Pros and Cons of your democracy?

[mitsho]

This subject interested me for a long time, and now, I think it's time to ask you about it.

There are many many different democracies (repbulics, if you want it...) in the world. And each one of those is different. Each one has its good and its bad side. Now my question: What would you like to change in your constitution/government system/etc. to make it better?

I can answer this question for myself:
I live in Switzerland in a so called 'Direct democracy'. I don't think many of you readers know what is meant by that. It means that the sovereignity of the whole system is the people and that they(we) have the last word to say. That's also why we don't have one presiden but seven. As an example, on 26 septembre, there are the next elections. The people can then vote on the following things: "Do you want facilitated naturalization?" (right word? I mean the thing, that the foreign people that live (for a long time) in Switzerland are made Swiss), "Do you want a Maternity insurance?" and the post-initiative (Do you want to make the mail-company obliged to make sure that a net of post offices exist?). These are national, and cantonal (in each state) there are two more: "Do you want to subsidize the sinfonietta-orchestra?" and "Do you want to accept the needed change in the cantonal constitution?".
That's pretty much responsibility and decision facility for the people, don't you think? And that's why I like my land so.
But there are also bad things, and that's what I would like to change: Make the lobbyists official. At the moment, they have much power, but are not personally present in the senate (room). Why not make them legal and so make smaller their influence on national politics, but make the whole process more transparent?

So, and now, I'd like to hear your opinions on that and your country?

mfG mitsho

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to OT.

 

[AVN]

@mitsho,

IMO the democratic system the Swiss have, is the best existing democratic system (if I compare the systems of all countries) we have in the world nowadays.

I would like to have such a system in my country too.

But I have some questions.
1) How many people (in a percentage) do really vote in the referendums, which are held quite regulary ?
2) Do you have the idea that political issues in referendums are really discussed by the people (not only if you do that, but also do other people discuss them) or are they simply following the standpoint of their party/lobby group ?

I hope you can answer these questions.

 

[Grisu]

@mitsho,
But I have some questions.
1) How many people (in a percentage) do really vote in the referendums, which are held quite regulary ?
2) Do you have the idea that political issues in referendums are really discussed by the people (not only if you do that, but also do other people discuss them) or are they simply following the standpoint of their party/lobby group ?

I hope you can answer these questions.

1)there are usually 2-4 voting-dates per year (at each date you can decide on a number of issues (usually 2-4 as well). unfortunately the voter turnout these days is pretty low (usually 40-50%), last year we had one with only 29% (but that was probably due to the fact that the outcome was pretty clear to begin with)

2) I get the feeling that many people care and inform themselves about the referendums. it is often the case that the federal council, or the parties that hold a majority in the legislative are overruled by the people. for example the revision of the AHV (pension-fund) that was supported by the majority of the parliamen and the federal council was shot down with 67.9% against.

Personally, I think our system is pretty good, compared to other democracies, I'm not sure however, how well such a system would work for a really large country like the US. But it would be worth a try.

@mitsho: so you say you're a EHC-Basel fan?
on topic: I'm not sure I understand you on the issue of the lobbyists? how do they have so much power at the moment? the only lobby I see that has some real power (unfortunately) is the farmers.

 

[Adler17]

I think that Swiss system is good only for a small population. And even for the Swiss they should think to reform it. A direct system can only work with a small population. Everything else leads to chaos. I´m not a friend of plebiscites. Only in very big decisions (like EU constitution) it should be used.
In Germany we have 16 federal states (Länder), with their own governments, and a central government. The Länder form the Bundesrat to speak in the federation. The German parliament, the Bundestag, has the main legislative function in reality although generally the states have this function. Nevertheless the states has to agree to many of the decisions made by the parliament via Bundesrat. The government is ruled by the chancellor. The head of state is the federal president. He does not have the competences like the Reichspräsident but has proove if the laws made are not against the constitution. There is a debate if he can only proof the laws formal (inf the the Bundesrat was heard and so on) or also material (the content of the laws) but most agree to latter.
IMO this system although it has to be reformed in some places is the best functionable one. One of the lacks is the possibilty to blockade the laws by the Bundesrat. Nevertheless there are talks to reform federalism. But in generally having such a system of powers is the best.

Adler

 

[Grisu]

ehm, switzerland has a nearly identically system what concernes the parliament. we just have additional political rights that allow the people to overrule the parliament if it so chooses. I can't see why our system leads to chaos, and what should we reform?

take the current Hartz IV chaos in germany now: In switzerland we would just have a referendum and let the people decide. No need for mass protests that only cost a lot.

 

[newfangle]

Canada

Pros:
-Multiple parties

Cons:
-governer general
-appointed senate
-Liberals
-Conservatives
-New Democrats
-Bloc Quebecois
-Greens
-Canadian Action Party
-Marxist Leninist Party
-Communist party (yes, there are two of them)
-Non-fixed election dates
-PM has too much power
-MPs are wastes of carbon
-Transfer payments between provinces, so the more capitalist provinces can support the bloated socialist programs of the socialist provinces
-No actual constitution, just a shadow of one
-No clearly defined role of government
- Too much vote splitting due to the only pro
-Canadians are generally apathetic to their second-tier socialistic governments
-Current Canadian government says really stupid stuff about Americans, our largest trading partner by far
-Government support for any frivilous adventure, except the ones that actually accomplish something

*Sigh*

 

[earth]

My vision of democracy hasn't been tried, nor will it ever be tried with the current mindset of the world.

There would be no cons in my democracy for one.

pros?

True equality.
True freedom.

What more could you ask for?

 

[amadeus]

Pro: My voice is heard.
Con: Other people's voices are heard.

Pro: Pork projects for my district.
Con: Pork projects for other districts.

 

[stormbind]

Long live the Monarchy (or equivalent office).

I've posted the advantages of the unique British Democracy many times. It's greatness is the Unwritten Constitution (dating back to the 13th Century).

That being, British government has the most fluid ability to evolve... into anything (including the extremes such as Communism/Fascism). The only force that prevents unwanten/unconstitutional evolution is supposed to be Constitutional Monarch. Long live the Queen!

Republicans have either overlooked something, or are plotting terrible evils (imo).

 

[earth]

-Transfer payments between provinces, so the more capitalist provinces can support the bloated socialist programs of the socialist provinces

I would so love for Alberta to seperate from Canada. All they have is oil. All they do is complain about paying for the rest of Canada. They're up a creek without a paddle if we start using renewable energy. They're destroying the enviroment with the tarsands. It's like our own Texas!

You do realize that when the oil runs out (and mark my words it will) Alberta is going to turn into Manitoba or *gasp* Saskatchewan?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Pros:
An existent, quasi-indepentent, critical media (newspapers)
Better than Communism
Quasi-free speech

Cons:
Government grip on local media and national TV
Corruption
Non-independent justice system
Incompetent, self-serving legislature
Lack of political will on internal and external affairs
Populism, demagogy, gerontocracy
Lack of interest for the services of health and education

 

[AVN]

Pros:
Quasi-free speech

@Aphex_Twin
I do understand the other points you mentioned, but I'm surprised by this one.
Does it mean that you can't say everything you want, that you are still censored, that you can't say everything on the internet ?
Please elaborate (if you are allowed to do that of course )

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Aphex_Twin
I do understand the other points you mentioned, but I'm surprised by this one.
Does it mean that you can't say everything you want, that you are still censored, that you can't say everything on the internet ?
Please elaborate (if you are allowed to do that of course )

Speaking in public or via the internet is mainly unhindered. There are however cases of bulying and/or prosecuting/imprisonment of journalists. Insult used to be a crime (punishable by prison), now it's a misdemeanor (still punishable by up to 30 days in prison). There also used to be the outrageous crime of "offence against authority". On the internet, several years ago one Mugur Ciuvica (now small-potato politician) e-mailed a series of documents dubbed "Armagedons" to western embassies and media accusing the ruling power of corruption. His house was searched, computer, disks seized and was prosecuted (though not condemned).

 

[Adler17]

To Switzerland: I mean referendums are the thing which doesn´t work really. For nearly every decision a referendum. That´s too unrealistic.
To Britain: A constitution must be written. Otherwise it is too dangerous. However the Brits want to go their own way once again...

Adler

 

[Mise]

To Britain: A constitution must be written. Otherwise it is too dangerous. However the Brits want to go their own way once again...

What's the point in a written constitution? A written constitution might sound good now, but what happens in 200 years time when the constitution becomes irrelevant? Just look at the USA - they treat their precious constitution like the Bible! They follow it religiously down to the letter, like the ten commandments. We don't need a written constitution, we've done just fine without it.

 

[AVN]

What's the point in a written constitution? A written constitution might sound good now, but what happens in 200 years time when the constitution becomes irrelevant? Just look at the USA - they treat their precious constitution like the Bible! They follow it religiously down to the letter, like the ten commandments. We don't need a written constitution, we've done just fine without it.

ROFL !!
POTM !!

 

[mitsho]

oah, I gotta answer a bit,

@XIII I'm surprised that you think this is not world history? Politics have always been a major part in history and it is what we are teached in school (mostly) about the various historical periods. But ok, you're the mod, and if you think, this subject matches better into OT, then it does so...

@KaeptnOvi, erm, yeah, EHC-Basel fan isn't the right word. Sympathisant suits better, I've been to some matches and I'll go again, but not regularly.
And the thing with the lobbyists. You don't know much about them, that proves just the idea that they are 'powerful' (=work good). Erm, I think there was recently (in january or so?) an article in the 'Beobachter' (or was it the 'Facts'?) on them. The lobbyists are too a large part from the economy (various big companies and trade unions) and they have 'supported' some Nationalräte (not sure about the Ständeräte) in the elections, and now they get their investments back... (not really 'direct democracy', don't you think?)
(It's weird to talk to another Swiss (one from Berne?) in English, but otherwise, 'nobody' else would understand us...)

@Earth Can you elaborate this a bit?

Now we have had Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, Great Britain and the U.S. .
(The latter government system is to my opinion horrible. It's a system too old for such a big country. Meaningly, it was the first enduring 'democracy' and every system that came later on, has taken its good sides and made it better. But the Ol' Mother is still the same. But I won't count all the Cons of the American system here, because that would take too long... )

mfG mitsho

 

[newfangle]

I would so love for Alberta to seperate from Canada. All they have is oil. All they do is complain about paying for the rest of Canada. They're up a creek without a paddle if we start using renewable energy. They're destroying the enviroment with the tarsands. It's like our own Texas!

You do realize that when the oil runs out (and mark my words it will) Alberta is going to turn into Manitoba or *gasp* Saskatchewan?

I like Canada, and I don't wish to separate. And in fact, I would be kinder to transfer payments if the other provinces could actually handle money, but they CAN'T.

As for your threats about oil running out yadda yadda yadda, our heritage fund will theoretically be worth 100-200 billion dollars by that point, so I'd have to address your argument with, "when I see it, I'll believe it."

 

[newfangle]

What's the point in a written constitution? A written constitution might sound good now, but what happens in 200 years time when the constitution becomes irrelevant? Just look at the USA - they treat their precious constitution like the Bible! They follow it religiously down to the letter, like the ten commandments. We don't need a written constitution, we've done just fine without it.

If only that were true. If all or most Americans worshipped their constitution as yo so claim, they would be 10 times wealthier.