7 ms·

I find it hard to believe that politicians are just so honourable as to not team up to pass their agenda. Am I too jaded?

labster 6y ago
In America the bipartisan system has corrupted our culture to the point that there really are only two normative agendas. In other countries, it’s still possible to have agendas that are sometimes in common, yet sometimes differ, without getting hit by either side’s cancel culture. In the US there is simply no common ground between the parties, so no reason not to join a team permanently.
zupatol 6y ago
Politics is not a zero-sum game. When parties discuss with each other they have a chance of all furthering their agendas to some extent, and have all parties mostly support the compromise. It's also the case that if a party campaigns strongly one subject and win votes with that, its ministers will tend to get the ministries that allow them to implement their ideas. So if you're tough on security you might get the police, if you're a fiscal conservative you get finances. It's more complicated than that, but the longer they stay on the bigger the chance they end up where they want.
m_mueller 6y ago
As I wrote, it's probably a power balance thing - parties in the Swiss system are actually more interested to 'bind' other parties into the government so they can't go out and do populist opposition politics as effectively. Think of it as a stable local optimum that seems to be better (by being more long term oriented) than the typical government/opposition party system.
nix23 6y ago
Some times they team up, BUT if the citizens dont like what they do, both teamed up partys will loose in the next elections, so it's in the interest of every single one party to bind the voters they care for, sometimes they overlap and than they team up.
throw0101a 6y ago
> I find it hard to believe that politicians are just so honourable as to not team up to pass their agenda. It seems to me that this turns out to be a chicken-egg, self-fulfilling prophecy: places where people do not trust government often elect corrupt(able) people—perhaps those types are the only ones available. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Places where there are high levels of trust in government (Nordics) tend to have good government. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_S... Not sure if there's some kind of 'loop' happening there in which countries can get stuck in, or how to break out of it.
- m_mueller 6y ago
  I think all stable systems are in some self reinforcing loop, otherwise they wouldn’t be stable. It just seems to me that Switzerland has, maybe by chance, found one with a more long term focus on improvement. I believe that shared government without term limits and direct democracy as a replacement for the opposition is key to this, and that it can and should be replicated elsewhere.

labster 6y ago

In America the bipartisan system has corrupted our culture to the point that there really are only two normative agendas. In other countries, it’s still possible to have agendas that are sometimes in common, yet sometimes differ, without getting hit by either side’s cancel culture. In the US there is simply no common ground between the parties, so no reason not to join a team permanently.

zupatol 6y ago

Politics is not a zero-sum game. When parties discuss with each other they have a chance of all furthering their agendas to some extent, and have all parties mostly support the compromise. It's also the case that if a party campaigns strongly one subject and win votes with that, its ministers will tend to get the ministries that allow them to implement their ideas. So if you're tough on security you might get the police, if you're a fiscal conservative you get finances. It's more complicated than that, but the longer they stay on the bigger the chance they end up where they want.

m_mueller 6y ago

As I wrote, it's probably a power balance thing - parties in the Swiss system are actually more interested to 'bind' other parties into the government so they can't go out and do populist opposition politics as effectively. Think of it as a stable local optimum that seems to be better (by being more long term oriented) than the typical government/opposition party system.

nix23 6y ago

Some times they team up, BUT if the citizens dont like what they do, both teamed up partys will loose in the next elections, so it's in the interest of every single one party to bind the voters they care for, sometimes they overlap and than they team up.

throw0101a 6y ago

> I find it hard to believe that politicians are just so honourable as to not team up to pass their agenda. It seems to me that this turns out to be a chicken-egg, self-fulfilling prophecy: places where people do not trust government often elect corrupt(able) people—perhaps those types are the only ones available. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Places where there are high levels of trust in government (Nordics) tend to have good government. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_S... Not sure if there's some kind of 'loop' happening there in which countries can get stuck in, or how to break out of it.

m_mueller 6y ago
I think all stable systems are in some self reinforcing loop, otherwise they wouldn’t be stable. It just seems to me that Switzerland has, maybe by chance, found one with a more long term focus on improvement. I believe that shared government without term limits and direct democracy as a replacement for the opposition is key to this, and that it can and should be replicated elsewhere.