4 ms·
In Sweden broiler is common political term for a person that has their entire career and life within the same political party and many of that political party's
by tored 5y ago
In Sweden broiler is common political term for a person that has their entire career and life within the same political party and many of that political party's suborganisations like for youth, religion, students, women, scouts etc.
They have lived their entire life in a fake world, made up of political strife between different factions and political scheming against opponents, often within the same organisation.
This is far from reality where the rest of us live, thus that is why I also mentioned professional career as well. When people get contact with reality usually they shed the most stupid ideas they have. And a professional career can even be a stronger antidote against "moronism" than a formal education.
The thing is that the "better system" is never a choice, you have the system you have and the system we (you) have now was never by choice either. "Constitution" is a series of compromises, historical events, traditions and fads.
Thus you have to look where you live a change things depending on that, a system that works in one country will fail in another and so on.
Specifically in Sweden I would revert some parts in the 1974 constitution to the 1809 constitution. The 1809 constitution favours separation of powers whereas the 1974 constitution favours popular sovereignty.
- consumer451 5y agoOK, I just read a bit about the Swedish 1809 constitution. It was still democracy, correct? So with all due respect, you do in-fact still seem to be in favor of democracy, though as any rational citizen you have some complaints.
- tored 5y agoSweden was not a democracy when the 1809 constitution was adopted, however Sweden gradually became a democracy over decades with that same constitution. That happened by moving decision making from the King to his cabinet, which was already regulated in the 1809 constitution. Much of the 1809 constitution regulated what the king couldn't do (separation of powers). There was a also a lot of other legislative work that happened outside of the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Council_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Council_(Sweden) What this shows is that you can have democracy without formally having one, and likewise you can have a dictatorship with democratic constitution like the Soviet union. Constitution is more than the paper it is written on. Discussions about democracy today has a tendency to focus on what the liberal definition what a democracy is. For instance during the middle ages Kings were elected in Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_of_Mora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_of_Mora My criticism against what you wrote was more about what democracies do well, I didn't agree with your points on that and instead gave an alternative, democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies.
- consumer451 5y agoMy dual apologies for both misunderstanding and putting words your mouth. Thanks for the reply. This is very interesting.