Poll: Potentially Achievable Reforms

[TimG]

Except that in China there's no "every four years". In other words, it's nothing like the same situation.

The primary virtue of democracy is it provides a peaceful means to clean house. A one party state can only be over thrown with violance. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

India has nearly that number, and while not exactly pretty, it seems to function.

I wouldn't say India has progressed anywhere near china's growth...and culturally they are different, India was an amalgamation of separate countries and centuries of british control and influence...

I had a russian friend who explained living under totalitarian government to me back when the iron curtain was still in place...he said that russians at the time had no issues with communism as it was no different than life under the czars, they had just exchanged one oppressor for another, they had no concept of freedom and democracy...India has much better concept of democracy than china...

and china's one party state is much more efficient and better equipped to handle it's enormous growth than India is at this time...

[wyly]

Except that in China there's no "every four years". In other words, it's nothing like the same situation. Beyond that, China's laws and constitution are ignored at a whim by the central leadership, whereas in Canada we have division of powers that would make some of what the Chinese government does outright impossible.

that's true but we don't have china's enormous scale of problems...the one child policy would never have been possible with a multi party system, the one child policy as harsh as it was absolutely necessary to avoid a future ecological/environmental/humanitarian catastrophe...

we shouldn't judge china's methods so quickly without fully understanding their problems...with 1.3 billion people governments need to move quickly to avoid disasters of any type at the moment multi-party 4 year election cycles would dangerous in china...

[TimG]

we shouldn't judge china's methods so quickly without fully understanding their problems...with 1.3 billion people governments need to move quickly to avoid disasters of any type at the moment multi-party 4 year election cycles would dangerous in china.

You might have a point except for the extreme measures that communist party goes to stamp out any political dissent. There is no justification for that and it is simply evidence that communists are just another batch of thugs interested only in preserving their own power.

[ToadBrother]

I wouldn't say India has progressed anywhere near china's growth...and culturally they are different, India was an amalgamation of separate countries and centuries of british control and influence...

India is doing pretty damned well, all things considered. It's problems are much the same as China; uneven flow of economic benefits meaning a large portion of the nation does not get a lot out of the economic boom, and pretty severe corruption. If you want one substantial difference, just imagine what would happen to Anna Hazare ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Hazare ) in China. In India even the Prime Minister was basically begging the guy to come off his hunger strike and committing to revisiting the anti-corruption bill that Hazare has been trumpeting. In China, the guy would disappear.

Besides, a good chunk of China's growth right now doesn't come from any particular wonders of their political leadership, but rather from a basic policy of lowballing the Chinese yuan against Western currencies to keep positive exports buoyed.

I had a russian friend who explained living under totalitarian government to me back when the iron curtain was still in place...he said that russians at the time had no issues with communism as it was no different than life under the czars, they had just exchanged one oppressor for another, they had no concept of freedom and democracy...India has much better concept of democracy than china...

and china's one party state is much more efficient and better equipped to handle it's enormous growth than India is at this time...

I'm a little uncomfortable with this defense of totalitarian regimes. China and India have a lot of the same problems, the difference is that your average Indian can always vote for someone else, whereas in China, the actual leadership of the country, and not its pointless rubber stamp legislature is completely walled off from the people. There are damned clever guys running China, but they are untouchable, so long as the keep the two-headed beast of the PLA and the Party reasonable content.

[ToadBrother]

that's true but we don't have china's enormous scale of problems...the one child policy would never have been possible with a multi party system, the one child policy as harsh as it was absolutely necessary to avoid a future ecological/environmental/humanitarian catastrophe...

we shouldn't judge china's methods so quickly without fully understanding their problems...with 1.3 billion people governments need to move quickly to avoid disasters of any type at the moment multi-party 4 year election cycles would dangerous in china...

China is reasonably alright at the moment because its basically run by faceless technocrats. But it wasn't always alright. Mao, using the same organs of state, managed through his lunatic Great Leap Forward, to kill hundreds of millions of people, dwarfing anything Hitler or Stalin ever could have accomplished.

I'm not trying to say that those technocrats aren't very bright men, nor am I saying they are mismanaging things. China's problems are enormous, but at the same time, it's a top-down government where the people have little say, and do not even have the expectation of a government that can be constrained by the laws it itself promulgates. A (relatively) benign dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and without basic notions like the rule of law firmly implanted and the right of people to petition their government without fear of reprisal, there's nothing save the internal opaque dynamics of the dictatorship to prevent it going insane again. We all know that the technocrats are largely left alone by the PLA, providing a sufficiently generous proportion of the GDP gets funneled to them, but at the end of the day, the people have damned little say in their government, and no say at all in who gets to be top dog.

[Michael Hardner]

we have now a 5 party system....with a PR system any party can have a majority if has 50% of the vote, which is as it should be...

I stand corrected. 50% majority basically never happens.

no that's not true at all those 1/3 need to learn to compromise and moderate their ideology...apparently you have no issue when it's the left side of the spectrum that has been shut out indefinitely...

But the other 2/3 don't need to compromise. The far left isn't shut out indefinitely - they have broken through, held the balance of power, and significantly impacted policy.

[Michael Hardner]

You're probably not getting any traction because altering the actual engine of government is REALLY HARD. I recommend Yes, Minister, that greatest of TV shows/commentaries on the relationship between the civil service and the politicians. There's a sort of general philosophy in most modern civil services that governments may come and governments may go, but they'll still be there regardless. I know for a fact that there's nothing worse for senior and mid-level bureaucrats in any department than a minister who actually wants to manage them.

You are absolutely correct in that. Read Robert Caro's The Power Broker to see the ultimate example of this.

[ToadBrother]

I would like to see an elected group to do real judgements in all the courts - if we had this reform we would not need that stupid self serving - Human RIGHTS Commission...If we had justice from the lowest level to the highest - human rights abuse would not exist...that is the reform I would like to see - a true judicial system...and not some perverse and parasitic con job called a "legal system"....I don't want legal - I want justice that is based on the ancient and common concepts of right and wrong.

In other words, you would turn judges into politicians. I cannot think of a faster route away from justice. One of the great innovations of our system was the evolution of the concept of an independent judiciary.

[ToadBrother]

I stand corrected. 50% majority basically never happens.

I think the last time I checked, only six or seven governments since Confederation have ever reached an absolute plurality in terms of vote percentage.

[wyly]

But the other 2/3 don't need to compromise. The far left isn't shut out indefinitely - they have broken through, held the balance of power, and significantly impacted policy.

your quote again "As it is, Conservatives get majority governments every 20 years or so but under PR there would be fully 1/3 of Canadians who would never have a government representing them in power, and would therefore never have their vote 'count'." so it would be unacceptable if the right had to go 20 or so with a majority, but the left should be content holding the balance of power or influencing policy...

[wyly]

I'm a little uncomfortable with this defense of totalitarian regimes. China and India have a lot of the same problems, the difference is that your average Indian can always vote for someone else, whereas in China, the actual leadership of the country, and not its pointless rubber stamp legislature is completely walled off from the people. There are damned clever guys running China, but they are untouchable, so long as the keep the two-headed beast of the PLA and the Party reasonable content.

I'm not defending it I'm explaining the need for it at this time...it's no different than our PM declaring the war measures act in times of crisis...or when civil order breaks down governments bring in martial law...the only way china can deal with the challenges of the coming century is with one party rule, the efficiencies of one party rule will ensure it deals with climate change and all the that goes with it better than any other country...

[TimG]

the only way china can deal with the challenges of the coming century is with one party rule, the efficiencies of one party rule will ensure it deals with climate change and all the that goes with it better than any other country

ROTFL. You mean the China which is building coal plants as fast as it possibly can? China will do nothing but pay lip service to 'climate agenda' because it sees it as useful tool to extract gobs of cash from naive Europeans. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

I'm not defending it I'm explaining the need for it at this time...it's no different than our PM declaring the war measures act in times of crisis...or when civil order breaks down governments bring in martial law...the only way china can deal with the challenges of the coming century is with one party rule, the efficiencies of one party rule will ensure it deals with climate change and all the that goes with it better than any other country...

Yes, it is very different. The War Measures Act was passed by Parliament, and Parliament, at its pleasure, could modify or turf the legislation. It was essentially Parliament granting the Government certain powers in periods of crisis. It may have been wrongheaded, but it most certainly was nothing like the equivalent of the Chinese leadership, which can ignore legislation at its whim.

You seem to be obstinately missing the point of the critical difference between your average Western democracy and a government like China. These attempts at equivalency are ludicrous.

[wyly]

You seem to be obstinately missing the point of the critical difference between your average Western democracy and a government like China. These attempts at equivalency are ludicrous.

you seem to be obstinately missing the point of cultural differences and governance...your flailing logic demonstrate you have a miniscule grasp of how culture affects government...

[wyly]

ROTFL. You mean the China which is building coal plants as fast as it possibly can? China will do nothing but pay lip service to 'climate agenda' because it sees it as useful tool to extract gobs of cash from naive Europeans.

waldo has repeatedly schooled you on anything environmental so you have nothing to contribute here in that regard...and your knowledge of china is obviously worse

[TimG]

---

Edited October 7, 2011 by TimG