This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.
Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
There are three things that I would adapt for Peru.
One, a revival of the concept of the "Cursus Honorum", if there's something that I have learned from witnessing the rise of populism across the globe in the last years is that democracy itself was not prepared for the Age of Information and the influx of fake news and echo chambers that followed with it.
Therefore, and taking heed of the growing life expectancy, it would be in the best interest of the state to put restrictions and funnels to ensure that the politicians that aspire to enter the higher echelons of government are at least qualified to hold the position.
Two, the Social Democratic model that European countries like Germany follow, along with a look at Keynesian economical models. Let's be honest, Third World nations have lost overall in the Era of Globalization and Free Markets, so it is a necessity for us to somehow even the odds and not be left behind by the industrialized countries, and if that means a greater intervention of the state apparatus and protectionist policies, so be it.
Three, and I admit that this is half serious and completely optional, a Constitutional Monarchy like Spain and the Scandinavian countries have.
This is completely controversial and might make you all baffled, however this is partially because, and as a book titled "Looking For a King: Authoritarism in the History of Peru" summed up, the Republic of Peru holds a hybrid system of a Republican Monarchy because the Kingdom of Peru never properly made its transition from its Viceroyalty position to a real Republic in all these years, which has lead to the failure of the long term establishment of democratic parties and the rise of strongmen across the years.
So, as a last resort option, we might as well cut the middle man and invite a Habsburg or Bourbon here and start making the proper evolution that should have been done since the independence, besides, knowing my countrymen, the people would eat it up if it's promoted properly.
Once again, I'm saying this out of desperation, because the Peruvian people love this sort of circus, so I might as well oblige to get things done instead of wasting time trying to housebreak an entire country to follow an institution nobody truly believes in.
Here's one author's (Hector Velarde) sum up of the situation here:
For one, because the question then becomes which one, the Incas practice of polygamy ensured that a lot of Imperial Princes could continue their lineage so long as they recognized the King of Spain as King of Peru.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.The idea that Peruvians would accept a monarchy from another country is...dubious. Or even a "national" monarchy, why both the Left and Right would like that?
Edited by KazuyaProta on Mar 10th 2021 at 9:48:18 AM
Watch me destroying my country![]()
You can't deny that with the way our people eat up the media circus that congress or past presidents like Alan Garcia spent their time doing that there's a vacuum that proper democratic leaders are not filling.
And to be honest, the proposal is more of a Centre thing, the Right is not going to look forward at getting their platform rebuked - Keiko and the Fujimorist for instance would throw a fit - while the Left would argue that monarchy is antithetical to democracy even though we don't share the antimonarchical tradition of the USA.
Edit:
Well, given that there could be potential backlash to that from another segment of the population, the compromise would be a Diarchy in that case, with one Inca prince and another Habsburg/Bourbon one.
Anyways, forgive me for that brief moment of madness, it's just as likely that Peru doesn't really need that and the Republic can see the light at the other end of the tunnel.
Edited by raziel365 on Mar 10th 2021 at 7:30:10 AM
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.Left would argue that monarchy is antithetical to democracy even though we don't share the antimonarchical tradition of the USA.
I don't think the absence of a republican tradition invalidates their point. The idea that a family should have a special place in society because of birthright is antithetical with democracy as a concept.
Obviously, constitutional monarchies can be democratic but monarchy as an idea is mutually exclusive with democracy as an idea.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe idea that obtaining a monarchy will solve Peruvian issues is also very dubious. I can see a weirdo right winger propose this in a drunk moment, but it legit makes no sese.
For starters, where their legitimancy comes?
This is the issue with "looking foward Conservatives" by trying to create artificial traditions. The traditions that stuck generally were build organically over centuries.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Mar 10th 2021 at 10:42:49 AM
Watch me destroying my countryThe only circumstance where I could see a monarchy fixing political issues is if Peru is in the same situation as the USA where presidents constantly get elected on promises that are not theirs to give. If all actual political power depends on a government appointed by parliament (similar to the United Kingdom) you don't have that issue.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@ Ramidel
Yeah, that's why they would throw a fit, having a legally established monarchy would take away another of their platforms they tend to use. It's a messed up situation overall.
@ De Marquis
I don't intend to abandon the first two ideas, the only one I will describe as madness is the third one.
That's actually the problem, pretty much all presidents are elected on promises they can't fulfil but either the people are ignorant of that due to lack of education or willfully ignorant because the truth is not pretty.
This also leads into us choosing the lesser of two evils in the second round.
Overall, there's this messianism that keeps coming back over and over again in politics that doesn't seem to be fading away any time soon; and besides, Peru as a Republic has only two hundred years in comparison to the three hundred of being a Kingdom (four hundred if we count the Tawantinsuyu), not counting the decades lost to military or civil dictatorships.
Like I said, this idea is born out of desperation to try to stop the cycle of authoritarism gaining the upper hand in the Republic without compromising democracy itself, that's why I thought that in such a situation a Constituional Monarchy might not be that bad of an idea, even if that means creating a new tradition.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.We need highly formal rituals in order to make life more democratic
...
Comfort has won, and most formality is gone. But the freedom of informality comes at a cost. Formality is the bulwark against some of the nastiest human impulses, and acts as a vaccine against our most dangerous tendency: forming in-groups and out-groups.
There’s nothing you or I or the Pope or the United Nations could do to stop humans from forming clubs, inventing or elevating meaningful markers of difference, and building fences and corrals that keep one’s group together while keeping the ‘others’ out. We are a tribal ape with a brain built to exaggerate our allegiance to our small band while manning the barricades against others distinguished by vanishingly tiny differences. Individuals can, with great effort, consciously suppress this nasty bit of programming, but populations on the whole will fail.
Groups can form around any distinguishing feature, from the harmless, such as sporting teams, schools attended or favourite novels, to the nefarious, such as race, class or sex. Each person can disavow some marks of difference while clinging to others – and no person can disavow them all.
This mental virus might be incurable, but there is a vaccine: formality. Formality gives us something harmless around which to form an in-group: namely, knowledge of the rules of that particular formality, with its own trials of membership and rules of initiation.
‘Ah yes, the dress code is a bit difficult to understand… You see, it’s based on Edwardian standards, of course, so “semiformal” actually means black tie! No, no, don’t worry a bit, it is unusual…’
The opportunity to be a crowing pedant about the rules of formality gives one something to do instead of in-grouping around more exclusionary traits, such as to which expensive school one went. More importantly, the rules of formality are ultimately accessible to all. Anyone can learn the etiquette and wear the tie, and so become part of the ever larger, ever more diverse in-group that practices the formality of the event.
This is an excerpt form the middle of the article, and the base of the author's argument seems to be the line in bold. I posted it because its an interesting argument for rituals and formalities that doesn't say 'because its tradition'. The article is not current to the day but it is from April 2020.
Edited by CenturyEye on Mar 31st 2021 at 3:28:04 AM
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 livesWeren't standards of formailty historically used to discriminate against the lower classes who couldn't overcome the barrier to entry though? I'm seeing red flags.
My musician page
Surebut at the same time informality can be use by populist, demagogue and other to push other rule that are there for a reason like voting right, term limits or other things, populist usally engage in a form of "is really that bad that I broke this rule? I love you so much....." that is a red flag.
The downside of this is that it means the radicals simply do more and nobody else has a voice. Thought this always happens even on mandatory democracies.
Watch me destroying my countryFormality, while indeed a tool of needless exclusion in the past, can also be a tool for proper exclusion and standard setting.
As @ unknowing has mentioned, populists thrive with informality because there's no bar with which to properly measure their behaviour as aberrant, you can't have serious politics if the politicians themselves do not act with the gravitas of their station.
Same thing goes with the electors, if you want a system that acts with competence, then you need to give it the proper respect and care it deserves, we are citizens after all, that comes with its own set of responsibilities.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.Doesn't help when the standards also applied hypocritcally, with some politicians suffering control when calling out others while others are allowed to insult or outright acusse ex presidents of genocide (I mean like how Lopez Aliaga, Covid denialist, is acussing Martin Vizcarra of genocide over his handling of Covid. All while being a firm lockdown sceptic whose answer of "people will die" is to say "well, everyone dies everyday") without nobody saying "stop insulting"
...The far right really is a argument against the very concept of democracy, they're ironically what Aristocrats meant with "brutish masses"
Edited by KazuyaProta on Mar 31st 2021 at 11:41:13 AM
Watch me destroying my country

No. Like most places, you should take the best we have to offer, and adapt it to your own needs.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.