Ordinary people select people who are using power in parliaments. That means. Also, ordinary people have a responsibility to the state and its policy. Electors should listen to the candidates. Especially the entirety of the candidate's agenda should interest electors. So that they know who they will elect. The electors should elect a person who makes the best decisions. But who decides what is best for the nation?
There is the possibility that some solution or decision is good for us. But that solution can cause catastrophe for the next generations. And that thing causes problems when we make decisions about the person who earns our trustworthy? And could that person be our election to parliament? We must realize that person who represents us in parliament makes decisions about how to use our money.
When some person represents us in parliament. That person would be in that position the next sessional period. And in that period. The parliament makes many more than just one decision. So don't look at only one statement.
People should look at the agenda's entirety. And ask what that person wants to give to people. And what is that person's position on that agenda?
People should know that parliamentary elections are not jokes. These people are selecting their representers to parliament for use of tax-payers money for a certain time. The problem is that there are no perfect candidates. All candidates have some things that do not please everybody. So whenever an elector makes choices they must make compromises.
If good things >Bad things the candidate is positive.
They must calculate Good things (minus) Bad things. And if good things win the elector chooses that person. If there is no candidate with more good things. And that thing is dangerous. If the candidate promises too much. That causes disappointment to electors.
But also promises are compromises. The candidate must promise something to the main group of the constituency. And in some cases, the main group in the entire state is different than in the candidate's constituency.
Individual constituencies may be home to unusually large numbers of super-rich people. And this can cause the candidate to have to please this minority. The candidate must therefore be in parliament as a representative of an economic minority. Every state always has a larger group of cleaners than managers. But in small constituencies, there could be more managers than cleaners.
In the world of the Internet, information travels faster than ever before. And that thing also causes problems with democracy. Populists are good to use social media platforms to deliver their agenda. They are offering lots of candies for people. And that makes them interesting in the eyes of other people. Also, some governments are using media as their tools. So in those states, the role of media is to support the people in power.
When somebody promises lots of candies, we must ask how long people will live if they eat only candies. For living person must sometimes eat something else than just some candies. That means in working life. We must sooner or later do something that is not pleasing us.
Media plays a key role when information is brought to people. Of course, people like journalists have their own opinions. And in some cases, people like Secret Police agents are acting as journalists.
In those cases, the information that is delivered can be propagandist. And the purpose of that news is just to support the political agenda of the people who are using power in some nations.
The thing that can change information on one side or even propagandistic is self-censorship or the ability to black out other data that supports us or pleases us. When people are reading only things that please them that thing has a similar effect to propaganda. Self-censorship means that people read only things that please them. Those things are things that support their political opinions.
We are wrong if we think that things like where companies make power or what power source those power plants use are not political decisions. Everything that used public money is politics. And we select representatives who represent us in parliament.
People argue that rulers have their responsibilities. But ordinary people also have their roles. In a democracy, they elect the people who make the decisions. The problem with the Internet is that people only choose the information that interests or pleases them. To get balanced information people have to listen to everything else that pleases them. And the ability to choose only things that seem pleasant to them makes information monotonous. People who deliver information have their supporters. And there are many ways to see things, that seem clear.
There are four main types of governments
- Closed autocracies
- Electoral autocracies
- Autocratic democracies
- Liberal democracies
Closed autocracies are nations like North Korea where the head of state doesn't even play democracy.
In electoral autocracies is elections. But some non-democratically selected organization keeps the final control. Those nations are like Iran. There are parliaments but there are limits to the parliament's freedom to make laws. In those nations, the MPs or members of parliaments must follow strict roles in their work.
In autocratic democracies is free elections. But things like the social environment and the common narrow attitudes make some people's life difficult. In those democracies, criticism against the parliament is not allowed during its sessional period.
In autocratic democracies, people who criticize the parliament or government would be persecuted by media that support the party. That is in command. Criticizing the government can cause consequences like the loss of military rank. That kind of government is under the control of high-class populists.
In liberal democracies, people are allowed to criticize governmental actors. That thing is so-called real democracies. In those things, the problem is that populists are using those systems for supporting their agenda.
The problem is this. What if some solution that seems good in a short period turns or can predict to turn against people? What if the best for people requires sacrifices? Things like climate change are one thing that requires compromising on one's comforts like leaving the car to home. But those things are difficult because many people used to drive to work using cars. And changing attitudes is difficult because the car has an image of freedom and independence.
But the car is also telling about social position. And public transport has the image of poor people's transportation system, which is used by people who cannot buy their car. The things like the high price of gasoline and energy crises. Along with the loss of capacity of parking areas are causing that we must re-estimate the role of public transportation.
The science itself is not democratic. Scientific facts like Galilean moons are not following votes or elections. We can make as many votes as we want. But that thing doesn't affect those moons' trajectories. If we believe that democracy is turning science to state that it gives answers or solutions that please everybody we are wrong. We cannot transfer things like the planet's trajectory to please us by voting about them.
But when we are thinking about the worst threat to democracy, we can say that is democracy itself. Populists are people who give great and simple promises. And if electors are not using critical ways to think. They would fall into the trap of populists.
The best fellow for democracy is truth and a critical way to think. When we are seeing people who give simple and good-looking promises, we should ask at least a couple of questions about things that those people promise.
- If we make some decision, what happens after that?
- What is those people's position in the new system?
- Where do they get money for those projects?
- And then we should ask, why do those people want that change?
- And who introduced those things to those people? Or where do those people get their ideas?
- If we think of things like loan money from foreign lands. That requires that the state must pay the loan back.
- Of course, the state can say that it will not pay that money back. But then the problem is how to get the next loan.
- And if the multinational corporations are leaving the country. That causes problems with taxes.
- If the country nationalizes that property, what happens to trust in that government?
- Would somebody sell things like weapons to that nation? Or does the deliverer of the highly advanced weapon system allow the country to use its systems?
- If the state nationalizes the property of an example U.S citizen? Is the use of GPS possible in that case?
- And finally, if something changed, what is the thing that replaces the old thing? Where the investments that the old thing required will aim in the new system?
Sometimes people say that the media should ban far-right from the media. But censorship can cause those politicians to turn more fascinating than they are without censorship.
And if those far-wing radicals are banned from the media. That gives them a chance to turn the focus from their political agenda. In those cases, discussions are turning into fights. And while people yell at each other. Nobody can ask about those participants' political agendas.
They can say that other people do not give them a chance to talk or finish their speech. So then they can start to argue with others in some symposiums. And their agendas will not come to public knowledge. But people will know that those politicians are banned.
And that thing is what they want. If the person is banned it allows that person can avoid questions of political agendas. They can discuss things and why they are not allowed to talk freely. That allows them to avoid critical questions.
Comments
Post a Comment