set, global economies and war are only going to get worse before, if we're lucky, it gets better.
Like voting changes much. Countries are all basically oligarchies, some of them have extra steps (a sprinkle of democracy, a pound of corruption) so people won't look up from their iPhone and feel superior to those backwards goat farmers with a dictator and no potable water.
Still, I'm glad to see you enjoy seeing your 1/xxxM representation.
Status quo and a governance which would rather work on "sexier" political issues. I'm sure if you polled the citizens of those respective states you'd fine overwhelming support for compensation, but that doesn't bring in the votes the same way [hot political issue] does
Less is demanded of our voting system than of our ATM system. The irony is that it is the same system. People vote with their money every day. Western democracy is realized through the market system on a national level. Locally it is still in tact as a function of voting ballots and money.
Governance is largely about the use of limited resources and less about civil liberties. Civil liberties are largely a function of popular majority and politicians just reflect the popular opinion of the day.
The populace has different levers for different controllers. Votes for politicians and dollars for private firms. In both cases the lever is imperfect and we don't always get optimal results.
What's this fuss about parties and rules? If these are biggest issues you worry about, then your country is being run by some very good politicians who ensured that there are no other bigger problems for you to worry about.
reply