Democracy in the middle east

[JonnyBGood]

Even the saudis will beat Iraq to it

[Blastoderm]

I still don't see that as democracy.

I don't want to explain why either.

[Tactitus]

As democracy goes, it's pretty weak. It's elections for municipal councils--of which only half the members will actually be elected (the other half will still be appointed).

I think the Iraqis will still beat the Saudis.

[Marilyn Manson]

It's not going to be anything approaching Democratic, but the fact that Saudi Arabia has taken to even some form of electoral politics is a major step forward. Some level of reform is better than Saudi standing still in it's present absolutist, authoritarian Wahabist quaqmire.

[Vermillion]

This new Saudi Arabia will be slightly less democratic than the Soviet Union was. The USSR had several levels of democracy. Firstly, all of the representatives to the local Soviet were elected by the population. The Communist party would put forward candidates and the voters would choose between them. These people had actual power as members of the local Soviets, which then elected members to the national (or Supreme) Soviet, however as the people only had the choice of the options presented to them by the local (or national depending on the region) arm of the Communist party, it was hardly an 'election'. You culd not just 'run' for office, you had to be selected to run for office.

This Saudi system looks more like the 'democratic' reforms of Tsarist Russia after the 1905 revolution, where local people were elected to the Duma, which then sat as an advisory board to the Tsar. However in this situation, like in that one, the ruling authorities had no requirement to pay any attention to the suggestions of the elected council, they did when it was convenient to score themselves popularity points with the pro-democrats, but on anything important the Duma was not even consulted, and rarely heeded. That looks like what the House of Saud is doing now, instituting the trappings of democracy (a vote, an elected body, secret ballots) without invoking actual democracy (representation in government, elected control of the state)


One aside, the Soviets did have one ultra-cool thing in their elections that I have LONG thought we should adopt here in the west. In Soviet elections you could vote AGAINST a person. So, you were not forced to choose the lesser of evils. If the two or three candidates were all unpalatable, you could vote against them, and if the majority voted as such, then the Party wold have to withdraw them and submit new candidates.

WouldNt it be nice if you could actually vote, as Brewster would say, 'None of the Above'?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

That looks like what the House of Saud is doing now, instituting the trappings of democracy (a vote, an elected body, secret ballots) without invoking actual democracy (representation in government, elected control of the state)

I fdon't think we can really blame them for not going far enough quickly enough in this situation. I'm not aware of many saudi opinion polls but I severely doubt that full representative democracy would go across well with many powerful sections of society. The conservativism (and radical fundamentalism) of many saudis would class with the new "liberalism" in a rather spectacular fashion I'd say. One of the more interesting things is that nobody has yet said whether or not women will be able to vote in these elections.

One aside, the Soviets did have one ultra-cool thing in their elections that I have LONG thought we should adopt here in the west. In Soviet elections you could vote AGAINST a person. So, you were not forced to choose the lesser of evils. If the two or three candidates were all unpalatable, you could vote against them, and if the majority voted as such, then the Party wold have to withdraw them and submit new candidates.

WouldNt it be nice if you could actually vote, as Brewster would say, 'None of the Above'?

I doubt this would really work in a western style democracy. What would actually happen if a general election didn't actually elect anyone? Would the old government remain in control? Would some kind of emergency cabinet be elected? How long would it take new candidates to emerge? The basic nature of good party politics is that it doesn't really matter who gets the seats as long as the party gets the seats. They're not all going to go off and dissolve themselves and set up new parties with interesting new policies.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

One of the more interesting things is that nobody has yet said whether or not women will be able to vote in these elections.

Of course they won't. Saudi is the middle eastern country the most repressive of women after Afghanistan. I doubt that that question even crossed the minds of saudi officials when they drafted this plan.

I doubt this would really work in a western style democracy. What would actually happen if a general election didn't actually elect anyone? Would the old government remain in control? Would some kind of emergency cabinet be elected? How long would it take new candidates to emerge? The basic nature of good party politics is that it doesn't really matter who gets the seats as long as the party gets the seats. They're not all going to go off and dissolve themselves and set up new parties with interesting new policies.

No, the parties involved would have to go and choose themselves new candidates. Then they would come back and have another election. And I think you underestimte the impact of a leader on a country, after all John McCain was a republican same as Bush Jr., but I bet the country would look a LOT different under McCain right now...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

No, the parties involved would have to go and choose themselves new candidates. Then they would come back and have another election. And I think you underestimte the impact of a leader on a country, after all John McCain was a republican same as Bush Jr., but I bet the country would look a LOT different under McCain right now...

Point taken about the US. I was thinking more about my own country, although considering I doubt you're that aware of the nuances of Irish politics, do you ythink there'd be a major difference in the Labour party if Gordon Brown was in charge right now as opposed to Tony Blair. Are the parties really going to go off and say "well **** they didn't like the candidates we really want in power, let's choose the candidates the people want!" or are they more likely to offer up a load of pre-election lies and prevarication in order to get into power?


PS What stage do you imagine this rejection taking place? It takes a lot of money to run a presidential election campaign. Not to mention the time factor. Who's in charge after the country rejects it's candidates?


PPS You mean afghanistan past tense right? Or does it still oppress women under the new government?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PPS You mean afghanistan past tense right? Or does it still oppress women under the new government?

Afghanistan has a government?!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I fdon't think we can really blame them for not going far enough quickly enough in this situation.

This is weighted on the presumption that they intend to actually bring in a democratic system as the end goal. That is far from being certain.

If they don't intend to bring in a full transformation, then this looks less like a cautious reform in a series of them, and rather more of a political titbit masquerading as something important.

[xtrasyn]

A lot of philosophers have proven during the last 4000 years that every people gets the government they need or deserve. Bringing in the most democratic leader ever will not change the ways of the common man.

(This is why it´s currently a big mess in Irak - Saddam actually was the best man for the job, probably...)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

A lot of philosophers have proven during the last 4000 years that every people gets the government they need or deserve. Bringing in the most democratic leader ever will not change the ways of the common man.

I'm sure that historically speaking the populace spontaneously changed their opinions in the insant of each revolution

I'd agree there's probably an overall tendency but nothing to the point where we'd say "why bother, they have who they deserve anyways." I dislike that sort of deterministic thinking.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This is weighted on the presumption that they intend to actually bring in a democratic system as the end goal. That is far from being certain.

If they don't intend to bring in a full transformation, then this looks less like a cautious reform in a series of them, and rather more of a political titbit masquerading as something important.

I think crown prince abdullah has declared his support for a democratic system frequently over the past few years. I'd say it's probably one of those nice coincidences where the "moral" and the "pragmatic" approach are both the same.

[xtrasyn]

JBG - It´s not meant to be deterministic, more like an empirically proven condition. A revolution happens to be just that - a need for the general public to get a leader that suits them better on the whole.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

JBG - It´s not meant to be deterministic, more like an empirically proven condition. A revolution happens to be just that - a need for the general public to get a leader that suits them better on the whole.

I'd prefer desire to need. I don't really think Russia "needed" the Bolshevik revolution. Back in Saudi Arabia though wouldn't the recent number of petitions signed, demonstrations held and elections allowed indicate to you that there's a growing desire/need for democracy?

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd prefer desire to need. I don't really think Russia "needed" the Bolshevik revolution. Back in Saudi Arabia though wouldn't the recent number of petitions signed, demonstrations held and elections allowed indicate to you that there's a growing desire/need for democracy?

Well, yes, but that proves my point, if you will. The people make the leader!

I think we share a point, but we look at it from different angles.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

WouldNt it be nice if you could actually vote, as Brewster would say, 'None of the Above'?

i heartily endorse this film