Japanese style democracy for Asia

[The Great One]

Lobbying? No. Corrupt and Illegal practices? Yes. Lobbying is just the organized use of free speech and the right to petition one's government. I support various lobbying efforts in order influence legislation. That is what democracy is all about.

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

This is much better.
Anyway, I meant lobbying by the big companies who fund the politicians and extract a variety of 'favors' from them (eg. Monsanto Protection ACT). Not Lobbying in the context of people pressurizing the government to pass a beneficial legislation.

How could such a thing be beneficial, it concentrates all the power in the hands of the few wealthy people who can completely disregard the welfare of the common people for PROFITS.

 

[vietnamese_sausage]

Lobbying? No. Corrupt and Illegal practices? Yes. Lobbying is just the organized use of free speech and the right to petition one's government. I support various lobbying efforts in order influence legislation. That is what democracy is all about.

lobbying only benefits a small group. the rest suffer. lobbying is one of the most hated thing for democracy.

 

[Desertfalcon]

There is no such thing as conventional definition. If it's democracy, it's democracy, if not, it's not.

That is what I have been arguing. You have been arguing for a definition that most who live in democracies would not recognize.

Of course it's a straw man argument, you justify a breach of law by bringing up another more horrible crime.

No, I correctly defined what is actual brutal treatment and contrasted it with what may be a justified response to those who would destroy private property, close down businesses, and disobey the lawful orders of the police.

It's also so handy to omit my point about the Stasi-like mass surveillance.

In the interest of time I care to devote to the thread. I would only comment that it is because we and other states are actual democracies, that whatever abuses may have occurred by intelligence services, have come to light and are being debated in legislatures in those democracies. In the country, East Germany, where the actual Stasi had free reign, that never happened until after the collapse of that system. Thanks for bringing it back up though as my example is exactly to the point of my criticism of your argument.

lobbying only benefits a small group. the rest suffer. lobbying is one of the most hated thing for democracy.

I would strongly disagree as I have personal experience in the practice. How do you think the fine arts get funding? How do you think the environment gets protected? How do you think those who have been neglected or who's rights have been abused in the past, get legislation that addresses those issues? I can tell you in one word; lobbying.

This is much better.
Anyway, I meant lobbying by the big companies who fund the politicians and extract a variety of 'favors' from them (eg. Monsanto Protection ACT). Not Lobbying in the context of people pressurizing the government to pass a beneficial legislation.

That is what I meant as well, i.e., legal and ethical lobbying, not corruption.

 

[vietnamese_sausage]

I would strongly disagree as I have personal experience in the practice. How do you think the fine arts get funding? How do you think the environment gets protected? How do you think those who have been neglected or who's rights have been abused in the past, get legislation that addresses those issues? I can tell you in one word; lobbying.

You gave me the best reason why i truly hate lobbying.

 

[Desertfalcon]

You gave me the best reason why i truly hate lobbying.

So IOW, it's not lobbying that you hate. It's lobbying for causes you don't agree with. Yeah, that is actually what most people are saying when they say they hate lobbying.

 

[vietnamese_sausage]

So IOW, it's not lobbying that you hate. It's lobbying for causes you don't agree with. Yeah, that is actually what most people are saying when they say they hate lobbying.

again, it benefits a small group of people like i stated earlier.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

That is what I have been arguing. You have been arguing for a definition that most who live in democracies would not recognize.

Of course they won't recognise, because they have never lived in a democracy but have been told so for decades. That is the definition of brainwashing.

No, I correctly defined what is actual brutal treatment and contrasted it with what may be a justified response to those who would destroy private property, close down businesses, and disobey the lawful orders of the police.

But, but, that's what the Hong Kong police have been doing and got criticised for doing so. Double standard?

In the interest of time I care to devote to the thread. I would only comment that it is because we and other states are actual democracies, that whatever abuses may have occurred by intelligence services, have come to light and are being debated in legislatures in those democracies. In the country, East Germany, where the actual Stasi had free reign, that never happened until after the collapse of that system. Thanks for bringing it back up though as my example is exactly to the point of my criticism of your argument.

Excuse me, what the Stasi did was well known to every former East German citizens, long before the wall came down.

In a real open society, Edward Snowden should have been rewarded for telling us the truth and thus protecting the legal rights of the society, not hiding in Russia.

I recommend you to take a bit of time and watch this:

 

[magic-007]

Indeed , Japan has many excellent something is worth us to learn . But is not japan political model. Our existing system enough to resolve any problem we face , and it has been improving .

 

[Aepsilons]

Indeed , Japan has many excellent something is worth us to learn . But is not japan palitical model. Our existing system enough to resolve any problem we face , and it has been improving .

Nei hao ma @magic-007 ,

I would not encourage nations to adopt entire systems , but, rather, implement or utilize successful policies that work. You get what I'm saying? China does not necessarily have to copy the Constitutional Monarchy system used in Japan, but can avail by studying Japan's independent judicial system, and the framework it has in ensuring constitutionality of executive as well as legislative proceedings and initiatives passed. One thing that you will observe in the Japanese judicial model is that we encourage and strictly demand transparency amongst elected officials, public officials. If there is any instances of anomaly, it will eventually be revealed through independent investigation, and will ultimately lead to the sacking of said individuals.

In regards to China, it has a fairly good working governmental level, holistically speaking. The authoritarian model of the CPC ensures that there are absolutely no delays in legislature as well as implementation of any bylaws , laws, policies. One thing that I find rather lacking is a check and balance system. To ensure the efficiency of government, China may avail of implementing independent investigators that are part of government, but independent of any segment. This way, any anomalies and abuses of power from members as high as the leadership, to as low as municipal officers. As instances of corruption decrease, you will notice that efficiency will increase.

Again, each system should adapt to the culture and society in which it will be implemented in.

Regards,
@Nihonjin1051

 

[vietnamese_sausage]

i can't find the article but i read somewhere the ccp are studying britain's model.

 

[magic-007]

Nei hao ma @magic-007 ,

I would not encourage nations to adopt entire systems , but, rather, implement or utilize successful policies that work. You get what I'm saying? China does not necessarily have to copy the Constitutional Monarchy system used in Japan, but can avail by studying Japan's independent judicial system, and the framework it has in ensuring constitutionality of executive as well as legislative proceedings and initiatives passed. One thing that you will observe in the Japanese judicial model is that we encourage and strictly demand transparency amongst elected officials, public officials. If there is any instances of anomaly, it will eventually be revealed through independent investigation, and will ultimately lead to the sacking of said individuals.

In regards to China, it has a fairly good working governmental level, holistically speaking. The authoritarian model of the CPC ensures that there are absolutely no delays in legislature as well as implementation of any bylaws , laws, policies. One thing that I find rather lacking is a check and balance system. To ensure the efficiency of government, China may avail of implementing independent investigators that are part of government, but independent of any segment. This way, any anomalies and abuses of power from members as high as the leadership, to as low as municipal officers. As instances of corruption decrease, you will notice that efficiency will increase.

Again, each system should adapt to the culture and society in which it will be implemented in.

Regards,
@Nihonjin1051

conigiwa ,日本人1051君，you are right. I think your analysis of the situation is right on .

 

[Aepsilons]

Even Germany is not democratic, we are a republic with limited democratic principles in practice (albeit waning). Nowhere in our Basic Law is the word democracy or democratic mentioned.

BTW, democratic or not, it means bullocks if your country is just a vassal of someone else.

Meta-analytically, let’s refer to the PRD and PTPRD model. PRD or Pure representative democracy, PTPRD or pure two part form of representative democracy.

The goal of PTPD is also to have citizen preferences determine policy outcomes as in a direct democracy, but the process by which this determination takes place is quite different. Instead of the citizen choosing a person or party to represent her preferences in the legislative assembly where policies are decided, under PTPD the citizen effectively gets to choose the final set of policies herself. Each of the two parties competing in the election proposes a set of policies, which they promise to implement if they obtain a majority of seats in the parliament and the citizen votes for the party promising the most attractive set of policies. The party receiving the most votes in the election is awarded a majority of seats in the parliament and implements its promised platform. As under PRD, the entire nation should be treated as a single electoral district with seats in the parliament awarded in proportion to the votes won across the entire nation. But if parties are free to enter the competition for votes, how can one be sure that the voters have but two parties from which to choose? To ensure that this is the case, or at least that the winning party has obtained a majority of the votes cast and seats in parliament, PTPD requires that there be a second, run-off election between the two parties getting the most votes in the first election, should no party receive at least 50 percent of the votes in the first election. I’d say PTPD resembles the Westminster system.

In regards to PRD and PTPD, it is even more relevant to the set of democratic institutions operating in the European Union. Here is a mixed form of government, if there ever was one, which combines elements of federalism and a confederate form of government, geographic and proportional representation.


Reference:

Blankart, C. B., & Mueller, D. C. (2004). The advantage of pure forms of parliamentary democracy over mixed forms. Public Choice, 121(3/4), 431-453.

 

[Desertfalcon]

again, it benefits a small group of people like i stated earlier.

Some times a small group of people, say a religious or ethnic minority or a small issue, such as the environmental protection of a specific location, needs to benefit from such lobbying. The link below is an example of such a lobby group.

American friends of Vietnam

 

[Desertfalcon]

Of course they won't recognise, because they have never lived in a democracy but have been told so for decades. That is the definition of brainwashing.

What a ridiculous statement! Of course they can know because it is a knowable fact that any reasonable person can ascertain. People know when they are living in a democracy or not because contrary to what you believe about them, that they have a different opinion than you does not prove that they are brainwashed. It does prove that you extremely arrogant in your thinking, however.

But, but, that's what the Hong Kong police have been doing and got criticised for doing so. Double standard?

No, because in the United States they have every recourse to free and fair elections. If they want to change things all they need do is go down to the local county clerk's office and put their name on a ballot as independents or under any political party of their choosing and stand for office to advance their views. It's just that simple. They can work to have a referendum put on a ballot. They can openly lobby their legislators. Indeed, they can protest in the streets to their hearts content, providing they are not actively destroying private property or violating the rights of others, etc. The protesters in HK do not have the recourse that those in a democracy do. That does NOT mean that I would approve of every action they take, particularly any destruction of property or violating other's natural rights. But you asked if it is a double standard, and my answer is yes as one is a democracy that has ample provision for change to be effected democratically whereas the other is a communist dictatorship that prohibits such and the later fact is exactly what the demonstrators in HK are protesting about.

Excuse me, what the Stasi did was well known to every former East German citizens, long before the wall came down.

Which would be a great point...had I ever in any way, shape, or form, said that they didn't know. I said no such thing.

In a real open society, Edward Snowden should have been rewarded for telling us the truth and thus protecting the legal rights of the society, not hiding in Russia.

Edward Snowden signed numerous pledges to safeguard the Top Secret and other classified information that he handled every day when he worked for the government. He committed numerous felonies in lying on security interviews and in violating those pledges by illegally releasing that information to third parties. Instead of standing up for his convictions in an American courtroom and the court of public opinion and taking responsibility for his actions, he fled to Russia like the coward he is. You brought up HK, so let me ask you to answer honestly; What do you think would have happened to him had he been Chinese and done something similar and been caught by the communist government there? Would he be heralded as a hero or tried and and punished, possibly executed, for treason?

 

[key-CN]

Some people always thought outside himself in a cage.