Maximus Zeebra

We can all clearly see that democracies around the world is failing, when those who have proclaimed to be the first and longest lasting such are starting to show dictatorial tendencies and tyrranical world leadership.

I am naturally talking about the treesome, the UK, the US and Australia. These countries are showing extreme tendencies not only in politics but also in the way they make those politics happen. Not only do they manipulate their populations into believing things that are not true for their political cases, but people are starting to see tendencies where these states are completely dominated by the upper leadership, whereas the lower leadership(parliament, senate etc) is just something to use or misuse as you want.

This can surely not be healthy for democracies, especially considering the upper leadership are taking more and more decisions, and not only manipulate the people but also manipulate their lower level leadership to accomplish whatever they want, bad or good. The "old" democracies are showing more and more of a tendency of carefully planned events where top leadership manipulates both the people and their lower government to go along with whatever they want. If they are not succeeding, these leaders will surely use their powers to overturn any decisions.

Its not only a disturbing factor that these democracies are manipulating and deceiving their own lower level politicians and citizens of their nations, but now these states are starting to come together to create some kind of world tyrranical leaderhip of incompetence and suffering. Whatever these people thing if they are right or wrong, they have absolutely no right to dictate other nations fates or opinions.

In my opinion, of all the western democracies, no countries are showing even close tendencies to being tyrranical and dictatorical(and or weakened democracies) than the US, UK and Australia in particular. Unlike their traditional leaders who were proud of democracy the politicans of these country now have so much power that once they get voted as a democratic leader they basically can rule as dictators. And surely, they have throught of EVERY single thing when they get elected, everything from how to manipulate their people via media or their closest politicians. This was not the way democracy was suppose to move, the political models MUST change in order for the world to preserve just rule and influence of the people. Democracy is weakening and perhaps even failing/falling, so its now that we must take action to make new effective political models BASED on democracy.

Here are a list of alternatives ranked in declining order;

Populist democracy: Wherein leaders are choosen as in democracy, but many of their cases/policies are ultimately decided by the people through referedas or E-democracy.
The political model will look somehow different, but will reflect the peoples ability to take control where politicians fails. Heavily dependent on technology.
A few important traits: The most sensitive political cases like going to war, changing the constitution, major law changes, major tax changes, must first be voted by among politicians and approved with democratic majority and then be processed to the people for voting, referenda, direct referenda for ratification.

Popular democracy: Almost the same a pupulist democracy, but just the most sensitive cases have to be ratified by the people. More so than in a democracy. Like war for example or major country decisions.

Grassroot democracy/representative democracy
democracy+.. Where units or peoples representatives in a local level are made an important part of decision making at top level. This could be dont in combination with E-democracy where representatives say their case and are elected in the local community to represent groups of people.


What is sure is that more power needs to move down, and less power need to move up to single individuals, how this should be done, thats the debate/question.

__________________
I am just waiting for some American to pick apart my 5000 word reasoning, by a slight spelling mistake in a sentence, to prove why I am wrong, and he is right.

American politics, knowledge acquired by the people.

Australianlibertarian

What utter condescending drivel.

If you want to talk about populist policies, let us look at France or Germany. France's socialist candidate President seems to spouting populist policies about job protection, tarrifs, and 35 hour weeks. Popular with the general public.

Then there is farming subsidies, I suppose America, Britain and Australia are the absolute evil Imperialists screwing the third world. Good to know that the E.U protects unproductive farmers so that they can enjoy their "lifestyle", meanwhile the E.U consumer get's screwed and developing nation farmers are effectively locked out of the E.U market. That policy really goes down well in France. Real POPULAR. Shame it is morally bankrupt.

It is so sanctimonious and dishonest to pretend that your wonderful politicians in Europe, would never screw the general public, or use the media to manipulate public opinion. To say that Britain, America, and Australia are in danger because of dodgy politicians while, Europe is the gold standard of morally rightjous politicians is absolute steaming cow crap.

Mmm this crap smells like hypocrisy!

__________________
I like liberals because they believe in moral freedoms. I like fiscal conservatives because they believe in financial freedoms. The problem is; I just don't like the rest of their policies!

Libertarian all the way!

Maximus Zeebra

I never said Europe should not become a populist democracy as well.

I am just saying the US, UK and Australia, the English axis of war is failing democracies.

I am not saying the EU is best, but at least some of our democracies are functioning. I could mention Spain as a exception whereas they went to war in Iraq even with 80% of their population against.

In the future, war MUST be decided by referendum, the people will have the courage, the will and good judgement to say yes to war at the right time and not before.

Gardener

Naturally, huh?

Based upon your first paragraph, I expected you to be talking about Iceland.

Feela

Thanks for warning us about your post beforehand.

Well that is the general point of democracy.

Is it or is not the americans and british invading places?

I don't think he suggested that in particular and btw the gold standard is crap.

Feela

Any kind of real dmoecracy would have to be very decentralised and direct.

LeftyHenry

frankly I don't see the difference between these "democracies"

__________________
Will You Stand up for the Human Race?

Synch

The de facto form of Democracy when one claims to be Democratic is Liberal Democracy, that's the one you claim is falling in popularity, right Maximus Zeebra?

__________________
To each to how much he benefits other who have the resources for benefiting those who benefit them.

Maximus Zeebra

Reading only the introduction I would think you are right, because we are already loosing "freedom and individual rights" everywhere where democracy is present. Most notably and the furthest in this process is the English trio, UK, US and Australia, but I can see Europe following in their trail.

What all democratic countries need is a democratic revolution, and this is the right time, with new technologies, globalization and everything. New technology if properly used could make it so that the people could decide more, thus protecting their individual rights and freedom of the people.

I am not saying the people should decide everything, but it should certainly have a very strong voice.

I also want to emphasize that the political would need to change, and that no individual alone should be able to carry more power than the people for example. Every government should have a structure whereas there is not just one leader, but at least 3 supreme leaders who carry the control that 1 leader carry at the moment. Below him should be a very strong government group of people from the parliments, senates, congress etc that should be a second level with strong influence. Below there again should be the congress, parliaments, senates etc.

Such a structure would be more transparent and secure that division of power in government is more balanced.

Australianlibertarian

I agree with your notion about individual rights. But unfortunately individual rights and democracy are actually two different things. Considering that democracy is the dictatorship of the masses.

What Europe and Australia need is a strong bill of rights, the limit the power of groups of people asserting force on individuals. I.e negative rights. What you have proposed is really a reorganisation of the European Parliment or the Parliments of those represenatitve nations. Having a seperate congress to a seperate Senate, or having three strong rulers as opposed to one, does not guarentee individual rights.

Lastly America needs politicians that actually follow the seperation of powers created by the U.S constitution. Very few U.S politicians at the Federal or State level seem to understand the seperation of powers, therefore many acts of legislation in the U.S if put towards the supreme court are technically illegal by the standards of the U.S constitution.

Secondly I would advocate the corporate law is completely changed. In terms of commerce, trade (what ever you want to call the exchange of goods and services), the coporation is modern entity, granted and protected by government; giving a business the same legal status as a person. Secondly the legal requirement of corporations to make profit (without mention, that these companies need to follow environmental laws or labour laws) means that corporations are inherently designed to make money and disregard any other factor (The Corporation is an excellent documantary in regards to this). Therefore to reduce corporatism that has influencing society, I advocate change in corporate law.....

Anyway I agree with your overall view that there needs to be a greater thrust to resort or protect individual rights. But I disagree on your methods.