5 ms·

"The fact that the regular replacement of leaders has turned out to be democracy’s strongest feature underscores" That also assumes power is concentrated in th

"The fact that the regular replacement of leaders has turned out to be democracy’s strongest feature underscores" That also assumes power is concentrated in the Leader as much as it is in Russia/China. In the West the President/PM is more of a face than the person with the final say. If we look at US Policy, the policies that effect the common man, hasn't changed much between Republican/Democrat leadership - especially contentious policies - Erosion of wealth of the lower/middle class, Regime change/Expeditions in Middle East, Reduction of civil liberties/press freedoms/internet.

nicoburns 5y ago
That might be true in the US (where the president is leader of only the executive branch, and there is a two party system with not much difference between the two parties), but it's decidedly not the case in other systems. For example, here in the UK we also have a two party system but a greater difference between the two, and the Prime Minister also largely controls the legislative agenda.
- busterarm 5y ago
  But the PM in your country doesn't have unilateral authority to commit to military action, which is not the case in the big powers. That's the point. Of course yes, yes in the United States the President can't declare war without Congress, but we just don't call them wars anymore.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > But the PM in your country doesn't have unilateral authority to commit to military action, which is not the case in the big powers. They actually do: "Constitutional convention requires that the declaration of war or commitment of British armed forces is authorised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown. Parliament has no official constitutional role in the process.[7] However, ministers are still accountable to Parliament for the actions they take.[8]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_military_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_... In practice they may not remain Prime Minister for long if they tried to use those powers in a manner that parliament wasn't happy with (unlike in the US, the UK prime minister can be deposed by parliament at any time), but in the first instance that power does lie with the PM.
- socialdemocrat 5y ago
  But a prime minister is not remotely as powerful as a president. A prime minister has no independent power as he was not elected by the people but by the party or coalition he/she leads. That party/coalition can in principle remove the prime minister any time they want. You cannot remove a president. Look at the attempts at removal of Trump. It requires an impeachment which proved near impossible. A vote of no-confidence is contrast is a very simple procedure.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    That's very true. A PM with the backing of their party and a strong majority is very powerful, but they cannot really act unilaterally.
busterarm 5y ago
In the post-9/11 United States, power is much more concentrated in the Executive than you think. Remember that in the classified 2012 Inspector General's report that Snowden leaked it states clearly that President Obama asked the Director of the NSA that if the warrantless wiretapping program were deemed to be illegal, would he continue it on the President's orders and that the Director's answer was "Yes, Sir."
- pydry 5y ago
  I wouldnt be surprised if they'd also refuse to stop it on the president's orders. Post-9/11 the security establishment has become a law unto itself.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    Absolutely true. It is a huge problem to have so much power among unelected career officiates. At the bare minimum we need to walk back the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any elected officials will commit to that. These agencies have quite effectively infiltrated our media[1] as well to the point that it can't really be considered anything other than State Propaganda anymore. The sad thing is that we pretty much all know it. Some turn a blind eye because they think "same team". But the term "National Security" has transformed from the benign "Public Safety" to "State Integrity/Consistency" right under our noses. The current systems are built to entrench those who already control the reigns of power. And will continue to do so. --- 1: Not that they even need to anymore with both groups pulling from the same class of people for membership. Media used to be a very blue collar job that is now the passion-playground of those seeking wealth, connections and favor.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > Absolutely true. It is a huge problem to have so much power among unelected career officiates. The problem is election in the first place. Power is delegated to power-hungry sociopaths instead of being exerted by the people directly. Whether an executioner or secret service agent is elected or not doesn't matter: these roles are profoundly inhumane and anti-democratic per se. We need actual democracies in which no State, no Federal Government, and no secret agency can decide what's best for us and assassinate or imprison anyone who disagrees.
robbiep 5y ago
Which is a point where, say, Westminster system or similar really starts to move ahead of the US system - not only do you have reasonable multi-party options (to varying degrees) but also issues don’t boil down to a single person - the douche or turd sandwich - because whilst the modern media state does actually distill everything down to that single person as a figurehead, you still have to win 50% of electorates (or form coalitions to get there) and power is more devolved
- sofixa 5y ago
  The Westminster system is pretty close to the American one, and the fact that there are different parties is a bit by luck. A representative parliamentary system is much better for that - you don't disenfranchise up to half of the electorate, compromise is forced due to the need of coalitions, etc.
  - ant6n 5y ago
    In a Multi Party First past the post system, u can disenfranchise much more than 50% of the population. In fact if there are N parties, it’s theoretically possible to have a majority government with 0.5*(1/N+epsilon)+epsilon of the votes (e.g. 12.5% in a 4 party system).
  - robbiep 5y ago
    There are lots of ways to do democracy. I used one example because I am most familiar with that one example - australia has the Westminster system but it also has preferential voting which forces many of those same compromises and deals. For all those reading, because this is a place where pedantry is a rule, can they please appreciate that these replies of mine are sweeping and vague which necessarily recognises that there are both good and bad characteristics of all systems, as demonstrated by the history of those systems
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      And yet despite compromises, Australia still has concentration camps for immigrants on the northern coast. Ask ordinary people if they support such inhumane treatment and they'll tell you hell no, yet your political system still produces and legitimizes that. Australia is not a democracy, and i don't know many democratic systems in the world (except maybe for the Zapatistas caracoles in Chiapas or democratic confederalism in Rojava). Not judging, i'm myself from a colonial Empire masquerading as a democracy (France). It's just that changing the complexion/conditions of who exerts power is the wrong solution to a real problem: abolishing power is in my view a much more reasonable policy.

nicoburns 5y ago

That might be true in the US (where the president is leader of only the executive branch, and there is a two party system with not much difference between the two parties), but it's decidedly not the case in other systems. For example, here in the UK we also have a two party system but a greater difference between the two, and the Prime Minister also largely controls the legislative agenda.

busterarm 5y ago
But the PM in your country doesn't have unilateral authority to commit to military action, which is not the case in the big powers. That's the point. Of course yes, yes in the United States the President can't declare war without Congress, but we just don't call them wars anymore.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > But the PM in your country doesn't have unilateral authority to commit to military action, which is not the case in the big powers. They actually do: "Constitutional convention requires that the declaration of war or commitment of British armed forces is authorised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown. Parliament has no official constitutional role in the process.[7] However, ministers are still accountable to Parliament for the actions they take.[8]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_military_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_... In practice they may not remain Prime Minister for long if they tried to use those powers in a manner that parliament wasn't happy with (unlike in the US, the UK prime minister can be deposed by parliament at any time), but in the first instance that power does lie with the PM.
socialdemocrat 5y ago
But a prime minister is not remotely as powerful as a president. A prime minister has no independent power as he was not elected by the people but by the party or coalition he/she leads. That party/coalition can in principle remove the prime minister any time they want. You cannot remove a president. Look at the attempts at removal of Trump. It requires an impeachment which proved near impossible. A vote of no-confidence is contrast is a very simple procedure.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  That's very true. A PM with the backing of their party and a strong majority is very powerful, but they cannot really act unilaterally.

busterarm 5y ago

In the post-9/11 United States, power is much more concentrated in the Executive than you think. Remember that in the classified 2012 Inspector General's report that Snowden leaked it states clearly that President Obama asked the Director of the NSA that if the warrantless wiretapping program were deemed to be illegal, would he continue it on the President's orders and that the Director's answer was "Yes, Sir."

pydry 5y ago
I wouldnt be surprised if they'd also refuse to stop it on the president's orders. Post-9/11 the security establishment has become a law unto itself.
- busterarm 5y ago
  Absolutely true. It is a huge problem to have so much power among unelected career officiates. At the bare minimum we need to walk back the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any elected officials will commit to that. These agencies have quite effectively infiltrated our media[1] as well to the point that it can't really be considered anything other than State Propaganda anymore. The sad thing is that we pretty much all know it. Some turn a blind eye because they think "same team". But the term "National Security" has transformed from the benign "Public Safety" to "State Integrity/Consistency" right under our noses. The current systems are built to entrench those who already control the reigns of power. And will continue to do so. --- 1: Not that they even need to anymore with both groups pulling from the same class of people for membership. Media used to be a very blue collar job that is now the passion-playground of those seeking wealth, connections and favor.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > Absolutely true. It is a huge problem to have so much power among unelected career officiates. The problem is election in the first place. Power is delegated to power-hungry sociopaths instead of being exerted by the people directly. Whether an executioner or secret service agent is elected or not doesn't matter: these roles are profoundly inhumane and anti-democratic per se. We need actual democracies in which no State, no Federal Government, and no secret agency can decide what's best for us and assassinate or imprison anyone who disagrees.

robbiep 5y ago

Which is a point where, say, Westminster system or similar really starts to move ahead of the US system - not only do you have reasonable multi-party options (to varying degrees) but also issues don’t boil down to a single person - the douche or turd sandwich - because whilst the modern media state does actually distill everything down to that single person as a figurehead, you still have to win 50% of electorates (or form coalitions to get there) and power is more devolved

sofixa 5y ago
The Westminster system is pretty close to the American one, and the fact that there are different parties is a bit by luck. A representative parliamentary system is much better for that - you don't disenfranchise up to half of the electorate, compromise is forced due to the need of coalitions, etc.
- ant6n 5y ago
  In a Multi Party First past the post system, u can disenfranchise much more than 50% of the population. In fact if there are N parties, it’s theoretically possible to have a majority government with 0.5*(1/N+epsilon)+epsilon of the votes (e.g. 12.5% in a 4 party system).
- robbiep 5y ago
  There are lots of ways to do democracy. I used one example because I am most familiar with that one example - australia has the Westminster system but it also has preferential voting which forces many of those same compromises and deals. For all those reading, because this is a place where pedantry is a rule, can they please appreciate that these replies of mine are sweeping and vague which necessarily recognises that there are both good and bad characteristics of all systems, as demonstrated by the history of those systems
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    And yet despite compromises, Australia still has concentration camps for immigrants on the northern coast. Ask ordinary people if they support such inhumane treatment and they'll tell you hell no, yet your political system still produces and legitimizes that. Australia is not a democracy, and i don't know many democratic systems in the world (except maybe for the Zapatistas caracoles in Chiapas or democratic confederalism in Rojava). Not judging, i'm myself from a colonial Empire masquerading as a democracy (France). It's just that changing the complexion/conditions of who exerts power is the wrong solution to a real problem: abolishing power is in my view a much more reasonable policy.