Politicians

[Brian Ellis]

I am referring neither to individuals nor to specific countries and I hope that this thread respects this generalisation. Otherwise Ant may decide it belongs elsewhere.

I have lived through the time when such events as an abdication, a World War, a Holocaust, numerous other wars, including a Cold War, many civil wars, economical ups and downs, the downfall of empires, a greater awareness of the environment, famine, terrorism and all sorts of natural disasters took place. I have seen both a liberalisation of classes/races AND the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. I have lived in several different countries in two continents and spent much time in two others. I have observed life in the slums of Bombay and Nairobi, in tribal villages in many countries, in towns and cities throughout the world. I have been in countries ranging from totalitarian regimes to the most liberal on earth, today.

I have found one thing in common, nearly everywhere. This thing is probably the most common source of strife and poverty throughout the world, in great countries and small. I doubt whether there is a single nation in the world that does not have it This thing is the biggest oppressor of humanity and the major cause of misery.

What is this thing? The self-serving, power-hungry, corrupt politician. As a guess, I would say that this includes at least 99% of all politicians in every country, in some degree. Unfortunately, as their power increases, so do they become more corrupt and self-serving.

This is the world's evil. Saddam, Mugabe et al. are not directly to blame, they are the manifestation, the tip of the iceberg, of a much greater, universal and deeper evil that runs rife through all the world's corridors of power. As long as we have politicians, we shall never have peace.

Brian dixit

[KvHagedorn]

I take it you are too young to have participated in your nation's part in the wanton destruction of all honor in government.. that is, Imperial Germany..

Over here, the politicians called it "Making the world safe for democracy." What a joke. More like "Go die in a muddy ditch for no reason whatsoever."

[GNEP]

Brian will no doubt take the "too young" as a compliment

I tend to agree with Brian though.

[Brian Ellis]

No, I didn't fight in the 1st WW. Quand même, I'm not quite that old! My first political recollection was the wrangling over the abdication of Edward VIII: in a way similar to Charles and his bit on the side, although I also remember the death of George V.

All war is "Go die for no reason whatsoever" whether the trench be muddy or sandy. Having served King and Country on active service, I can state this confidently. If politicians had to fight in the trenches, there would be no war.

[KvHagedorn]

You should read the book I'm reading. It's a biography of Frederick the Great by David Fraser. He was an absolute ruler with a sense of duty to his people. Some of the anecdotes are fascinating. (Of course he fought a lot of wars which would have been unnnecessary had he just married Maria Teresa, but war at that time, though horrible, was nothing like the pointless mass slaughter of WW1.)

But the point of it is, if a future king is raised with a sense of duty and honor and not ingrained with pompous arrogance at being a royal personage, a monarchy might be better in many ways than democracy. Certainly the idea of divine right puts the ruler somewhat above the need for being a corrupt nightcrawler in order to maintain his power. I think we have become somewhat brainwashed into thinking that democracy is all virtuous and unquestionably the best way of doing things, but there are faults in all forms of government, and you have touched on some. For politicians to get into power, they must sell themselves to big business or other special interests, and the interests of these powerful individuals tend to take precedence over those of the people as a whole. In many ways this is no different than a landless monarch being beholden to his nobles. (The painting of a wretched King John signing the Magna Carta comes to mind.)

Democracy is no better or worse than any other sort of government, really.. it is just a matter of how wise and honorable the people in power are. (Of course we are not talking about true democracy, but republicanism. True democracy is as implausible as true communism.)

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not saying it is corruption-free - it certainly has its share in scandals - but of all the countries I've lived in, Switzerland is as close to a true democracy than any. Why?

1. There is no cult of the personality. To the extent that half the Swiss could not name the President! (It's Pascal Couchepin, for his sins, and I'm not Swiss!) This is because the presidency changes every year with no re-eligibilty, so, by the time the people have cottoned on to who is President, (s)he has already changed! The President has no individual power: his job is to chair the Executive Federal Council (7 members), to receive the letters of credence from newly-arrived ambassadors and to receive officially visiting foreign heads of state.

2) The bicameral government has a National Council (200 members elected pro rata to the population) and the States Council (50 members, elected 2 from each Canton and 1 from each demi-Canton). Together, they can meet to form the Federal Assembly, which elects the Federal Council, the President and Vice-President and the Federal Chancellor.

3) Politically, there are half-a-dozen major parties and a host of minor ones. On the whole there is little wrangling between them, even though they go from Communist (Parti ouvrière populaire) to Extreme Right (shared by the Union démocratique chrétienne and the Libéraux -- yes the liberals there would make GWB look like Mao!). The reason is that, traditionally for nearly a century, the Federal Council and any other commissions, committees etc. are coalitions of the major parties.

4. To ensure max democracy the order of importance of the political unit is the Commune (local village, town or city) first, then the Canton (State), leaving the Confederation as the weakest unit, responsible only for things of national importance, e.g., the military, coinage, customs, international relations etc. Taxes are usually highest to the Commune, as they have the most real work to do, and lowest to the Confederation. The Communes and Cantons have governments that reflect the Federal model.

5. This means that the people are closest to their most powerful political unit, that of their own commune.

6. Then there is the most powerful democratic institution: that of the popular vote. A relatively small number of electors can call a referendum at any of the three levels of government to challenge what is perceived as bad legislation. This is combined with the popular initiative, whereby the same number of electors can propose new legislation which they feel is needed. The referendum and popular initiative then goes to all the electors concerned and their vote is binding on the government. A referendum is mandatory for a change of Constitution, as well. This forces the elected to keep their ears open to the electors, otherwise there would be constant stalemate forced by this popular vote. Strangely, although there are usually two popular votations per year, the number of articles voted on, at all levels, is fairly small, typically 4 to 8, so this is an indication that the Swiss are not dissatisfied with their three levels of government, on the whole. For a federal popular vote to pass, there has to be a majority of both the electors and the Cantons accepting it.

7. Then there is the most democratic institution of all, the Landsgemeinde. A few of the smaller, rural Cantons hold their Cantonal voting in the square of the capital city, by show of hands. This has become a folkloric tradition, with local costumes and the wearing of the sword which bestows on them the right to vote. Of course, this is restricted to Cantons with a population of only a few thousand.

Strangely enough, this is a non-republican democracy that really works.

[KvHagedorn]

If it really works, and is so close to true democracy, then it is by virtue of the wisdom and honor of the common Swiss that it does work. It's a pretty good system for them, since if one doesn't like the way things are run in Schwyz, he could move to Uri or whatever. People have been demonized in this country over advocating state's rights, however, probably because the interest group doing the demonizing would have less power.

The thing about the Swiss is, they've never really done anything truly remarkable as a nation. Perhaps that in itself is remarkable in a way, though. There will always be a sort of stability there, until some more powerful state decides to conquer them. (Which never seemed to happen for reasons peculiar only to Switzerland.)

At the other end of the spectrum, it has to be said that, while one might occasionally get a Frederick or a Solomon, you also occasionally get an Ivan the Terrible. On the whole, however, kings have been milder than dictators arisen from humble origins. I had a really hard time there thinking up a monarch who would be as awful as Stalin or Hitler or even Napoleon.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn

The thing about the Swiss is, they've never really done anything truly remarkable as a nation.

Depends what you mean by "remarkable". They have become prosperous without the advantages of mineral resources, without an industrial revolution. How? By dint of tourism and precision artisanship?

Yes, but don't forget banking. A lot of negative things have been said about it, but it came about because of the country's political and economic stability, inviting people to deposit their riches there. The fact that some of the worst tyrants have done so is neither here nor their. If you were a shopkeeper and someone came in for a kilo of spaghetti, would you say, I'm sorry, I can't take your money because you swindled someone in another country? I think not. (Note, I'm not talking about laundering money here: that is another story).

No, the Swiss stability is because at no time has it attacked its neighbours in 712 years of history; it has defended its interests, yes, but never attacked others'. Possibly another reason for its stability is its topography: the Jura Mountains to the North and the Alps to the South make it a tough nut for an invader to crack and the threat of a guerilla defence from its labyrinth of caverns make it even more redoubtable. The Alps resemble Emmental cheese!

Of course, if it were to engage in hostilities, even the Federal Council of military age belong to the militia, so they WOULD be in the trenches, along with Hans Mueller, Jean Rochat and Giovanni Guido. Maybe that's the secret

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Depends what you mean by "remarkable". They have become prosperous without the advantages of mineral resources, without an industrial revolution. How? By dint of tourism and precision artisanship?

Yes, but don't forget banking. A lot of negative things have been said about it, but it came about because of the country's political and economic stability, inviting people to deposit their riches there. The fact that some of the worst tyrants have done so is neither here nor their. If you were a shopkeeper and someone came in for a kilo of spaghetti, would you say, I'm sorry, I can't take your money because you swindled someone in another country? I think not.

You'd be wrong. I don't need anyones blood money and wouldn't take it given knowledge of the source of their income.

As far as the Swiss go;

It's long been my opinion that the actions of those Swiss bankers and government officials who participated in the pillaging of Europe and theft Holocaust victims assets by either allowing their conversion or storage should have earned them a place at the Nuremberg trials.

That the Swiss people and government took 50+ years to even begin making this right, and then only under duress, is enough to make me puke.

Dr. Mordrid

[mutz]

Whoa!!!

What are you all talking about?

Variations on a theme called man?

An immature evolutionary experiment of nature, of existence, called homo sapiens?

Which will come first, the maturity of man or his destruction of his environment including himself?

From region to region, country to country, social group to social group, individual to individual there are only differences based on conditions for survival, often one at the cost of the other.

The Swiss are among the most poor and miserable peoples I know. The rate of depression and suicide is among the highest in the world. I've seen beggars on the streets of Bombay happier than the average Swiss.

There is no system for success and happiness. There is only the individual finding his way without getting rolled over by the wheels of some system or cause.

Talk about man, body, soul and spirit. Talk about yourself and how things affect you. Talk personally and realistically about how you would like to live and what you are doing to that end.

The rest is intellectual or belligerent nonsense born out of inferiority complexes and fear.

[Brian Ellis]

" The Swiss are among the most poor and miserable peoples I know. The rate of depression and suicide is among the highest in the world."

Yes, the rate of suicide is high, but there are many countries much worse as well as many much better. The causes of high suicide rates are still largely unknown, as can be judged from the WHO figures:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

However, this thread has strayed from my original thesis: that most politicians everywhere are corrupt and self-seeking.

[mutz]

Depression and suicide are primarily the result of an oppressive/repressive society, outlived strategies for survival, psychological imprint and genetic heritage.

Politics and politicians are survival strategies often chosen by those least able to otherwise make their way in life. They are a product of corruptions and distortions of reality already present in their environment when they were born.

People can't jump over their own shadow. Babies aren't born corrupt, they get corrupted.

Everybody is self-seeking in a way. It's part of our genetic programming to help us survive.

Seeking oneself is a wholly different story, and usually doesn't begin until we have experienced some calamity that wakes us out of our illusions enough to start seeing a bit of reality outside of our heads.

[Gurm]

Nobody can be told what the Matrix is...

Gurm_

[mutz]

...aaahh, the Matrix...

[Dr Mordrid]

However, this thread has strayed from my original thesis: that most politicians everywhere are corrupt and self-seeking.

Are you including those in the UN in that definition? Maybe even those who are working as "scientists" but push their own agenda's under that lable in order to get a measure of credibility for bad science?

Just wondering

Dr. Mordrid