JustForFun
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
Democracy in theory is better than a one party system, but t.b.h. it depends on the setting.
For democracy to flourish certain conditions need to be met:
1. good education
2. quality press
3. engaged electorate
Besides those criteria there are some other situations in which a one party system can be better than a democracy:
4. defacto 2 party democracies
5. distance between electorate and politicians
Lets look at the points:
1. If the population lack good education, democracy becomes a joke. Things in this day and age are becoming so complicated that gut feeling is getting counter productive. A non (poorly) educated electorate is therefore far easier to make the wrong choise for the wrong reasons. E.g. in the Netherlands there is a part of the electorate that wants to get out of the EU, because the country pays more to EU than it receives directly. They however fail to see that the vast majority of dutch trade is with EU partners and as a whole the country profits from being part of the EU.
2. A quality press is a big part of the checks and balances that make up a functional democracy. If the most profitable media are those that care more about lady gaga's dress than institutional corruption, then this part of the democratic equation is failing. Worse yet are the daily polls on party popularity. They actualy and actively derail democracy, because some decision makers now are to scared to make unpopular (but in the long term right) decisions.
3. An electorate which is not engaged in the democratic proces is more a hindrance to democracy than help. They are voting for parties without knowing (that is because of lack of engagement not lack of education) why. Traditional parties tend to get a big base because of these type of voters, which gives them an unfair advantage.
4. Defacto 2 party democracies can be split is 2 tyes. The first is type in which 2 traditional parties dominate the political landscape, the type seen in most European countries. There are however a lot of smaller parties in parliament that need to be taken in consideration and sometimes they are part of a coalition that can make or break a government. On lower level of government these parties can actualy be the ones holding power. The second type of 2 defacto 2 party democracies are mostly seen in Anglo-saxon countries. Mostly because of a winner takes all district type setup, minority views are being squashed. With those smaller parties taken out of the equation for the 2 parties that make up such a system there is only one opponent, THE OTHER PARTY. This can lead to situations (see the US) in which politicians do not do what is good for the country, but only aim to derail the other party.
5. If the politicians are in such different situations as the general population (what is the ratio between $ millionair/non-millionair in your parliament?) some can not see what is important and what is not.
So in the end it is possible that the Chinese political system is more flexible or outright better than the American. Just ask yourself: who did you vote on last time, why and did it make a difference?
For democracy to flourish certain conditions need to be met:
1. good education
2. quality press
3. engaged electorate
Besides those criteria there are some other situations in which a one party system can be better than a democracy:
4. defacto 2 party democracies
5. distance between electorate and politicians
Lets look at the points:
1. If the population lack good education, democracy becomes a joke. Things in this day and age are becoming so complicated that gut feeling is getting counter productive. A non (poorly) educated electorate is therefore far easier to make the wrong choise for the wrong reasons. E.g. in the Netherlands there is a part of the electorate that wants to get out of the EU, because the country pays more to EU than it receives directly. They however fail to see that the vast majority of dutch trade is with EU partners and as a whole the country profits from being part of the EU.
2. A quality press is a big part of the checks and balances that make up a functional democracy. If the most profitable media are those that care more about lady gaga's dress than institutional corruption, then this part of the democratic equation is failing. Worse yet are the daily polls on party popularity. They actualy and actively derail democracy, because some decision makers now are to scared to make unpopular (but in the long term right) decisions.
3. An electorate which is not engaged in the democratic proces is more a hindrance to democracy than help. They are voting for parties without knowing (that is because of lack of engagement not lack of education) why. Traditional parties tend to get a big base because of these type of voters, which gives them an unfair advantage.
4. Defacto 2 party democracies can be split is 2 tyes. The first is type in which 2 traditional parties dominate the political landscape, the type seen in most European countries. There are however a lot of smaller parties in parliament that need to be taken in consideration and sometimes they are part of a coalition that can make or break a government. On lower level of government these parties can actualy be the ones holding power. The second type of 2 defacto 2 party democracies are mostly seen in Anglo-saxon countries. Mostly because of a winner takes all district type setup, minority views are being squashed. With those smaller parties taken out of the equation for the 2 parties that make up such a system there is only one opponent, THE OTHER PARTY. This can lead to situations (see the US) in which politicians do not do what is good for the country, but only aim to derail the other party.
5. If the politicians are in such different situations as the general population (what is the ratio between $ millionair/non-millionair in your parliament?) some can not see what is important and what is not.
So in the end it is possible that the Chinese political system is more flexible or outright better than the American. Just ask yourself: who did you vote on last time, why and did it make a difference?