Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,660 Excellent

About candide

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,530 profile views
  1. Ok, the rice scheme was not well designed and poorly implemented. Now as it not uncommon, can you give us a few examples of PMs or presidents convicted for implementing a scheme which was part of the political platform people voted for, and which has been voted in parliament (excluding corruption and other crimes as she is not accused of such crimes). I am eager to read your reply!
  2. Ok but First, in the new system, the party with the highest number of votes is less likely to get a majority of votes. That's what the system is designed for. To pave the way for an unelected PM. Second, in case it gets a majority, he will not be able to apply the political platform if the Junta (the strategic committee ) does not agree to it. The strategy committee can impose its policies. You are quite mute on the second point. How democratic is a system in which policies are not determined by the political platform people voted for, but imposed by an unlected committee? And what happens if this committee does not choose good policies? What say can the people have?
  3. I agree that it is not clear. My guess is that they will add a mechanism in the organic law so that an unelected PM can govern even if he has no parliament majority. Now let's describe the Junta's style democracy. In a normal democracy, people vote for a party according to its political platform. If he has the most votes, this party will usually be the government party. The new system first reduces the odds that a party will have enough seats to be in a dominant position, it also provides an incentive for other parties to refuse a coalition as they can ally later with the senate to appoint a good unelected person instead. Now let's imagine a party gets enough votes to form a government. A government's job is to implement the policies citizens voted for. But it will be the unlected strategy committee (= the Junta), not the government, which will define policies. So in this system, what do people vote for? A party that likely cannot form a government if it is not of the right political orientation, and anyway cannot apply the political platform he was elected for. On top of it: what happens if the strategy committee is wrong or corrupt and defines bad policies? Can it be voted out? Can it be impeached?
  4. They have one-third of votes to elect a PM
  5. It is much more than check and balance, for example: - the senate has one third of votes and it has been officially said that the party with the most votes may not be the one chosen for the government - the strategic committee has more power than the government. Government organisations are legally compelled to obey the strategy committee, even if the government has a different policy.
  6. For once I agree with you! However it is exactly what the Junta wants to avoid, because it would probably allow the emergence of a clear majority in parliament.
  7. Obviously you don't want to take into account the new constitution. It will not be time for politicians. It will be time for the unelected senate, the strategic committee and various unelected bodies. Example
  8. The objective is to make it more difficult to manage political parties and to weaken them. Primary voting systems can also highlight divisions inside parties, which also goes against strong parties.
  9. Refering to the whole framework (this is only a piece of it), the problem is that the aim is not to give more power to the people. It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one. The intent of the Junta has never been to give more lower to people.
  10. This system has surely advantages and drawbacks that can be discussed, as well as the different versions of primary elections (from what I understand, they don't impose the same system as in the USA). To me there are two other more important issues. The first is why must a system be imposed to parties (on top of it by a government without mandate from the people)? Why can't they choose themselves how to nominate their candidates? Up to my knowledge, in other democratic countries, it is usually the parties who decide it. For example, in France, some parties decided to use a primary voting system, while others did not. The second, as already mentioned, is that it is a piece of a broader framework to weaken political parties and reduce the impact of people's voting. That's why I am against it, because I am against the whole framework.
  11. And of course it was not allowed to talk about the 2nd key issue unless very indirectly (like talking about curbing thoughts).......
  12. "They are doing all they can to ensure that the the results of elections do not reflect the will of the people - including unnecessarily over complicating the process." That's the key point. They don't do it for altruistic purpose. It is part of a whole set of mechanisms to weaken political parties and the role of democratic vote, in order to be able to pick themselves the next PM.
  13. In the "other" journal, there is an article in which a General claims that consultations about the four questions show that People in the North-East massively want the current PM to remain in power. No need to be a political expert to deduce from this kind of assertions that he will not leave power soon.
  14. Well, I think we all know what interests will be protected.....
  15. Another thread Junta huggers will avoid like hell.....