Do we still have faith in our political system ?

[The Lawspeaker]

A dangerous question:

The problem in Europe at the moment is that the government seems to be out of control. Not only do we get multiculturalism forced upon us and are we being forced to rescind our democratic rights even though those rights are being protected by our constitutions (we've got now, for instance: compulsory ID, wiretapping, the wholesale demonisation and/or infiltration of opposition parties, election results that cannot be in accordance to the voting pattern and the ignoring of the results of the EU-referendums, forms of censorship (political correctness and worse) and increasing control on the media and Internet and worse.. our governments actively assist in undermining those democratic rights.

The question I am asking is: do we still have faith in our "democracies" or do you think that there should be another way out ? By overthrowing our governments and installing democracy.
I am referring to a coup d'etat by the armed forces and/or armed citizens/police.

[Skandi]

There is probably no other way, but would we like the consequences of any such action? Many people are today getting exactly what they want, for us to get what we want they would have to lose their freedoms, would that make us any better than them? Does that last comment matter? Is it a case of them not knowing what is best for them?

Another point, my history is not brilliant, but is this anything new? Did the old nobility and church do exactly the same things or is this a new desire to control the people?

[The Lawspeaker]

I agree- the people have become to complacent too see what is going on and this could be the end of us one day (sooner then you think). My knowledge of history tells me that any organization that has worked without civic democratic control/ or that does succeed in corrupting democratic control will turn tyrannical. That's because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What we are seeing is the decay of our legal traditions and our democracy is slowly being hollowed out.
I think that the only way out is a drastic one. The citizenry has virtually no weapons but the army has. Perhaps the citizens should be armed and elements of the army should take over key communication centers and commit a coup d'etat and reinstate democracy. It has happened before in Portugal (1974) and it doesn't have to be bloody. But in order to make sure that no counterattack can come (you never know whether a government can hold a trick up it's sleeve) the action will have to be swift and decisive.

[Ulex]

The problem with democracy is that it is slowly evolving from being merely a governmental method to become an ideology. Or, what's even worse, in many Western countries democracy more and more takes the shape of a new religion, which is characterized by dogmas and the persecution of non-believers. Like other religious believers we think that our politics shall never be questioned, and that we have the right to kill for it if necessary. Democracy is becoming an emotion of the masses, and such emotions can turn out to be pretty dangerous if not carefully noticed and controlled. These days we witness the democracies make use of any mean necessary to maintain its power and to rule out any opposition. It's a paradox, but we use the tools normally used by dictatorships to maintain our democracy. Democracy is becoming democracism, and this actually scares me.

[The Lawspeaker]

In a real democracy the majority respects the rights and ideas of the minority and bases it's policies on a consensus to keep both the majority and the minority content. This has always been the case in the Netherlands and I am sure in Denmark too.

Now we see that some minority (the so-called "majority") whose legal rights to rule are at best questionable decides on it's own against the wishes of the people and tries it's best to shut out opposition. That's no real democracy.

[Freomæg]

The only systematic means of preventing government tyranny (the type that has happened again and again through history) is the limitation of government power. It's as simple as that. Right now, the governments of the world are unanimously grabbing power so there's nothing to prevent totalitarian regimes from taking hold.

I like the US Constitution's way of making guns a right so that the people can always take back their country should the government run wild. This SHOULD be the case worldwide - after all, governments should work for us, not the other way around. The fact that European authorities have banned guns here - the only means for us to realistically ensure the preservation of our freedom - is a sure sign that tyranny is growing.

There is no genuine democracy here, just the illusion of. Therefore we cannot reclaim our countries for the people this way because the democratic system itself is fundamentally corrupted. In fact, it doesn't exist at all, it's a farce.

Therefore I see no other way for mankind to return to the correct course of liberty and happiness for all than by openly overthrowing the governments. No doubt this post will get flagged as some kind of 'terrorist' plot, though it couldn't be further from. The governments are the terrorists! They're the ones who threaten our freedoms and wellbeing. They've been usurped by international bankers and no longer serve the interests of the people.

[Svarog]

nope, I don't trust them one word they say, I don't vote, I don't watch them on tv, I don't buy products with their pictures and i even go that far that if there is a political meeting or smth in the town i do not leave my house, I gave up on my foolish dreams to change the world and society so i work on smaller things now, demoncracy is for the chosen ones, freedom of speech never existed, even freedom to self determination is limited, democracy you have in western countries is nothing less than a form of communism even tho no one will admit it, whole system depends on tax payers, you pay for thousands of immigrants who 'cannot' support themselves, if someone is up to get rich or powerful he pays way bigger taxes so he cannot achieve that, no wonder loads of Englishmen lives in Spain just because of the taxes, you pay for your social parasites by your work so you would achieve some state of utopic country which is ridiculous, equality and all of that crap, never existed, never will, and the modern attempts to do so are nothing but selfish way of grabbing power by spreading decadence and weakening the culture and tradition, homosexualism always existed but they never had more rights than normal people as they do today etc, stupid example but that is how it is, nope, no trust from this guy :D

[Paleo]

I've never had faith in our political system.


i think any system that involves 1 individual or a small group of individuals, representing and governing millions, is completely retarded!

we need something else.

[The Lawspeaker]

Like good old Winston Churchill once said:


Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
In a real democracy one would at least have some influence over your countries' or communities' (and that means your own) destiny.

Do we have real influence ? No

[YggsVinr]

I do not live in Europe but its safe to say the problem exists throughout the western world. To answer the thread's question, I have entirely lost faith in our current political system and view our breed of "democracy" as a complete sham.

Lawspeaker and Thrymheim wrote a little about the wishes of the people/the majority and I think Ulex provided quite a good answer. At this point, at least over on this side of the Atlantic, the government greatly controls popular opinion and the majority often follow it without question. As Ulex says, democracy has become an ideology an ideology that delivers its surface promises at that. Thrymheim wrote that for many people out there today, our current system is precisely what they want and she is quite right on that. For most people in the west, the instinct is toward stability and comfort. The middle class prevails at this point and as long as they have their comfy little abode to go home to, more food on the table than they need, a decent paying job, entertainment sources galore and a few friends to enjoy those with then they won't be budging to do much any time soon. There is no incentive to for them, they have their little white picket fence and aren't willing or really able to look at the consequences of a government that has taken the wheel from them and makes not only national but community and, consequently, individual decisions for them, leaving them with very few responsibilities beyond material gain.


nope, I don't trust them one word they say, I don't vote, I don't watch them on tv, I don't buy products with their pictures and i even go that far that if there is a political meeting or smth in the town i do not leave my house, I gave up on my foolish dreams to change the world and society so i work on smaller things now, demoncracy is for the chosen ones, freedom of speech never existed, even freedom to self determination is limited

This is very much what I think on the issue. The whole topic reminds me a little of Emerson and Thoreau's infamous little exchange when Emerson came to bail Thoreau out of jail (Thoreau always refused to pay taxes, and rightfully so). Emerson asked Thoreau what he was doing in jail and Thoreau replied by asking Emerson what he was doing out there.

As for if this is anything new, no its not. Since the dawn of agricultural the problem has been growing, and the bigger our "civilisation" becomes the worse it will get I can imagine. In an age where men are imprisoned for fighting for their own freedom to exist in a self-sufficient manner...well that was even a problem in the middle ages. We're still under the delusion that the government is there "for the people", yet a government that was truly in its position to act in defense of the people should not be forcing that "help" upon unwilling recipients. "That government is best that governs not at all."

[Vulpix]

No. I second Cythraul's view that real democracy in the true sense of the word doesn't exist. It is merely an illusion for the "sheeple" to drink up. In addition as Ulex eloquently pointed out, "democracy" has acquired a worrisome aspect of dogma/religion.
And yes, the removal of the right to bear arms was from the start another strong indication of the real nature of our governments here in Europe and the tyranny towards which we are headed.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

A dangerous question:

The problem in Europe at the moment is that the government seems to be out of control. Not only do we get multiculturalism forced upon us and are we being forced to rescind our democratic rights even though those rights are being protected by our constitutions (we've got now, for instance: compulsory ID, wiretapping, the wholesale demonisation and/or infiltration of opposition parties, election results that cannot be in accordance to the voting pattern and the ignoring of the results of the EU-referendums, forms of censorship (political correctness and worse) and increasing control on the media and Internet and worse.. our governments actively assist in undermining those democratic rights.

The question I am asking is: do we still have faith in our "democracies" or do you think that there should be another way out ? By overthrowing our governments and installing democracy.
I am referring to a coup d'etat by the armed forces and/or armed citizens/police.

Lets do it the French"American way:" French fries in their mouth and an American Chopper to 'head-off' further Democracy and the Dutch to salt the heads.
We all have the color Red-white and blue in our flag,we are therefore the salt of the earth

[National_Nord]

I am not sure/ other
Democracy - rule by the people.
How can there be power to the people? No, in practice, because the rules are always a few...

[The Lawspeaker]

Lets do it the French"American way:" French fries in their mouth and an American Chopper to 'head-off' further Democracy and the Dutch to salt the heads.
We all have the color Red-white and blue in our flag,we are therefore the salt of the earth
What do you mean with that ?


I am not sure/ other
Democracy - rule by the people.
How can there be power to the people? No, in practice, because the rules are always a few...
It depends. Plebiscites and direct democracy are possible. The U.S does it (although the rules are being constantly manipulated and ignored) and Switzerland does it (the same)- it should be possible. It is possible- as long as you can be armed and throw out those that abuse their power and all elections are transparent.

The problem with any form of governance is that those that have the weapons are in control. If the people have weapons they will be in control and as long as all politicians will be literary held accountable by both their armed constituency and the courts (they will have to open up their books at the end of their term and declare themselves under oath-like in ancient Athens) it should be possible.

What should be vital is also the adherence to a strict system of checks and balances- which is currently not the case here in this country.

[National_Nord]

It depends. Plebiscites and direct democracy are possible. The U.S does it (although the rules are being constantly manipulated and ignored) and Switzerland does it (the same)- it should be possible. It is possible- as long as you can be armed and throw out those that abuse their power and all elections are transparent.

The problem with any form of governance is that those that have the weapons are in control. If the people have weapons they will be in control and as long as all politicians will be literary held accountable by both their armed constituency and the courts (they will have to open up their books at the end of their term and declare themselves under oath-like in ancient Athens) it should be possible.

What should be vital is also the adherence to a strict system of checks and balances- which is currently not the case here in this country.

Direct democracy is possible if the citizens of the state interest in protecting their rights and have a vibrant civil consciousness. Democracy and capitalism contradict each other: Bourges (capitalist) will always seek to comply with its own interests rather than public. Authorities are among those who own and with money and weapons. Money - it is an indispensable attribute of government.

The most close to the ideal form of government, I think the social fabric of Cossacks. There were direct elections ataman, centurion, boss, when any enterprising person can show their talents in the civil and military activities, and also selected official responsible to the elected.

It should be remembered that in Athens, the civil rights of wealthy people.

[The Lawspeaker]

It should be remembered that in Athens, the civil rights of wealthy people.That's because they paid taxes. Here everyone pays taxes so everyone should have a democratic vote and in theory everybody has but I never fail to notice how different the "results" are from the polls and from what everybody said he voted. And also how often the same policy as last time is being continued even though all parties involved in the elections declared in one voice before the elections that they would do something else if people voted for them. And it is not the people that decide who will run this time- but the party and only a few people decide what will happen this time and who will run.

The referendum about the EU constitution showed a strong "no" vote which is now being ignored and the treaty is being forced upon us behind our backs.

Clearly some people call the shots while ignoring the voter.

[Psychonaut]

That's because they paid taxes. Here everyone pays taxes so everyone should have a democratic vote and in theory everybody has but I never fail to notice how different the "results" are from the polls and from what everybody said he voted.

I don't know how it is in your nation, but in the US a large portion of the population effectively pays no federal or state income tax. Anyone whose income is below a certain level technically "pays" taxes on every month's pay check, but at the end of the tax season, all of that money is rebated.

As for the bigger question, I have to believe that there is a democratic solution for my country, because if there is not then we're all fucked. In this day and age, even with our 2nd amendment rights, a civil uprising would be impossible to execute both because of the general apathy caused by affluenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza) and because the might of the US military. There is no militia in the US that could stand up to an artillery attack or is prepared to deal with air defense.

[Lady L]

I know this may be a little on topic, a little off topic.

Just the other night I was thinking about what if the people who ran the countries were people who are like people we look at as our Hero's ..? Odin, Thor, Jesus, Elvis, Freya, Varg, Hitler...? ( whoever you may choose as your Icon/hero ) ..? :);)

I know ...I'm a dreamer. :D

To answer the question, No. But, I do have some " faith " in certain people across the country. That person may be a Mom or a Banker or Mayor...etc...There are still good people.

[anonymaus]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority: it inherently denies the existence of individual rights. Its purpose is to serve the will of the majority in all things big and small. I have faith that any democracy, when implemented toward the true meaning of the word, will ultimately lead to a repeat of Socrates' last days.

If, on the other hand, we're speaking of a constitutional republic then yes there is always faith to be had in it; at worst, faith in its renewal after its corruption.

[Phlegethon]

I'd have to see a democratic system first before I can answer that question.

[Útrám]

IMO your proposition of subverting the present system and installing democracy will merely reincarnate what it overthrew. The faith in our needlessly large, inefficient and self serving governments thrives under the semiconsciousness of the uninformed herd because the public continue to accept good-looking promises at face value over what is practical, democracy only works if the public works; Sadly that's not the case, I think you need to start with the individual if it's democracy you want.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The problem with democracy is that it is slowly evolving from being merely a governmental method to become an ideology. Or, what's even worse, in many Western countries democracy more and more takes the shape of a new religion, which is characterized by dogmas and the persecution of non-believers. Like other religious believers we think that our politics shall never be questioned, and that we have the right to kill for it if necessary. Democracy is becoming an emotion of the masses, and such emotions can turn out to be pretty dangerous if not carefully noticed and controlled. These days we witness the democracies make use of any mean necessary to maintain its power and to rule out any opposition. It's a paradox, but we use the tools normally used by dictatorships to maintain our democracy. Democracy is becoming democracism, and this actually scares me.

Exactly, we even have people like Clinton, Bush, and Woodrow Wilson organizing Jihads for 'Democracy'. The term 'Democracy' has even been redefined in this instance to include 'rights' for 'minorities' and following a liberal ideology in general.


In a real democracy the majority respects the rights and ideas of the minority and bases it's policies on a consensus to keep both the majority and the minority content.

Nope, like was mentioned in another reply, 'real democracy' means that whatever the majority says goes. The rights of a minority are only protected by a constitution which places limits on what the majority can do, or out of fear the minority group may riot, rebel, or stop cooperating in general.



Like good old Winston Churchill once said:

In a real democracy one would at least have some influence over your countries' or communities' (and that means your own) destiny.

Do we have real influence ? No

In theory, people do, except maybe in some countries like Germany and Belgium where the government has banned certain political parties. If the majority of people voted for a nationalist party, it would get into power.


the government greatly controls popular opinion and the majority often follow it without question.

Not so much the government, but the mass media, and then the government does what the mass media tells the people to tell the government to do. In some cases, the mass media can bypass the people and just convince the elected officials to do what they want it to.




Thrymheim wrote that for many people out there today, our current system is precisely what they want and she is quite right on that. For most people in the west, the instinct is toward stability and comfort. The middle class prevails at this point and as long as they have their comfy little abode to go home to, more food on the table than they need, a decent paying job, entertainment sources galore and a few friends to enjoy those with then they won't be budging to do much any time soon. There is no incentive to for them, they have their little white picket fence and aren't willing or really able to look at the consequences of a government that has taken the wheel from them and makes not only national but community and, consequently, individual decisions for them, leaving them with very few responsibilities beyond material gain.

That's the problem with democracy, and that's why I don't think every human being over the age of 18 should be given the vote. I like the limits on voting which were set originally in the US as a good balance between concentrating power in the hands of a few.

Also, a constitutional element decentralizing power as much as possible is a good idea, many people don't care much about various things because it doesn't effect them personally. The desegregation of the American South is one example of this, most politicians from states with large black populations opposed the federal desegregation mandates, whereas most of the politicians from the states with very few black people supported it, because their constituents wouldn't care enough to throw them out of office for it. People from urban areas don't oppose hunting rifles getting banned and don't mind land use restrictions which don't effect them, people from California don't mind fuel economy laws because they don't have to drive in snow, non-Alaskans don't care about the Alaskan economy being hurt by restrictions which block oil drilling, etc.



The middle class prevails at this point


Direct democracy is possible if the citizens of the state interest in protecting their rights and have a vibrant civil consciousness. Democracy and capitalism contradict each other: Bourges (capitalist) will always seek to comply with its own interests rather than public.

I don't think direct democracy could exist without capitalism. Democracy wouldn't work in a class/caste stratified system, both because the masses of illiterate peasants couldn't be entrusted with the vote, and people would just vote along caste/class lines.

I don't think the middle classes are really problem, the problem comes from an uneducated underclass, my observation is that the higher up the class structure people are, the more educated and informed they tend to be. This is why our governments want to import a massive underclass from the third world.



That's because they paid taxes. Here everyone pays taxes so everyone should have a democratic vote

Like Psychonaut said, there are probably many people on welfare or with low incomes who don't pay taxes.

Here's some charts and graphs for the US:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html


I think the best 'fix' to democracy would be to make it so only people who pay taxes can vote. You get mailed a ballot back for that year after you file your taxes. If women are allowed to vote, the vote would also extend to anyone married to a taxpayer. This would eliminate pretty much all of the problems by ending the votes-for-benefits scheme which plagues modern 'social democracies', as well as removing the apathetic/uneducated/stupid underclass from the voting rolls, along with the very young/students who don't have 'real world' experience yet. This would also make vote fraud very hard, since people aren't going to want to pay taxes on a second identity just in order to vote, and fictitious and dead people don't pay taxes and thus will not receive a ballot.



And also how often the same policy as last time is being continued even though all parties involved in the elections declared in one voice before the elections that they would do something else if people voted for them. And it is not the people that decide who will run this time- but the party and only a few people decide what will happen this time and who will run.

Yes, that's the main problem with the party list/proportional style of voting. I'd much rather vote for actual individual people, rather than a party list which might contain some people I like and some I don't.



The referendum about the EU constitution showed a strong "no" vote which is now being ignored and the treaty is being forced upon us behind our backs.

Clearly some people call the shots while ignoring the voter.

Yes, that is a problem with republics as opposed to direct democracy, is the politicians will sometimes go against the will of the people, and then manage to get reelected on other issues.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

What do you mean with that ?

All flags or most of them with white red and blue in it are the salt of the earth
But
All with black yellow and red are the gods of the earth(Like Germany and Belgium.:)


Like good old Winston Churchill once said:

In a real democracy one would at least have some influence over your countries' or communities' (and that means your own) destiny.

Do we have real influence ? No

From what I can remember,there is a law in The Netherlands that in certain circumstances the people can remove the cabinet in its total.
I also favour "Enlightened despotism Such as the one of Catherine the Great and Frederic Barbarossa.
I find minority rights a bit overdone.
Let us look at The Netherlands.
Let's accept Wilders becomes president, let's say he has 35 seats.
He is a minority and also all other parties.
Now they form a coalition.
Coalitions are a curse.
You must have outright majority and a law in place that the people can remove the cabinet....for good reasons.
It is utter stupid that one has to wait 4 to 5 years to remove a dumbo cabinet by vote.

[Phlegethon]

If the majority of people voted for a nationalist party, it would get into power.

Do you happen to believe in Bigfoot and the tooth fairy as well?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Do you happen to believe in Bigfoot and the tooth fairy as well?

It happened in Russia. In Poland also, the nationalist party was in the government for a while, and the Swiss have had some success as well.

[Phlegethon]

There is no nationalist party in Russia, Poland or Switzerland. At least not in parliament.

[Absinthe]

I am guessing that when Greeks invented their democracy, the intelligence standards in the population must have been much higher (let alone it was a more clever form of democracy to begin with).

Nowadays, the fault is not with the political system per se but with the masses that the political system is implemented upon. If they are idiots, they will elect idiots. Idiots will rule idiots, and create more idiots. The more the idiots, the more idiotic the government is going to be....pure mathematics :p

[Revenant]

Our two party system here will continue for the forseeable future unfortunately. I think Nationalist parties will emerge but later become irrelevant as they move further towards the mainstream and then're gutted by the center right.

[Turkey]

Our two party system here will continue for the forseeable future unfortunately. I think Nationalist parties will emerge but later become irrelevant as they move further towards the mainstream and then're gutted by the center right. cntre right has always been our worst enemy. All the bad components of the right but with no racial preservation:mad:

[Laudanum]

Our political system? Yes.

People? No.

[Crossbow]

No, politicians are far from independent now, they have obey to the corporate world, and the support of the (working) population is decreasing continuously. The corporations are in power, not sovereign nations, and they decide about morality, aesthetics and what is further needed for the existence of ordinary citizens in order to keep them ignorant and busy, with one main point: keeping the current system going, no matter what. Ordinary people with average incomes, who have to work and are at the basis of creating real values, because they produce, don't have much authority, they're not relevant in this process of redistribution of wealth and financial capacity (apart from their role as tax-payers and consumers). So, there is no question of democracy right now, and maybe real democracy is simply too idealistic to be viable, an idée fixe. In the end it often turns up to be a system were contrary views are admitted (all political opinions have a right to join), and the most succesful ones can have it their way. Democracy should be seriously questioned, at least in its current form: 'global democracy', quite simply an instrument in the hands of unrestrained capitalism, to comply the need for new markets and investments.

[AussieScott]

If a Great depression occurs I could see the current political forces falling from grace in front of the masses, no matter the power of mass media persuasion. I'll have to have a think about this.