[thechat] protests?

Madhu Menon webguru at vsnl.net
Mon Mar 24 11:11:06 CST 2003


At 06:08 PM 24-03-03, Kevin Stevens wrote:

>That kind of implies that once someone is in power you have to wait 4 years
>until you can officially get rid of them, which should not be the case

A valid point, and I agree. However, I think that's one of the trade-offs I 
spoke of. It's an interesting exercise, isn't it? What kind of system 
should we have that allows for a democratic government, but at the same 
time, allow that government's removal from power if they no longer 
represent the people's views. I'll get back to this in a bit.


>How
>else are you supposed to get rid of a bad leader, and, in Bush's case, one
>that only just scraped in by cheating, if you don't protest?

I'm all for protesting, but I don't see how merely protesting can remove 
the President from office. (Unless there's some American constitutional 
provision I'm not aware of.)

I generally don't trust "polls", but I think Hugh posted something that 
said "70% of Americans support the War."
That's still a big majority. Quite an interesting issue.

Now, let me take the example of my own country, the "world's largest 
democracy."
Here, we have a Prime Minister who's the keeper of the power. The President 
is a wasted position because he's practically powerless to do anything.

The only way a Prime Minister and his council of ministers can be removed 
from power is if the opposition moves a "no confidence" motion. For this to 
carry, the vote has to be carried by at least 50% of the total parliament 
strength, and at least 66.6% of the members present and voting.

Other than that, barring a fresh election (only if the Prime Minister 
himself dissolves the parliament), nothing can dislodge the government till 
the end of their 5-year term.

I disagree with some of my government's policies and actions, but an 
election is a long, mega-expensive process, and I can't have one every time 
somebody doesn't like the government increasing taxes on cigarettes. ;)


It's a sacrifice you make. The majority elects a government, and by their 
vote, the government is trusted to make good decisions. We couldn't 
possibly have a parliament with one billion members.

Is there a better alternative to the system? Has one been successfully 
implemented anywhere in the world? I'm all ears.

(The fact that his folks weren't imaginative enough to give him a different 
name should have been enough reason to not vote Bush. ;)


>it is not right to
>protest because it means were are not supporting our troops.

This is a ridiculous argument, but one you find regularly on sites like 
LittleGreenFootballs.com
It goes like: "Those protestors are anti-American traitors; they don't care 
about the sacrifice our brave soldiers make."

Apparently, not agreeing with your government is treason these days.

Stuff like:
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/soapbox.html

Oh well...

Madhu

<<<   *   >>>
Madhu Menon
Internet User Experience Consultant
e-mail: webguru at vsnl.net   |   Yahoo messenger: cold_logic

Content * Interfaces * Usability * Net Strategy



More information about the thechat mailing list