The Horrific State of Global Leadership.

So... what are your first thoughts when hearing the word "Politician"?

Sleazy? Corrupt? Incompetent? Just plain not very bright? (Labour.)

Still, at least they're not actively trying to oppress people like... well, just take a look at a globe. How many democracies are there? After that, how many of them ARE actually democratic, and not wracked with corruption (Russia, Italy, I'm looking at you.)

And after that, try seeing how many are actually well run. I see Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland (debatably) and... yeah. Thats about it. Maybe Scotland too, as an afterthought; the SNP might not be a national government but they do at least seem a bit brighter than your usual crop of ideologues and morons.

The worlds leadership seems to have taken a turn for the worse, but thats only if you don't look back in time and realise just how incompetent, brutal, and backward-thinking leadership just 100 yeas ago was.

People in this forum frequently seem to come up with better ideas; hell, I've heard more intelligent debate back in high school, than I've seen in terms of results echoing out of the halls of the worlds high places. So, what exactly is it that makes the leaders of this planet so damn bad at their jobs?!

(Note, written at 1 oclock while very sleepy.)

edited 17th May '11 4:22:08 PM by GameChainsaw

Because:

1) Everyone makes a big deal out of the bad ones.

2) Everyone makes the decent ones look bad.

3) Leadership is never as simple as it looks.

That's not to say things can't be improved or that certain leaders don't make mistakes, but seriously, they aren't omniscient paragons of virtue.

"how many of them ARE actually democratic"

No country in the world is democratic. We should stop using that word to describe liberal republics. In some the people have more influence, others less. But none are being run by the people. Closest to that is Switzerland, supposedly but it is still a republic.

^Functionally democratic. As in, people at least get a say in what government gets in barring an armed revolution.

Jesus can that goddamn misconception finally die? Not wanting to jump on your throat personally, LH, but it annoys me how often I find it.

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive and in fact in two different categories all together. Historically and politically a republic is any state which is not a monarchy, no matter if democratic, oligarchic, dictatoric or whatever. See the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in the 18th century as example.

Ehem. That being said: The number of democracies (representative democracies, one can argue about how democratic they truly are as LH did) has risen since 1990, and it's not only the former East Bloc. The problem is that most of those new democracies elsewhere are illiberal democracies - there are elections and the whole stuff that mark a democracy, it are even mostly fair and free elections - but forget about any other basic right, including free speech, free media, free assembly etc. That's the main problem of global governance.

"can that goddamn misconception finally die"

I prefer not using the word democracy to describe the US for example because etymologically they simply are not and I dislike the implication that they are. As far the word republic, I don't care but historically it they have been differentiated.

"In the United States, James Madison compared the republic to democracy, and found democracy wanting." [1]

So see, historically this is a very old "mistake".

edited 17th May '11 4:44:47 PM by LoveHappiness

We just need to elect a Supreme God-Emperor of Mankind.

That would be a very busy man. Maybe smaller states just work better than large ones? On the other hand Germany seems very well appointed.

But Germany wasn't very well appointed before.

Anyway, I recommend electing Jesus to God Emperor position. Even though he might not be popular among the atheist types, he is a cool dude and is actually God, though he might say something about his kingdom being in Heaven and not Earth.

If that fails, we can pull the Buddha out of Nirvana. Maybe Shiva? Or Vishnu?

edited 17th May '11 5:04:14 PM by Usht

The US/other countries are not democracies: Mariam webster Dictionary.com and the World English Dictionary seem to disagree.

Just because Greece was the first democracy, does not mean their system is how we define democracy today. Honestly, bringing up the "fact" that modern democracies aren't democracies sounds like a sparse knowledge of history giving someone the idea to try and sound smart.

As for the leaders? Make it harder for them to be corrupt. Make money less important in elections.

But to solve things more substantially? You'd need smarter people, everywhere.

^^I don't feel comfortable electing a leader who is out of touch with the modernities of the world...

edited 17th May '11 5:06:20 PM by GameChainsaw

I don't know, if they're omniscient (which all of them are, minus the Buddha), they shouldn't be that out of touch. Seriously, you expect a human to lead an entire globe? Ha, we're too stupid to do that, let alone a small nation.

edited 17th May '11 5:08:49 PM by Usht

"Honestly, bringing up the "fact" that modern democracies aren't democracies sounds like a sparse knowledge of history giving someone the idea to try and sound smart."

Definitions are not a matter of fact and I didn't claim to be telling the True definition. I explicitly said it was my personal preference. Obviously because I prefer "classical democracy". It's like my use of the term libertarian.

edited 17th May '11 5:14:44 PM by LoveHappiness

Love, that sounds like schematics. As nice as it is to have a word defined as it should be, I'm pretty sure people generally share an understanding of the definition of the word democracy as it is given and can discuss from that point.

^^^What's on their manifestos? We've been suffering a lot of hits to public services lately...

edited 17th May '11 5:10:27 PM by GameChainsaw

Jesus was real big on equality, charity, and peace. Vishnu too. Shiva? Eh... we'll just say he's a bit more on the chaotic side of the lawful chaotic spectrum.

edited 17th May '11 5:16:41 PM by Usht

I blame democracy. Letting the common man have a vote was doomed to be a bad idea.

Letting any single person or group override the vote of the people was doomed to be a bad idea. You know who I'm thinking of.

edited 17th May '11 5:41:37 PM by Usht

Scott Walker?

edited 17th May '11 5:46:37 PM by Alichains

The problem is that honest candidates that genuinely want a better nation who are unconnected to multimillion or billion dollar interests simply don't exist, or rather might as well not exist, as they do not get any media coverage.

I'd spring for those corporations to pay for my entire campaign the way they do for every other politician, and never make them a promise. Then I'd turn around, stab them in the back, and do what I thought was right during my candidacy. Surprised I don't see that in our current system of government.

The voters who put bad people into office have nobody to blame but themselves when things go sour. Of course, voters operate under the assumption that every elected official is a corrupt bum, other than the ones that they voted for. Nobody stops to think that maybe it's their own darn fault.

Hey, if you voted for a guy because he said he was a true Christian who went to church every day and prays for God's guidance, then you can't blame him when it turns out he's snorting coke off an underaged Thai boy in a cheap motel bathroom while his wife is dying of the diseases that he gave her after he caught them from using dirty needles to shoot up with the heroin that he paid for with campaign contributions from the What About The Children Foundation.

That post, it's full of unfortunate implications, you know.

Effective None of these above candidates option.

Plz?

Would you recommend we get a manikin instead? Seriously, when electing a new person for whatever person, you should either reelect the old person, elect someone new, but never leave the position empty unless you're voting specifically to remove it, it's just a bad idea.

Oh, not talking about leaving the position empty, just an effective way of rejecting the candidates who do offer themselves.

Holding a secondary election in the event of such a result would be part of it.