Ivo Skoric on Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:02:41 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> How many parties make a democracy? |
"just one question about elections in serbia. what if two parties which are ideological twins but don't represent the interests of the people monopolized power through the support of "special interest groups" and the "free press"?" Andrew Madsen You mean - what if the political picture in Serbia starts looking like in the U.S.? Well, that's not gonna happen, since there are hundreds of political parties in Serbia. It would take centuries to reduce them to two. It would take less to reduce them to one, though, if you know what I mean. And Milosevic is, judging by recent police beatings, well on his way to do so. Otherwise, the U.S. bipartisan system didn't serve the U.S. citizens so badly as recently has been mocked all over the States. For years it worked well. In last few decades the parties, however, became too identical, both essentially surrendering the process of creation of political ideas to various special interest groups. Like there is no difference between George Bush and Al Gore since they both have no program. But, anybody can form a special interest group, right? So, that should be even more democratic. And it isn't, because for a special interest group to be effective, it has to have money. The more money there is, the more effective that interest would be represented, i.e. the U.S. is the democracy for the rich. This is the same problem that plagued the late Roman Empire, where the position of the Emperor could be bought in the end. King George II fits excelent in that picture. So, I agree that the bipartisan system is not a real democracy. It has its expiration date. It lasts longer than single party state that we had in Yugoslavia and other pseudo-communist countries, but it can't last forever. It has a built-in flaw that sooner or later the two parties will become ONE. Hence, we now do have a third party in the U.S., don't we? The Reform Party - it IS different than the Democrat-Republican bipartisan complex, and absolutely nobody takes it seriously. Why? Because we all got used to the status-quo, it could be better, but it is not that unbearable: yes, the politicians are crooks, so we'll bitch about them and not go to elections (the number of people showing to elections in the U.S. is among the lowest in the entire world of representative democracy) and the politicians would get elected to their offices by someone else, perhaps by my retired neighbours, they'd take bribes, shell out pork and get their dicks sucked by interns, but nothing essentially would change for me or the country. That's what kept communists in power in Yugoslavia way longer than deserved, too. People are inert by nature. They would accept radical change only when pressed hard by the decaying environment. In the last decade of former Yugoslavia, the living standard fell twenty years back. That made people thinking of the change. And that change then invariably came in form of political leaders styled along the lines of Pat Buchanan. So, I am utterly unsurprised that Pat Buchanan is offered as a third option. Then there is the wrestling guy, the big real estate tycoon and the weird billionaire from Texas. The Reform Party looks like it was coined in some Balkan state. If American citizens have a sense of humor, they should elect them. Maybe they could even have a presidency with rotating presidents (like post-Tito Yugoslavia had). Because how would them four decide who in the end would be the President? So, one year we have Jesse, another year we have Ross, then we have Donald and at the end we have Pat. Or maybe let's see, yeah, Pat for the end, he would definitely cause some big shit to happen, so he can declare martial law and remain in power. Living here for ten years now, I found out that Americans generally lack such a sense of humor, though, and I don't believe they'd vote for the Reform Party. ivo # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net