It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The only problem is it is open to corruption!
Like all forms of government, Democracy is only as flawed as the people themselves. Unfortunately, the people are very flawed.
A great quote and your comment is to the point.
I agree that it is not a perfect system, but it's most likely the best one we'll have, since if properly practiced, there are checks and balances to prevent the human tendency to abuse power. Having said that, power can still be abused in democratic systems, increasingly so, which is unfortunate. Furthermore, democracy by itself is a fragile system. I think it works best in times of calm. Whether it is a system that can operate well under periods of stress is a different question.
Some examples of checks and balances are
1. electoral terms (to prevent people from staying in power too long),
2. limits on how many times one can be reelected (at least in the US),
3. freedom of press (which is meant to serve as a check on power),
4. freedom of speech and expression (which is meant to give power and a pulpit to the people),
5. different branches of government (legislative and executive branches - which can be different in the US style presidential system, although not in the UK or in a parliamentary democracractic system),
6. separation of church and state (to ensure that religious views do not predominate)
7. Supreme Courts
8. an educated and engaged electorate
When the system is in equilibrium, it works fine.
From my point of view, it is points 3., 4. and 8. above that are most at risk going forward. We increasingly have a bought and paid for media who do the bidding special interests and corporations. We increasingly also have more monitoring of our activities, which in turn could one day lead to limitations on what we can say and where (e.g. the recent debate about UK universities limiting debate in the interest of preventing hate speech). We also have a disengaged (as @patb mentioned), uninterested, and frankly uneducated population - one who is more and more selfish. This is the biggest threat imho. The public wants to be pandered to, and so politicians, the media, and everyone else panders to them.
Another chink in the armour is terrorism or external threats. Under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, governments throughout the West have put in place programs which curtail freedoms. This allows them to more readily ostensibly 'protect' the public, but it also conveniently gives them more control over the public. These emergency powers, once enacted, sometimes may never be removed because the perceived threat can never truly be eliminated.
----
If one is honest about it, a semi-autocratic system is probably more effective in raising a country's living standards quickly and effectively, and also in responding quickly to external threats. A perfect example of this from the recent past is Singapore, and even more recently, China. Both countries have been run in a benevolently dictatorial way by very intelligent leaders who have grand plans for their nation. The Singaporean system relied on Lee Kuan Yew's intelligence and foresight, and he was elected, although he suppressed opposition during his reign. He was a great leader, & a very intelligent and educated man. The Chinese system by contrast operates more by Politburo consensus, but also very strategically and intelligently. Both countries have been able to achieve massive increases in wealth over a relatively short period of time. In the event of a threat, the Chinese government could mobilize very quickly because they would not have to convene the entire parliament or congress.
As @DarthDimi suggested though, an autocratic system is very dependent on the leader remaining benevolent and well intentioned - which due to human nature is unlikely over long periods of time. Corruption sets in and inevitably the system collapses from within.
----
So a democratic system is probably the best one we have. However, one must not confuse democracy with capitalism. The two are separate and independent, although in many western democracies, the capitalist system prevails.
What is needed going forward imho
For democracy to continue to work effectively, the institutions that are in place to make it function (congress, parliament, the press, the court systems) must be allowed to operate freely and without corruption, graft or influence. All steps must be taken to maintain the integrity of these institutions. Furthermore, the public must continue to educate itself and be informed - people have to look beyond their own interests and think about what benefits everyone (including minorities) when voting and making decisions. They have to think more charitably. Finally, intelligent debate on the issues that affect us must take place and be readily accessible to all - preferably televised or broadcast on the internet.
The majority of the discussion and debate I see these days is 'sound bite' driven and does not get to the core issues. It focuses on aggrandizing/benefiting the individual rather than the collective, so it increasingly creates rifts and polarizes. We seem to live more in a 'me' culture rather than a 'we' culture, with a media that panders to our differences rather than our similarities, and sensationalizes to sell copy / increase ratings, rather than discussing the facts. There is too much gloss/glitter and not enough substance in the debate. All of this has to change.
Democracy at its best is not sexy. It's not twitter friendly. It's hard work - by everyone, including the public. Like any self regulating system, it's only as good as its component parts. The payoff is worth it.
Boom.
I of course agree with Sir Winston Churchill in this matter - the other forms of government tried out in different countries over the years have been infinitely worse - communism, fascism, Nazism, anarchism, socialism, tribalism, absolutism anyone? Compared to all or any of these forms of government democracy gets my vote. There is none better; history has proved this to be the case. In closing, no, democracy is not perfect, but what form of government is We can only try to reform the law and attempt to move nearer to the ideals of what democracy should be like. And if one party fails we can always turf them out at the next General Election and vote the other lot in That's democracy.
I'll finish this post with a few lines from "In Westminster Abbey" by John Betjeman:
Think of what our Nation stands for,
Books from Boots' and country lanes,
Free speech, free passes, class distinction,
Democracy and proper drains.
This is what Britain, home of the Mother of Parliaments, gave the world - parliamentary democracy. All Britons should be justly proud of that fact, regardless of their party political allegiances.
Once the institutions, checks & balances (courts, media, legislative branches) come under the influence of money (and loads of it), once voter participation declines (as it has done in many democracies) and once freedoms of expression/speech/information/disclosure are reduced (no matter under what guise - including attempts to stop external threats such as terrorism), then democracy is inherently weaker. Ultimately it can then be subverted to serve special interests and the wealthy at the expense of the masses.
At that point, one has democracy in name only. It then is no longer government of the people, by the people, for the people.
As has been mentioned, this all comes down to the masses. They have the power. They must express it. They must get involved and interested. They must exercise their right to vote. To hold power accountable. To be able to speak truth to power. The more divided they are, the more disengaged and uninformed they are, the less powerful a democratic system becomes, because they can be manipulated to serve their own interests and the interests of those manipulating them. The system is only as good as its components parts, and the most fundamental component is an engaged/educated/informed electorate.
Why thank you, @bondjames! :-) And after reading your post, I'm glad I selected this topic.
This is a very interesting point you make there. I think it also holds true for which political parties rule a country in times of stress versus in times of calm. E.g., in my country we have a rather large socialist fraction (socialist guilds and labour unions included) that constantly seeks to enrich those with a normal income whilst putting more fiscal pressure on the corporations. But said corporations supply jobs and many of them have already left the country to seek cheaper labour abroad. It's sad that they do that but unfortunately, that's the way it is. So in times of economical stress, when jobs are more important than gold so to speak, the last thing I want is dozens of factories or public services on strike, especially when the point of debate is one meagre hour of extra work every week for the same paycheck or some such thing. Such syndical actions create chaos and mayhem; they're a form of terrorism even since the success of such actions is often measured against the level of damage they impose on our society. They cost a lot of money, putting even more financial pressure on our society. They give some companies no choice but to close businesses here and find calmer waters in a foreign country. But individualism sadly triumphs, a point which @bondjames will address later on, and so these actions gain a lot of support, from certain politicians too. If these individuals, who want nothing but personal gain and screw the "greater good", vote the politicians who back them up into office, debts will only grow larger, more jobs will be lost, etcetera. I think in times of stress, more than ever, we need "paternal" leadership: a system with the freedom to make unpopular choices but all of them in the interest of the proverbial greater good, like the father who tells his 14 year old daughter she can't go out with that guy, and turns out to have saved her from a lot of trouble.
Separation of church and state is an absolute necessity IMO. Religion must remain a personal and individual thing; it really can't dictate an entire society. This is where parts of the USA have a serious problem I think. If I understand things correctly, individual states have something to say about their schools, e.g. what is taught in them. So when politicians in the Bible Belt succumb to the wishes of Creationists if only to secure a next term in office, schools indoctrinate their young ones with dangerous lies like how man and dinosaur walked the Earth together, less than 6000 years ago, an Earth that was zapped into sudden existence, etcetera. This is horrendous, in fact it's criminal! It means democracy has failed in these regions. When for the sake of political power such dogmatic forms of education are endorsed, it should readily be abolished.
Back to @bondjames' post, our population has become more selfish, indeed. A wise old man once told me, not so long ago, that sadly enough, we might need another war. I strongly disagree, war IMO is never a good thing, but I know what he means. When people have suffered a great deal, when a country has been destroyed, rebuilding it becomes a collective effort, everybody must try to start anew again, from scratch, and learn to once again appreciate the small things. Again though, I cannot agree as I don't think WWII left our world purged and cleansed...
I like how it sort of plays out that way in the Star Wars prequels. ;-)
----
@bondjames, this was a very educational post. Thank you!
It's the best system right now, but few people are willing to change it for the better.
Thanks @DarthDimi. Much appreciated.
I completely agree. I'm watching Greece closely at the moment, because they have elected the fairly new & young party Syriza to basically renegotiate the terms of the bailout with the EU. While I feel for the Greek people and believe that they need some respite from the pain they've been going through, the country does also need fundamental reforms and also needs to stem corruption which is rampant, and they haven't done enough on that front. I really hope they are able to sort their problems out quickly or else things could get out of hand and impact the rest of Europe, more than it already has done. When they signed up for the 'European Project' they should have realized that they would have to change fundamentally. The alternative is to leave.
A recent example of 'paternal leadership' occured recently in Italy in 2011, when Mario Monti, an economist, was appointed as Prime Minister & also as Minister of Economy and Finances by the President Giorgio Napolitano to replace the corrupt and disgraced Silvio Berlusconi. He appointed a cabinet of unelected technocrats and pushed through unpopular but necessary emergency measures (tax increases, pension reform and tax evasion fighting measures) intended to improve economic conditions & restore market confidence, as well as stabilize Italian bond yields, which were rising rapidly & destabilizing the economy. He lost the next election but he never really intended to keep going. He was there to fix problems quickly (almost management 'reorg' style) and move on. Arguably the Monti govt. did a reasonably good job and fulfilled its mandate.
I completely agree. It's shameful what politicians can get away with in some states in the US, on account of somewhat antiquated religious beliefs within their constituencies. They make it worse, because their involvement and encouragement in a way continues to legitimize these views. We're likely going to see this in full display again shortly as the Republican presidential contenders start debating during the primaries.
--
On an unrelated note, in certain parts of Europe, we see some politicians exhibiting what can only be described as xenophobic behaviour, pandering to a population concerned & fearful about loss of jobs to immigrants and new visible minority groups in the country. The solution to job losses may in fact be to curtail immigration, but pandering to unreasonable fears of newcomers is not the right way to do it imho.
I personally have felt this way too for some time @DarthDimi, regrettably - that a war is the only way to solve some of the issues we have in the world - precisely as you said, because then everyone must work together again with a common purpose for the greater good. We saw this in Germany and Japan post-WW2, and they are now economic powerhouses, despite the tragic circumstances that led to this rebuilding for both. It's almost natural though. Even empires crumble eventually and then are reborn in a different way.
This time around, I fear it might in fact be the worst excesses of unchecked capitalism (i.e. greed), in a way usurping and corrupting democratic principles, that may lead to the next major conflict. Particularly as we have increasing populations around the world, and more demands on scarce resources. Scary indeed.
The other Churchill quote about democracy that isn't so well known is this: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
What he meant by this is that the average voter doesn't understand the complexities of Government. And he was absolutely right ... but it shouldn't be seen as an insult to the average voter. The reality is that governing a country is extremely complicated. Even the experts can't always agree on the best way to do something, so how on Earth are we ordinary Joes supposed to know?
The flaw with democracy is that we are given choices that we can't possibly understand. It's a bit like taking your car to the garage because it's making a funny noise and the mechanic asks you what he should do to fix it. I don't bloody well know - you're the mechanic!
Soon UK voters will be asked whether we want to stay in the EU or not. And I must admit that I don't know which way to vote on this. There are advantages to being in the EU and there are disadvantages. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? I don't know. I want to pay some clever so-and-so to make that decision for me. I'm not an economist.
And because I don't know the answer to that question, the politicians on either side will try to influence me with over-simplified arguments about the queen's head on the pound coin ... as if that has anything to do with anything.
The problem with democracy is that its core premise - the public should choose - is fundamentally flawed. It is ridiculous to ask us to choose something when we don't have enough facts or expertise. So politics ends up being a form of beauty contest. We elect the ones who look best in a suit and/or can give the best speeches.
We have a system which forces politicians to be superficial ... and then we distrust them because they are superficial.
</b>How do you feel about war journalists exposing the 'war crimes' committed by their own soldiers rather than trying to stimulate patriotism?</font>
Yet certain war journalists get over there, take pictures, bring home stories about war crimes and such. Vets return home and are branded child murderers. They are shunned the rest of their lives, hardly find a job, or even a house to live in.
Again, maybe I don't know enough about these things. I just think that in times of madness, in times of war, which are always irrational times, it's okay to be critical towards the political architects of the war, but maybe their throwaway tools a.k.a. soldiers should be cut some slack. Madness provokes madness, and while that doesn't justify things - I mean, I'm not an animal - I simply think that it doesn't help the war or rather a country to learn about the crimes committed by fellow countrymen with so much at stake.
Was Afghanistan a mistake or wasn't it? I haven't got the answers. I merely believe that while America was trying to overcome the 9/11 blow - and it was a pretty big blow, one that was felt in other parts of the world too - some folks found some kind of comfort in the thought that soldiers were over there for payback. That may not be the real story, but sometimes a good lie is what people need in dark times... Then praise the brave soldiers, prey for them, whatever it is you want to do. Don't cripple the moral even further by exposing critical errors on the side of your own boys. At least not in a long while.
Isn't the WWII generation called the "greatest generation that ever lived"? Let's not be so naive as to think that they never committed any atrocities in Europe for example. Only those stories didn't get out so fast. And now they get the Spielberg films, the Williams music and the nice actors, while Vietnam films play things dirty, intentionally ambiguous, with domestic threats rather than Red ones. I have a feeling that these conflicting perceptions of both wars have a lot to do with how people were briefed in the newspapers and on television.
My view is war is a last resort and should always be. A war should be justified to the extent that those who send the young to die should be willing to send their own young (both men and women since we live in an equal opportunity world today) to die as well. That's why the draft, terrible as it may have been, helped to keep politicians accountable to an extent, and the public morally grounded. If you didn't know if your son was going to be called up, you'd probably think twice about which country to bomb and which one to occupy.......and you may, hopefully, not do it at all, or only as a last resort.
Today, in a world with no draft, where poorer visible minority people make up a much larger proportion of the grunt foot soldiers in the US (along with mercenary outsourced defense contractors), and in a world where foreign policy decisions are made on a whim (with less thought for loss of life precisely because we have drones, more dangerous missiles and no draft), there is less consequence, for the public.....and for governments to go to war... That's not a good thing in my view.
With regards to patriotism, I'm all for that, but only when it's warranted. Not by default just because it's your countrymen. Patriotism must be earned. Not guaranteed. Patriotism should be the warranted respect for good deeds done in defense of your country.......not for bad deeds done for your own pleasure. I realize that the soldiers in Vietnam had a bad go of it, but their war crimes are still war crimes, it's very dangerous to cover them up, even if the intention is to heal a nation imho. Germany was responsible for terrible war crimes during WW2. They faced up to it, and are stronger as a nation today because of it.
The Guantanamo fiasco being exposed was a good thing. The Iraq war was fought on an incorrect and nefarious pretext which made the revelation all the more disgusting, but even if it wasn't, that shambles should have been exposed for what it was.
I'm all for Snowden, Assange, Manning etc. They do the country and the world a service. In my mind, they are the true patriots. I think in a world where the media and governments/politicians are increasingly controlled by a) large multi-national corporates, b) foreign donors, and c) other countries with their own interests at heart, there is a need more than ever to have more whistleblowers. These public informers are the only way to push back against this rampant corporatism serving big oil and the military industrial complex.
The US constitution first amendment protects freedom of the press. It is dejure right, but defacto it has been hijacked. So whistleblowers are needed.......as are brave, honest journalists who are not afraid to throw one of their own or their own countrymen under the bus when they find out about wrong doing for the greater long term ethical good of the country.......imho.
Their honest, open journalism may hurt in the beginning, but over time it will make a nation more self aware, and more morally ethical. That is a good thing as it prevents self-delusions and unjustified feelings of exceptionalism. Tough love never did any harm.
</b>Should we stop using nuclear power?</font>
Nuclear power has become a very controversial item in today’s energy debates. Politicians, at least here in Western Europe, seem more eager than ever to shut our nuclear reactors down. With the Fukushima disaster in mind, none of them dares to face the next elections advocating continued use of nuclear energy. But is it really an option to shut our reactors down for good?
Some say it is, if only because nuclear waste and the risks of an explosion like the one in Japan suffice as qualified reasons. But I tend to disagree. Nuclear waste comes in rather small volumes and can be stored away deep underground where, if left untouched, it cannot harm us in any way until thousands of years of decay have rendered the waste perfectly harmless. Trust me, it sounds a lot worse than it is. The risks of an explosion are virtually nil if the equipment is kept up-to-date, if the reactor is built on steady ground and if the technicians and operators are screened and qualified.
Furthermore, what’s the alternative? We keep consuming more energy, not just because we use more tools that run on electricity but also because there are simply more of us than ever before. The alternatives aren’t exactly enough. Burning more fossil fuels is out of the question, water and wind turbines can make only meagre contributions and solar power continues to reveal hidden issues. Nuclear fusion would solve all our problems at once but the technical difficulties we must overcome to make a fusion reactor run in an economically feasible fashion are still plenty and tough.
As such I rather like to think that the benefits of nuclear fission still overshadows its few risks. It’s relatively clean, safe and reliable. Certain problems, like the limited availability of nuclear fuel, can be (partially) overcome by means of breeder reactors and the likes. Safety is only an issue if one becomes nonchalant or if a reactor is exposed to severe geological disasters, which is exceptional anyway. Nuclear waste, when handled properly, poses few risks – if any at all.
I’m worried that the public opinion, when it demands that all nuclear reactors be shut down at once, comes from a limited understanding of what the alternatives would be and also from fear. But Fukushima is like an airplane disaster. Though any airplane crashing is terrible and frightening, it hasn’t stopped us from flying. In fact, it’s still the safest way to travel. Sure, Japan suffered. But one accident mustn’t dictate an entire course correction towards what can only result in either a total black-out, an increased greenhouse effect, or both.
At one point there will be a grave accident in Europe (possibly France) or in the US.
Then, nuclear energy will finished immediately.
And there will be another such accident, maybe tomorrow, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20.
Don't worry. Springfield will always have a nuclear plant, Burns or Smithers will see to it.