European Politics Thread

Oh, it was here loooooong before Trump made it political vocabulary. The irony is the Liberals usually accuse the Left of being bad with money in the face of established facts, and then when they demonstrably fuck up, they just call it 'fake news' and that clearly, the fact that everything feels better is what actually matters.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Suddenly becoming our 17th State doesn't sound so bad :P?

"You can reply to this Message!"

Way to strawman and belittle me. I never said they were equal. Not all authoritarians are facsist. All I said was that monarchy is an authoritarian system. Monarchs hold an unqeustionable position of power for live (however small that power may be), earned by institutionalized nepotism. What I meant was that monarchs don't have any high ground regarding their claim to power over fascists. Not on the rest of their actions.

And given that Italy was a kingdom when the original Fascists ruled, I don't think monarchs are all that great as a check on them.

edited 14th Aug '17 6:48:59 AM by Antiteilchen

Monarchy in and of itself can or can not be a check on Fascism or democracy or anything else; it depends on the way it's structured and the monarch in question.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

Yeah, the reason why most autocratic governments don't work is because there is no effective quality control mechanism.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

There is no such thing as a perfect form of government. And if the constitutional monarchy works for a country, why not?

No political regime is perfect or can be applied universally, not even a democratic one. Autocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, tyranny... any of these may be more useful for a certain population than democracy.

Or am I wrong? So long as the criterion is how well it "works", let's apply that to any kind of regime.

Perhaps the institutional configuration is of more consequence, as well as the specific constitutional and organic arrangements.

edited 14th Aug '17 8:53:51 AM by germi91

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

E.g.: the Singaporean government seems to be functioning better than some democratic ones.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

Sure some people don't deserve freedom and really, dictatorships and democracy are equally good. /sarcasm

Non-exhaustive list: that guy who ran people over in Charlottesville, David Duke, Raad Salah, Ismail Haniyeh, Elor Azaria, your average burglar, etc etc etc.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

Honestly, it boils down to who is actually in power. A dictatorship lead by someone who truly cares to make the life of the people in his country better is preferable over a corrupt democracy. The advantage a democracy has is that it has tools to keep the corrupt from power while the dictatorship doesn't.

It's odd that we consider "dictatorship" a specific kind of political regime, rather than an actual constitutional emergency tool that allows for one person to bypass ordinary legislative process. One that most European states have in fact.

Have I offended you? If I have, it wasn't my intention. I'd avise firstly to distinguish the difference between different political regimes. Dictatorship does not apply to all of them, if we use the common meaning of the word. Secondly, I have no love for any kind of non-democratic regime, including representative government.

edited 14th Aug '17 9:45:22 AM by germi91

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

Um, what? The only thing I can think of is some countries giving the head of state authority to deploy nuclear weapons, but I'm not exactly seeing a Fabian dictatorship being a constitutional option these days.

Except benevolent dictatorships don't exist. Corrupt democracies, sure, but autocracy, by its nature and dynamics, will not attract benevolent people. Competent, sure, on few occasions, but not benevolent.

edited 14th Aug '17 9:40:58 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

State of emergency or a state of war often allows rule by decree. Details vary.

In terms of benevolence...I think that's in the eye of the beholder.

edited 14th Aug '17 9:43:06 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Correct. The specifics of what is permitted or not and for how long vary from constitution to constitution.

And if you feel it odd that tyranny, for example, could ever allow political liberty, I'd give you the example of Athens under the tyranny of Peisistratus and later Hippias, where the Solonian laws and reforms were mostly kept intact, permitting a great degree of autonomy from the citizens (including the famous juries chosen by sortition). It is considered to be one of the factors that created the foundation on which Athenian democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles would stand.

This is why the specific constitutional and institutional arrangement matters. Even tyrants know that letting ordinary people go on their daily lives and speak freely in certain forums is a useful way to let off the social steam. Of course, dominating most of the institutions with loyal followers is what allows the tyrant to persist.

One doesn't need to have a new constitution to rule. It suffices for the tyrant to dominate the current constitution and the most important institutions.

edited 14th Aug '17 9:57:40 AM by germi91

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

They are rare, but I think Atatürk counts as a benevolent dictator...naturally benevolent dictators tend to try to lead their country into the direction of democracy, because they know that whoever follows them might not be as benevolent.

Judging 'benevolent' by modern, human-rights-based (or liberal-democracy based) Western criteria and standards is also not a sound way to analyze a dictator who's genuinely interested in the well-being of the peoples of a given nation.

By said type of judgement, not even Atatürk would pass the test. Even if he did sown some of the seeds that led to the establishment of modern democratic Turkish institutions (which are now under jeopardy due to the wannabe Sultan, obvs).

edited 14th Aug '17 10:33:52 AM by Quag15

@Desdendelle: Whoops, I meant peoples not people. As in the populace in general. Goddamit why is it almost the same word in English?

Because English is evil, obviously.
Jokes aside, I'd counter and say that nobody deserves freedom as-is from the get-go; as far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent to personhood that says you gotta be free.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

You don't hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? We fought for these ideals; we shouldn't settle for less. (These are wise words, enterprising men quote'm)

WERK!

edited 14th Aug '17 4:59:17 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

That source comes from a slightly different background than, say, the French republican ideals which are present in some European countries' constitutions (such as that of my country, particularly the one from the First Portuguese Republic).

I'd question those three values and the way they're defined (for philosophical 'fun', at least), but such a thing is more suitable for the general poltiics thread and/or the philosophy thread.

edited 14th Aug '17 4:29:45 PM by Quag15

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? I'd actually want to see your deconstruction/reconstruction of them in the General Politics thread, if you don't mind.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

I'm not sure if I can make a deconstruction (at least in the philosophical sense/meaning, which is a tad bit different from TV Tropes' definition of it). I also meant to question the American ideals of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness', not so much the French republic ideals.

But I can question both things. I'll write about that tomorrow, sure.

I just arrived from my birthday dinner, Handle. Arbeit/werk ist für morgen^note google translate, don't fail me now.

edited 14th Aug '17 5:33:56 PM by Quag15

@Handle: short answer: no; long answer: what Quag said — this is offtopic to this thread.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

I personally prefer the modern interpretation of 'Liberty, Equality, Solidarity,' but that's mostly for semantic reasons.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.