T**E
发帖数: 1892 | |
T**E
发帖数: 1892 | |
l*****7
发帖数: 8463 | 3 当民主民主到民主斗士自己的头上时，
假民主就全暴露了
阿Q精神万岁!
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
【在 T**E 的大作中提到】
: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy
: 英国卫报骂大街了，我共输出价值观了，各位将军都来学习一个。
|
f**********d
发帖数: 4960 | |
b***y
发帖数: 14281 | 5 哈哈，英国小将的想法说法和本版小将简直是一模一样啊，老将们快来反驳吧。
...
The words “election” and “democracy” have become synonymous. We have
convinced ourselves that the only way to choose a representative is through
the ballot box. After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948
states as much: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
The words “this will shall be expressed” are typical of our way of
thinking about democracy: when we say “democracy”, we only mean “
elections”. But isn’t it remarkable that the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights contains such a precise definition of how the will of the
people must be expressed? Why should such a concise text about basic rights,
which is fewer than 2,000 words long, pay particular attention to the
practical execution of one of these rights? It is as if the people who
compiled the declaration back in 1948 had come to see the specific method as
a basic right, as if the procedure was in itself sacred.
It would appear that the fundamental cause of democratic fatigue syndrome
lies in the fact that we have all become electoral fundamentalists,
venerating elections but despising the people who are elected.
Electoral fundamentalism is an unshakeable belief in the idea that democracy
is inconceivable without elections and elections are a necessary and
fundamental precondition when speaking of democracy. Electoral
fundamentalists refuse to regard elections as a means of taking part in
democracy, seeing them instead as an end in themselves, as a doctrine with
an intrinsic, inalienable value.
This blind faith in the ballot box as the ultimate base on which popular
sovereignty rests can be seen most vividly of all in international diplomacy
. When western donor countries hope that countries ravaged by conflict –
such as Congo, Iraq or Afghanistan – will become democracies, what they
really mean is this: they must hold elections, preferably on the western
model, with voting booths, ballot papers and ballot boxes; with parties,
campaigns and coalitions; with lists of candidates, polling stations and
sealing wax, just like we do. And then they will receive money from us.
Local democratic and proto-democratic institutions (village meetings,
traditional conflict mediation or ancient jurisprudence) stand no chance.
These things may have their value in encouraging a peaceful and collective
discussion, but the money will be shut off unless our own tried-and-tested
recipe is adhered to.
If you look at the recommendations of western donors, it is as if democracy
is a kind of export product, off the peg, in handy packaging, ready for
dispatch. “Free and fair elections” become an Ikea kit for democracy – to
be assembled by the recipient, with or without the help of the instructions
enclosed. And if the resulting piece of furniture is lopsided,
uncomfortable to sit on or falls apart? Then it’s the fault of the customer.
That elections can have all kinds of outcomes in states that are fragile,
including violence, ethnic tensions, criminality and corruption, seems of
secondary importance. That elections do not automatically foster democracy,
but may instead prevent or destroy it, is conveniently forgotten. We insist
that in every country in the world people must traipse off to the polling
stations. Our electoral fundamentalism really does take the form of a new,
global evangelism. Elections are the sacraments of that new faith, a ritual
regarded as a vital necessity in which the form is more important than the
content.
... |
h*h
发帖数: 27852 | 6 只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票 |
b***y
发帖数: 14281 | 7 但是哪些问题更适合精英投票？或者也许绝大多数问题其实都更适合于精英投票？一旦
承认“有些”问题更适合精英投票的话，就从根本上动摇了西方推销普适民主的基础，
因为只要有这样的问题存在，那么各个国家各个不同的历史时期，更适合精英投票的问
题范围必然也是不断变化的，这就失去了普适的标准。
【在 h*h 的大作中提到】
: 只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票
|
R*********0
发帖数: 3242 | 8 谁是精英这又是个大问题
【在 h*h 的大作中提到】
: 只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票
|
x****o
发帖数: 21566 | |
D**s
发帖数: 6361 | 10 哪种问题不适用公投，哪种适用？
[在 hsh (nidaye) 的大作中提到：]
:只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票 |
|
|
b********n
发帖数: 38600 | |
w*p
发帖数: 16484 | |
C***3
发帖数: 1719 | 13 公投决定....lol
【在 D**s 的大作中提到】
: 哪种问题不适用公投，哪种适用？
: [在 hsh (nidaye) 的大作中提到：]
: :只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票
|
l****u
发帖数: 4594 | |
m**c
发帖数: 7349 | |
s*x
发帖数: 8041 | 16 西方可以接着推销只有他们认证的问题才可以精英投票，跟民主认证一个道理
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 但是哪些问题更适合精英投票？或者也许绝大多数问题其实都更适合于精英投票？一旦
: 承认“有些”问题更适合精英投票的话，就从根本上动摇了西方推销普适民主的基础，
: 因为只要有这样的问题存在，那么各个国家各个不同的历史时期，更适合精英投票的问
: 题范围必然也是不断变化的，这就失去了普适的标准。
|
c***c
发帖数: 21374 | |
b***y
发帖数: 14281 | 18 其实不是民主不行，或者说民主从来没行过，只不过这几年西方的精英不行了。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 11
【在 m**c 的大作中提到】
: 资本主义民主这几年确实不太行
|
M******a
发帖数: 6723 | 19 民主选举或者公投的好处，就是一旦出现坏的后果，人民没有办法推诿责任。
要是当年全国公投决定是不是要公社化、大跃进、文革，哪怕造成了更大损失，人民也
只能承认是自己眼光不行。 |
c****g
发帖数: 37081 | |
|
|
m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 21 小布什嘿嘿一乐。
【在 M******a 的大作中提到】
: 民主选举或者公投的好处，就是一旦出现坏的后果，人民没有办法推诿责任。
: 要是当年全国公投决定是不是要公社化、大跃进、文革，哪怕造成了更大损失，人民也
: 只能承认是自己眼光不行。
|
C**********a
发帖数: 1472 | 22 Queen is running the UK . |
C*******f
发帖数: 13152 | 23 LOL，敢问什么问题用公投什么用精英投怎么决定？
谁是精英谁是屁民又怎么决定？
【在 h*h 的大作中提到】
: 只能说这个问题不该用公投的方式。有些问题更适于精英投票
|
C*******f
发帖数: 13152 | 24 别逗了，只可能是一部分人民骂另一部分人民没眼光，然后就是族群分裂阶级矛盾等等
等等。
【在 M******a 的大作中提到】
: 民主选举或者公投的好处，就是一旦出现坏的后果，人民没有办法推诿责任。
: 要是当年全国公投决定是不是要公社化、大跃进、文革，哪怕造成了更大损失，人民也
: 只能承认是自己眼光不行。
|
