Democracy? What Democracy? [part 1]This thing has been going on in my head for quite some time, so i might as well let it all out today. Was thinking about politics around the world, how people claim that democracy is the best political idealogy in the world, in comparison to monarchy, dictatorship, communism etc. Now, we know that democracy is supposedly to be "for the people" where the people have the rights to choose whom they think is perfectly suited to lead the country. Lets review the difference cases for our case study of democracy shall we?First stop, the United States, with the on-going hoo ha of the upcoming november 2004 elections. personally, i am supporting John Kerry. Anyways, about the campaigning. Yes, we know that campaigning is needed, so that the people would know about the aims of the candidates, i.e Bush-Chenny, and John-Edwards. This could be part of democracy, giving the people a chance for an informed vote. Where is the discrepancy in this democracy? Lets go back to the republican conference. I dont remember when, but it was after that conference when things start to turn up for Bush. Just after the conference, Bush was leading by a huge margin. What does this tell us, other than the fact that we people are fickle minded? It tells us that we can easily be influenced to change our choices. Look at the different groups of people chosen by the different candidates. The wife of bush, i have no idea the name, appealed to housewives in the country. The candidates all have people designed to make the team more appealing to different groups of people. And then, there is the down right dirty fighting. Rude and bad comments were dished out by each candidate against each other in speeches. Now, tell me, where the hell is the sportsmanship in such acts? And i thought it was supposed to be a fair game? Moreover, there is the debating issue. As we know, Bush is considered to be a average debater, as he publicised and depicted himself as. He goes on to say how John is an excellent debater. Yet, we know that Bush is an excellent debater, but because of the lowering of the people's expectation of him, his image would improve drastically when he exceeds expectation. Basically, its just a mind game. Looking back at the definition of democracy, where people choose the one they think is more competent, tell me, how is the appealing of image "competent" in any sense, other than making the people feel good about themselves. Democracy? What freakin democracy? Justin ranted at 8:57:00 pm on the |