text:
Rebuttal statements
Within democracies, the predominant response to economic failure and political scandal has been to throw incumbent parties out of power at the polls, not to throw democracy itself overboard.
If democracies are increasingly perceived by their citizens as catering above all to the demands of elites, disengagement is sure to be the result—and institutional stability will suffer correspondingly.
This debate has been taking place against a backdrop of violent protests in Ukraine, and the introduction in that country of repressive new laws. Such news stories make it hard for anyone taking the optimistic side of the argument. And, sure enough, the voting is running around 70% to 30% in favour of the pessimists.
Meanwhile, Christian Caryl piles on the pressure for the pessimistic side. He draws on evidence not just from Ukraine, but also from numerous other countries, from Egypt to Kyrgyzstan. And he points to the widespread popular disillusionment with a system perceived by growing numbers of citizens to be working in favour of elites. So is the debate in effect over?
I don't think so. Larry Diamond's case does not rest on denying the worries about democracy. On the contrary, he sets them out himself. But he needs only to convince readers that the worriers are worrying too much, that there is a brighter side too. Some people clearly share that view. Prasanna K Choudhar, for example, comments from India that "very positive attempts are under way in democratic societies (at intellectual, constitutional and legal levels) to marry democratic freedoms with people's yearning for growth, justice and security".
However, most comments from the floor so far have been pessimistic. "Even the once flagship of democracy (USA) is falling apart," says one. Another asserts that we have no democracy anywhere in the West with the exception of some cantons of Switzerland. There is widespread concern that democracy is working only for the elites, who use their powers to "devoid democracy of most of its content" (Paul Deacon).
One of the most-recommended comments supposes that The Economist itself has an elitist agenda in this debate and a "visceral hatred of any form of genuine democracy". The commenter asks: "Will there be any representatives of Democracy International, or people like John Matsusaka from the Initiative and Referendum Institute, or indeed any advocates of a more direct democracy?"
The answer, of course, is that all are welcome to join in. I hope that many more will for the remainder of this debate. After all, as one comment puts it, "The best way to improve the health of democracy is to encourage participation and rational policy debates."
As Freedom House demonstrates in its latest annual survey, freedom in the world declined in 2013 for the eighth consecutive year. Yet this net assessment encompasses some sharply divergent trends, and it obscures some underlying elements of hope and resilience. Within democracies, the predominant response to economic failure and political scandal has been to throw incumbent parties out of power at the polls, not to throw democracy itself overboard. While democracy has foundered recently in some big, strategic states—like Bangladesh and Egypt (and now potentially Ukraine as well)—most of the recent erosions in freedom have come in states that were already authoritarian, such as Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Gambia. Amid these disheartening retreats, it is possible to miss the quiet persistence or renewal of democracy in places like Ghana and Georgia, or the potent electoral pushback against autocratic ambitions in Argentina.
In fact, Freedom House counts a significant increase over the past year in the number of democracies, to 122 (more than 60% of the world's states). One can question whether any of the four new entrants—Honduras, Kenya, Nepal and Pakistan—merit this classification, but in each there were elements of political progress. For the first time in its 66-year history as an independent state, Pakistan witnessed the peaceful, constitutional transfer of power from one freely elected government to the next. As in India (and predating the Indian development) a new, "third force" political party has emerged in Pakistan that is rejuvenating the political party landscape. And after losing power in a military coup 14 years ago, Nawaz Sharif seems inclined to govern more prudently and inclusively on his second go-round as prime minister. Pakistan remains a deeply troubled state, but even incremental democratic progress there is globally significant.
At this moment when things seem so bleak in the Arab world, consider some other Muslim-majority states. Indonesia faces huge challenges of controlling corruption and institutionalising a rule of law, but no one is suggesting that democracy itself is now in danger. Rather, electoral democracy is sinking roots, and 2014 bears the promise of a potentially invigorating rotation in power after the disappointing second term of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Far ahead in the opinion polls is the energetic, progressive governor of Jakarta, Joko Widodo, who could well rekindle and accelerate the momentum for political reform and better governance.
With free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections last year (though enabled only by prior French military intervention), Mali has returned to the ranks of democracies. Now, it at least has a chance to rebuild itself after the collapse of state authority in the desert north. Senegal rejuvenated democracy in its 2012 elections, when a youthful former prime minister united the opposition and thrashed the ageing, power-aggrandising two-term incumbent (Abdoulaye Wade) at the polls. Last year, Freedom House detected further democratic progress in Senegal under President Macky Sall, with expanding freedom of the press and of assembly and more assertive efforts to prosecute corruption.
Even in Turkey, electoral democracy persists in the face of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's paranoic assaults on media freedom and political opposition. As seen from the recent street protests, Turkey's civil society is not going to shrink quietly into the dark night. It is not only among the now decimated ranks of the independent prosecutors that countervailing forces to Mr Erdogan's authoritarian ambitions are gathering. As in Bangladesh with prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League, the effort to establish a long-term party hegemony will eventually generate a corrective reaction within societies that have come to expect and value political accountability.
Nearly 40% of the world's Muslims live in four big democracies: Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and India. And the predominantly Muslim populations of Mali and Senegal together roughly match the 25m or so in Saudi Arabia.
Then there is the Arab world. It is not only premature but superficial as well to write off Arab hopes for freedom. Tunisia has just turned a major constitutional corner and, as The Economist recently noted, "Democratic institutions appear to have a good chance of taking root." A major reason is that unlike its Muslim Brotherhood counterpart in Egypt, the principal Islamist party in Tunisia, Nahda, ultimately opted for moderation and compromise. Cynics who point only to the country's dire economic straits or to its relatively small size miss the enormous demonstration effects that would flow from having even a single functioning democracy in the Arab world. Despite their manifest problems of political order, Libya, Yemen and even Iraq have levels of political pluralism that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.
Nor should we presume that authoritarian rule is stable elsewhere in the Middle East. Sooner or later—and probably sooner in Jordan and Morocco—decaying authoritarian regimes will need to commit to real political reform or face new surges of protest from youthful and increasingly tech-savvy populations who want better government and a better life. We are still in the midst of a long arc of history that will bend towards democracy in our time.
In his first contribution to this debate, Larry Diamond argues that we have yet to see an authoritarian "reverse wave" that will bring to a halt the triumphant march of democracy. Current events, however, offer plenty of evidence to the contrary. As I write this, Egypt's government is congratulating itself on last week's constitutional referendum, which was approved by 98% of the population—a figure even higher than some of the sham approval ratings claimed by Hosni Mubarak during his own stint in power. This says volumes, unfortunately, about the extent to which the achievements of Egypt's democratic revolution are indeed being rolled back by the current military government. The generals in charge are once again jailing reporters, cracking down on civic activists and hunting down members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, President Bashar Assad remains in power, largely thanks to direct material and political support from the new "autocratic international" of China, Russia and Iran. Perhaps the real victors of the Arab spring, though, are the traditional monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait. These regimes have defied popular protests and calls for reform with a ruthlessness and flexibility that continue to astound. Surely once-hopeful democrats in the Arab world have little to rejoice about these days.
Nor is this the only part of the world where a robust authoritarian roll-back is under way. We have already touched upon the worrisome examples of Turkey and Thailand. But this week brings news from a corner of Europe where the triumph of democracy seemed all but assured just a few years ago. In Ukraine, where the 2004 orange revolution once inspired hopes of greater things, lawmakers beholden to President Viktor Yanukovych have just passed a broad package of laws restricting anti-government protests. A full-blown crackdown by security forces in the centre of Kiev has taken the lives of at least four oppositionists. Journalists complain of an intensifying squeeze on multiple fronts—from the pro-regime business tycoons who have taken over much of the independent press as well as from mysterious attackers on the streets.
Unless the opposition can find some way to thwart him, Mr Yanukovych appears set on steering his country of 45m back into the fold of Putin-style dictatorship—one that already includes Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the dictatorships of Central Asia. Only Georgia and Moldova appear to be resisting the regional trend for the moment, though there are many reasons to believe that it is too early to take the stability of democratic institutions in either country as a given. Kyrgyzstan, which embarked on its own "colour revolution" in 2005, today stands less for the triumph of democracy than the dangers of a backlash fuelled by chaos and corruption. Corroded by entrenched ethnic rivalries and its involvement in the booming Central Asian drug trade, a deeply dysfunctional and impoverished Kyrgyzstan hardly offers a compelling advertisement to those who would emulate liberal values.
This problem of "democratic delivery" shows why merely keeping a scorecard of those countries that vote and those that don't can be misleading. It is certainly true that authoritarian regimes confront "their own huge problems of performance, legitimacy and stability", as Mr Diamond notes. But that will offer little consolation to those who live in democracies that are profoundly compromised by their failure to answer to the needs of the overwhelming majority of their citizens.
While the number of electoral democracies has increased since the second world war, studies also suggest that voter turnout in those countries where elections take place has steadily waned in recent decades. It is tempting to see these figures as evidence that voters in many parts of the world no longer feel that their interests are served by participation in the political process.
The disillusionment with populism and corruption briefly touched upon by Mr Diamond undoubtedly has a great deal to do with this—as do, presumably, the uneven results of economic growth. Oxfam, a humanitarian organisation, has just released a revealing study on global inequality at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Among other things, the authors of the paper note that a mere 85 individuals today own as much wealth as one-half of the global population. Not all of the ultra-rich live in democracies, of course; China and Russia boast more than their share of oligarchs. Yet the Oxfam authors rightly point to the particular ways in which democracies lend themselves to manipulation by powerful elites, who can wield influence to shape the lawmaking process in their own favour.
If democracies are increasingly perceived by their citizens as catering above all to the demands of elites, disengagement is sure to be the result—and institutional stability will suffer correspondingly. It is no accident that anger over corruption and inequality has recently stirred powerful expressions of popular discontent in India, Brazil and South Africa, three of the developing world's biggest democracies. This shows us that democrats cannot afford to take the presumed triumph of their model for granted, even in countries where elections continue to occur. In the years ahead, the greatest dangers to democracy will come from within.
Comments from the floor
Dear Sir,
Mr. Caryl's last statement, that democracy's perils shall now come from within, bears repeating. We should not be counting democracies willy-nilly as if democracy divorced from a liberal constitutional state is anything worth cheering for.
The following ideas are taken from John Lukacs' "Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred" (2005).
First the sovereignty of the people replaced the authority of monarchs. The state's purpose now stretched beyond the defense of the realm. Then the state became the main instrument of the welfare of its people. The 20th century rise of the welfare state, entailing the mushrooming of the governmental powers of state, led to a decline in its authority.
Democracy's degeneration toward populism has been inseparable from this decline of authority (of an upper 'aristocratic' class, within families).
Public opinion has been all too often confused with popular sentiment. The latter may coagulate into the decisive weakening, or gradual disappearance, of previously accepted public ideas and slogans (e.g. disestablishment of most Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in the 1980s). But in the western democracies, too, the differences between publicly stated opinions and private or even popular sentiments are often recognizable.
The emphasis on privacy, and on its often bourgeois customs and habits, has been eroding. While states and governments are being badgered to extend more and more 'liberties' to individuals, amounting to their 'rights' (citizenship/welfare/social) the instruments of supermodern technology, communications and surveillance cut deep inroads into private lives.
The desire for privacy among people has begun to erode. The distinction between private and public convictions, ideas, appearances, and customs has become badly confused. Today people want to seem (to gain public approval) more than to be. Men and women with considerably independent minds are becoming rare.
Liberal democracy is devolving into a cult or government by popularity. Today the selection of electoral candidates depends more on the selectors' assessment of a nominee's potential popularity than on the selectors' concerns about the nominee's merits.
In so many cases demagogic or otherwise corrupt candidates have been elected when suddenly more rather than fewer people were voting. Voting should be made not easier but more difficult. Then the electoral majority would be the result of a more, not less, responsible citizenry.
The rise of publicity and its manipulations represents a new kind of danger to democracy. Less direct but perhaps more insidious than that of the tyranny of the majority, since it is more than often the decisive influence of certain insistent and powerful minorities.
The simulation of public opinion is something different from direct populism, and more potentially dangerous than the prospect of a tyranny of the majority. Public relations agents and pollsters generate publicness even more than they do opinion. Notice the more recent transformation of the American political system from popularity contests (since Andrew Jackson's election in 1828) to publicity contests.
The nominators of presidential candidates are the national news media rather than the people. Today peoples' celebrity makes them potential and successful candidates for high public office, not their intellectual capabilities (Schwarzenegger in California, Reagan in Washington).
This devolution involved the transformation of society. After 1950, 'Society' had more and more to do with Celebrity. Publicity will have an inevitable effect on people whose discriminating manners are not matched by discriminating mental interests of their own.
In the present day the difference, the increased discrepancy, between fame and honor has become so large that in the characters of presidents and in those of most public figures, the passion for fame has just about obliterated the now remote and ancient sense of honor.
Dear Sir,
Before submitting my comment over this issue I would like to quote Winston Churchill's famous thought about democracy:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," Winston Churchill, 1947.
Having reminded that, I beg to ask: what should one understand by "democracy"? Broad and unconditional access to information? Widespread access to education? The right to freely express one's thoughts and/or opinions? The power to cast a vote in any universal general election? The possibility to participate more effectively in the national or local decision making process through the creation of eligible, fairly unrestricted, civil rights movements or political parties? The claim for equal rights? The benefit of desirably equal opportunities?
Regardless of what one thinks about the acknowledgeable features encompassed in anyone's democracy definition, I would dare to say that few would argue against the notion that democracy is the least bad form of government. Nevertheless, quite a lot would express its disenchantment with it, right now: in the developed world, the most affected from the Great Recession feel abandoned by their governments while the rest gets back to business as usual, and in the developing countries, as some thrive and seem to reap all the benefits from their recent, above average, growth span, others – the majority – keeps struggling.
And where does all this grudge against democracy come from? It's quite clear that there is a strong correlation between, rising unequal income distribution, dwindling opportunities and citizens' frustration. Add up the shared view that bureaucrats seem more likely to attend to powerful organizations/elites agendas and one easily understands the run-up in political activism. This increased awareness has exposed the lack of ability of the conventional/mainstream established political parties in conducting, namely, economic policy, especially in adverse times. Their incompetence, combined with the conflict of interests linked to the promiscuous relationships kept with powerful organizations/elites, compounds democracy's woes.
In my opinion, it's in the most influential political parties – those who alternate in power – and their mandate breadth that resides democracy's core issues. Supposedly, their main enforcers are the ones to blame for democracy's shortcomings.
How could that happen? Well, unlike in the 20 to 30 years, prior the Great Recession, whereas economic tailwinds stoked the emergence and strengthening of middle-class worldwide, no one seemed to really care what bureaucrats were up to. Everybody was simply enjoying the party: higher acquisitive power, their higher education, their health and eventual pension benefits. There was nothing else to worry about. Politics was dull and was meant to those who fancied rhetoric and giving speeches.
Since nobody cared, that signaled political parties, that society evolution had plateaued. In turn, as the political parties distanced themselves from the electorate, that allowed them to pursue other agendas – dodgy or not – lobbied by powerful organizations/elites in exchange for "God knows what" (power, a seat in the board of a corporation, money, who knows?!). With less scrutiny, and hence less transparency, these lobbies in collusion with the political parties have taken hold of power.
To sum it up, I side by Sir Churchill's quote: the problem doesn't have to do with the form of government, if not with how democracy is being used by some its most prominent players. It's urgent to tackle this credibility crisis by shedding light on these murky ties between political parties and powerful organizations/elites and, at the same time, narrow the formers' range of action. It's time to for these organizations (the parties), to voluntarily relinquish some of their powers in favor of the society. That's what it's all about. To allow people to participate more effectively in politics.
A jolt is needed…
PS:.I've expressed these thoughts before on my personal blog...in Portuguese
Dear Sir,while "we the people " do get a chance to vote their would be representatives to positions of power to govern them , after the ritual of voting is over , the elected reps play the game of corporations ditching the people . The govt cannot but play the tune of corporations because the funding of the party candidates for their costly election has been done by the corporations . Today the " democratic" governments of the world have all been hijacked by the corporations for them to make GREEDY PROFITS for their preferential share holders .
We cannot blame the financial sector to make profits because it is their bounded duty and declared aim to generate wealth . Generating wealth through trade and commerce is not a crime or sin . On the other hand its their profession at which they are extremely good . What is wrong is that its the duty of the govt.to redistribute equally ( not equitably ) the wealth generated to benefit the larger sector of population, for their welfare , health and education . In other words to reinvest a major portion of the created wealth on the development of human resources .The 1% who have created the wealth through manufacture and trade and commerce need to take a REASONABLE ROI , COMPATIBLE WITH SENSE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY and the balance of the created profit need to be ploughed back to the industry to create ,more jobs for the people.
The govt has to extract money from the mega rich 1% by suitable taxation policies , like a diligent bee-keeper who extracts honey from a bee- hive harming the bees the least and extracting honey to the optimum level.
If that's effectively done by the elected govt , then and then only can we call it a democratic govt . Otherwise its CORPORATOCRAZY .
Yes, today democracy is dead. Whether we can ever revive it is seriously doubtful.
The laws of the land are written by the corporations and made to pass it in the parliaments of the world . Govt.Regulators are defunct , non existent, or rendered helpless that the mega banks and mega corporations are free to loot the public in the enticing name of " free market economy " that empowers and bring growth only to the rich1% at the cost of "we the 99% " .
Probably a radical way out could be radical govt measures such as NATIONALISATION OF ALL BANKS , nationalization of industry and corporations followed by bringing back manufacture to the west toro vide jobs to the people in the developed nations , though that will reduce substantially the margin of profit to the shareholders . Health and education of the citizens are the most valuable assets of a nation .
Dear Sir,I must admit that I find the debate a little superficial. Democracy is not just about voting a governing party out or a new party in, but has much to do with the functioning of its institutions, the judiciary, the legal framework, the social fabric of society, the willingness of its constituencies to participate and not to forget the role played by the media. The whole debate is in my view too much one-dimensional focused on voting and on the rich being served by government and parliament. I would hope that the debate would try to grasp the complexities of democracy rather than simplify it to a similar approach as the late president Bush and his accomplices used to invade Iraq to impose democracy in Bagdad. Their simplicity led to the disaster the Iraqis are suffering from since 2003. Consideration of the functioning of the crucial institutions, legislative and social fabric of a society is needed for a fruitful discussion whether democracy is to prosper or not.
Dear Sir,
Democracy has survived all these years, despite several attempts to kill it. Whereas, dictatorship does not last. Even countries, ruled by dictators, saw democracy returning to it, albeit, at the cost of lives.
Dear Sir,
Ms Ann Bernstein makes the remarkable claim:
"But then one has to remember that the most educated and sophisticated country in the world at the time voted for Hitler . . ."
It didn't take long for the Elitists to invoke Godwin's Law.
Contrary to popular mythology, the Germans didn't vote Hitler into power. They certainly didn't vote him into power under any system of genuinely democratic government.
The Nazi party never won more than 40% of the vote in a properly conducted election. Even in the rigged election of March 1933 - after Hitler had come to power – the Nazis got only 44% of the vote. Even then they didn't win a majority of seats.
The irony is that the Nazi's seizure of power actually arose from precisely the sort of elitist "sham democracy" promoted by The Economist. It was three elite politicians (President von Hindenburg, the incumbent Chancellor von Schleicher, and von Schleicher's arch rival, the former chancellor von Papen) who used executive powers to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, thinking he would be a puppet they could use for their own political ambitions.
Democracy had nothing to do with it.
Elitist propagandists often make the claim "referendums are dangerous because the German people voted Hitler to power in a referendum". It's just not true.
It is true that there were three stage-managed plebiscites held by the Nazis but none of them meant anything. The earliest was held more than a year after the Nazis had already come to power.
The plebiscite of August 1934 (a piece of theatre purporting to ratify the combination of Chancellorship and Presidency after it had already happened) took place six weeks after the "Night of the Long Knives". Von Schleicher himself had just been murdered. Germans were living under state sponsored terror that had grown out of the sort of elitist "sham democracy" beloved of The Economist.
The conduct of the plebiscite was a farce. There were Nazi party officials at the ballot boxes who took the marked ballots by hand. The Nazis claimed that 90% of people voted "Yes" but even if that were true, what is more remarkable is that 10% of voters were brave enough to risk their lives by handing a "No" vote to a Nazi official.
Yet to this day you will still see people claiming, "Democracy is dangerous. Just look how the Germans voted Hitler into power."
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,Democracy is not a form of Government as such, it is a process of vote. I man 1 Vote. Socialist Democracy, Capitalist Democracy, Monarchical Democracy, Aboriginal Democracy. What makes the difference is how it is maintained once it is elected.
Does it continue to uphold the 1 man 1 vote in principal, it must be constitutional with rules that can't be varied,to suit the 1/2 man's vote of a leader, a less than majority support party, a Court with power to change meaning of language to vary constitutional common meaning with abstract legal maxims or Latin linguists common-law, natural-law, statute-law word meaning changes etc.
Constitutional-Monarchical-Democracy appears to have a best chance with a realist humane QE II not QE I, a Singapore or Malaysian rotating Monarch even, not the Party-rigged POTUS, SCOTUS alternative, even Communist Party Socilist multi Party democracy does better than USA where aver half of the term of office is readying funds, lobby's, factions, social sectors, or electorates for next election leaning.
Dear Sir,
James Madison stated that the constitutional form of government that the American colonies had instituted to replace the Articles of Confederation were wholly unsuited to govern any other than the Christian who acknowledged God as Supreme, Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and cared for their neighbor above themselves. We have seen in the past fifty years how true that statement is as America is demarked more by special interests than it is by its concern for the welfare of the country as a whole.
Democracy is the rule of the people where the Vox Populi is the loudest and final voice. If the populi be corrupt, then the vox will be corrupt and the governance will follow in the corruption. We have seen this in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Liberty requires accepting personal responsibility to society for one's actions. That lack of personal responsibility is obligingly filled by tyranny, which being fundamentally paranoid, will spy on, abuse, and otherwise manipulate its citizenry into becoming the readily amenable sheep the tyranny is comfortable with. From Egypt to Israel to Persia to Greece to Rome the story is the same. We DO need to learn the lessons of history and grow up so that we are not committing the same mistakes over and over.
Dear Sir, I am a citizen of India, still I am unable to understand what is really meant by Democracy. Even in so called democracy in India Rich & Powerful only can enter the fray , enter the Law making houses to safe guard the interests of their own and their fraternity. It is not so easy to meet the local Member of Legislative Assembly / Council and it is Herculean task to see a Member of Parliament or Member of Rajya Sabha leave alone to represent common man's grievances. It is the word going round and round that to contest in oncoming elections a person requires a minimum of Rs. 50 - 60 crores ( 10 million US $ approx ) for Member of Parliament & Rs. 10 - 15 crores ( 3 million US $ ) for Member of Legislature. Taking the advantage of no experience of Administration of elected people, the Bureaucracy is taking advantage and ruling. A Zella Parishat chair Person will get lesser respect and have lesser power than a District Collector so also a Town Municipal Chair Person has to depend on Commissioner, who are bureaucrats of the State. In my opinion even in Democracy Rich, Mighty & powerful persons of Higher Communities / Mobs will Rule, their word only Prevail in the guise of so called Democracy. Common person will / has to suffer in any form of ruling named as Democracy / Autocracy / Dictatorship / Religion / Caste Leaders. I feel Reliogionism - Casteism - Cashism will rule and dictate Terms & Conditions to common citizens, it is no much difference in any form of Ruling because the Laws & Acts will only apply to them.
With Regards,
Chella Rao Rongala, India.
Dear Sir,
The Supreme Court pretty well destroyed any hope for democracy to right itself. The Republican party has done its best to destroy democracy also, by gerrymandering the states so that their candidates win regardless of the majority votes in their state. So, between the Supreme Courts vote against limiting the power of well healed special interests groups and the far rights cannibalization of the state democratic processes, and the abject fear of the current crowd in congress of a primary contest, our democracy is a pleasant fiction.
Dear Sir, As those in positions of power constantly act in the favor of themselves and their party/affiliated group/clan, as opposed to that of the state in which they serve, cynicism is rising. This is along with that many in the intellectual branch to be considering alternatives to replace the corrupted state they live. People are looking for a "honest" person to deliver order and justice. Just as Mussolini "made the trains run on time" they look some one who "made the government run on budget". This may have some support also from the lower elements of society who are the government is less able to placate with Keynesian policies. Less content then, they if the evil right wing(for example Republicans)or left wing(for example Democrats)come to power they may not oppose a take over in an Augustian manner. This is all very unlikely in the West/Japan/ S.Korea, but it is possible, thus justifying the unease
Dear Sir,
Advanced democracies are dying. Their thought leaders worship the State. Young democracies are still struggling against the State. Democracy dies as the moral character of its people die. It is all on display daily. See it or not. Believe it or not.
Dear Sir,
Your comment on the military government in Egypt's alleged progress seems unfair. As a hefty amount of decisions are made through fear tactics,with a 38.6% voter turnout, the numbers are indeed fairly skewed in the favor of those benefiting from this referendum. Is democratic progress being voluntarily rolled back in Egypt or muscled back?
Dear Sir, I look at both pro and con in this debate and notice how both parties
appear to ignore democracy in Western countries like Canada or the USA.
As Canadians become prefect consumers of endless goods their attention is not on democracy but on shopping. Instead of worrying about democracy in countries where it has never existed look at what is going on in our backyard and see what our politicians are doing, becoming more partisan and going for populism. Example Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto elected by the suburbs because he was the master populist, look what happened. Prime Minister Harper who re-writes Canadian Foreign Policy while on a Religious pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Look at the the participation levels in any election in Canada at their lowest levels ever and still dropping. People are fed up and simply no longer believe in democracy. As long as their shopping needs are satisfied the rest does not much matter.
Dear Sir,
Democracy involves elections, some sense of responsible government and the ability for people to have a say about who governs them. The opposite is Kingdoms, Fiefs, Despots and a host of undesirable "Kims".
It isn't an easy road (to Democracy) and it is full of challenges, but I see no alternative.
(oh and please spare me "meritocratic", really?)
Dear Sir,
There is a difference between the "idea" of democracy and the "reality" of democracy. Wile interest in the idea of democracy is rising, the reality of democracy is falling apart. In the US, you have the government of people by the rich for the rich. One symptom is the fact that more and more Representatives and Senators are millionaires, and no doubt vote in favour of their own interests. Those interests include supporting the companies in which they have invested, and those who have put large amounts of money into their campaigns. Britain and Canada are no different. I many "First-world" countries particularly, the idea of democracy continues, but the reality is long gone.
Dear Sir,
The trouble with the "anti's" argument is that they measure 'Democracy' against an ideal - that of genuinely free voting, with independent and incorruptible parliament, judiciary, police , election officials etc.
That combination is rare. In real life, democracy is a system of "serial disillusionment":
• the voters are fed up with the present government, listen to the blandishments of some other group of politicians who promise more open, responsive government, and "toss the old rascals out"
• they notice after a time that the new lot are not keeping their - probably unachievable - pre-election promises
• power corrupts, and the new lot start to feel that they deserve to stay in government longer. And they get increasingly resentful - and often paranoid - about criticism from the public.
• after some more years, the voters are once more thoroughly fed up with the present government, listen to a new set of blandishments, and "toss the old rascals out"
• repeat the cycle, ad infinitum . . . . . .
If that is your expectation of democracy, it's not doing too badly.
Dear Sir,
Worrying about democracy is useless, thus I propose to vote 'yes'. We are on the verge of being capable of a huge change, where it will be possible for true democracy to be performed on a massive scale. People will be able to have their identity authenticated and vote on-line on important topics.
The key is having the right form of "intermediation", and clearly we do not have that today. Our representatives are chosen in ways that do not protect the interests of the electorate. The right approach would be to have these middle-men (and women) serve on a voluntary basis, selected by the voters on their capacity to make decisions about what are the important questions to be put to voters, and which are ones that are managerial decisions to be left to bureaucrats (and I mean that in the best sense). Campaigns as we know them, and political parties, would have far less importance.
The problem with the referendum approach until now has been their short-term nature. Proper presentation of referenda would include their direct and indirect costs and benefits in the short- and long-term.
The challenge is not the technology, it is whether the electorate would take on the required responsibility to properly understand what they are voting upon. Today's system does not encourage in-depth understanding except among the political elites.
Dear Sir,
I am not entirely sure that popular mass democracy, as it is currently designed, has prospects for the future.
Its degeneration into mere populism is everywhere evident. In Austria a Foreign Minister has just been elected who is not yet 30 years of age.
In the West 18-year-old children are given the vote.
I wholly subscribe to Professor John Lukacs' pessimism.
What A.linkon once said now are being said is "democracy is for,of, and by the money".How mnc (drug &GM) are minting money unethically is well known.one way out will be to decentrelise the money concentration.
Dear sir,
I think, fundamentally (and only after skimming a few of the remarks) the argument is facing the wrong direction. The dissatisfaction of voters, the sense of populism towards the Political Class and things like electoral protests all show the prevalence of democracy in our society. The question is not one of "Is our society coming to disagree with democratic principles?" because they are still pervasively operative, the line of conversation should follow the path of "Has democracy helped, in a satisfactorily substantial way, the progress of civilisation?"
Of course, you could argue either way. But care must be taken to assume that the opposite of democracy is authoritarianism, which brings to mind the great "successful" pogroms, erosion of civil liberties and the mobilisation of whole populaces for a generally disagreeable cause. In such Nihilistic times it is no wonder people are drawn to both Authoritarianism or Democracy - be it radical like Anarchism or moderate like Parliamentarianism. However, it is not a dichotomy; the elimination of the democratic process does not necessitate the elimination of civil liberties or other benefits we associate with Democracy. When compared to other models, Democracy becomes a blight because, at its core, it doesn't allow for a decent meritocratic system.
Assuming Democracy is meritocratic is the equivalent of thinking the masses, in their infinite wisdom, are not susceptible to the likes of propaganda and rhetoric, however subtle. The system is also ridiculously easy to take advantage of, as we see with "career" politicians, although there are other reasons for this emerging group of people. A good analogy would be to liken elections to a step-ladder, and the government to a ladder; once one is chosen by the process, one is free to manoeuvre, exploit, climb and direct the system as one sees fit.
The proper form of government, in my eyes, would be a kind of bicameral, bureaucratic Meritocracy: a system whereby unelected officials knowledgeable in a particular area of expertise form the policy with influence according to their merit, for the executive to execute. The upper chamber, being the "overwatch" for the entire government, are made up of the likes of Plato's philosopher-kings: people learned in philosophy and wise enough to properly comprehend and make comment on the issues that face a modern society.
Dear Sir,
While the expert debate has not focused on the recent developments in entrenched, western democracies, many of the comments have. Most of them decry the power that elites have amassed in their nation's governments. They would do well to remember that this only highlights the importance of robust democracy,the system that provides the best defense against such political maladies. It does not,as some here have suggested, discredit the system but strengthens its appeal.
Dear Sir,
A better question would be does Democracy ever work? No, it doesn't.
Direct Democracy just like Communism has never worked, Direct Liberal Democracies devolve into mob rule, rule of the lowest common denominator, where the witless, least capable masses vote themselves entitlements into ruin (which is exactly whats happening Greece, Detroit and the debt, entitlement crises of the West). And where the feckless mobs vote demagogues into office instead of competent leadership, a society can not run long if its leadership is incapable of governing competently.
All Great thinkers from Plato, to the Chinese Philosophers, to the Great men of the Enlightenment knew Democracy never works, the Solution of course was a representative Republic, but Republicanism has fallen out of favor and instead the West is composed of largely Direct Decadent Stagnate Democracies, with ever greater calls for more mob/direct rule a virtual idiotocracy, Ultimately we know where mob rules leads, just as in Eqypt, to Chaos, Barbarism, and Tyranny.
When we form societies we all sign a social contract, it is a two way agreement that both sides, society/government and the individual are bound by to ensure society functions to the benefit of all. Direct Democracy voids such contracts and makes forming societies impossible or unpractical, as mob rule results in idiot masses choosing incompetent leadership incapable of ensuring society runs and populace absolved of any responsibility of honoring their social contracts (entitlements, voting themselves instant gratifications, consumption, unsustainable pleasures, vices to ruin)
Just like Communism the Direct Liberal Democracies of today are as Plato, the thinkers of the enlightenment, and the great Chinese philosopher predicted; places of vice, rot, entitlement, unsustainable societies that are ultimately bound to collapse and ruin. Western Direct Democracies, as all the stats, surveys show (declining IQs, declining educational scores, increasing disintegration of families and society, drug abuse, increasing mental illness, increasing extremism, failing economies, increasing inequality,failing economic fairness, a sense of worsening future and dread) will soon be irrelevant and devolve into their ultimate end states of a police/socialist/tyrannical/facist states.
Dear Sir,
It is of immense cocern that the Democracies worl dover are basically becoming subservient to the unipolar giant US rather than accountable to its own people,and thsi loss of faith in democracy has been responsible in strenghteneing the demolishing communist and socialistic regimes again, and recent tyranny in China and in other democracies that were basically under the kingdoms and other soverigns is a matter of concern.
while democracy is the best model of governance , its unaccountable rulers are responsible of growing concern legitimate and discont is realistic and visible.
Dear Sir,
The implementation of the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer delivers on this promise, as is witnessed in many developing and developed countries. We are in very serious need of exploring new ways of realizing the aforesaid core principles. The American one size fits all is grossly flawed.
Dear Sir,
Tim Holmes refers to the world's "supercitizens", the global elite who subvert the institutions of government to ensure their own interests are promoted.
In the same vein we might say that the world's "superparliament" meets for just one week in every year. In Davos, Switzerland.
One only has to watch the sycophantic politicians rushing to be pay homage to the "supercitizens" in Davos to realise there is nothing remotely "democratic" about our systems of government.
Dear Sir,
Democracy is only as effective as the mechanisms through which it is exercised, and these evolve as technological advances improve access to information and with it our personal stock of knowledge ...and power.
The Information Revolution necessitates a new set of democracy mechanisms. Our current system of representation was devised for a very different tine. It is now too crude, too slow to respond to change and too open to abuse to be effective.
The best example can be seen in demise of the US political system. The overt purchase of power by the super-rich and the inability to effectively protect citizens against the excesses of those executing the greatest transfer of wealth in history are made possible by the outdated mechanisms by which democracy is practiced in the USA.
Dear Sir,
First of all, there are two related questions in this debate: first, is the desire for democracy weakening in modern society? Second, is the practice of democracy noticeably worsening?
To the first, I would say definitely not. Protests in Ukraine, Turkey and Thailand, among others show that citizens still want their leaders to be accountable to the views of populace, not just their own whims. Even the rise of Eurosceptic parties in Europe is an expression of this desire. While some Britons may wish to see the UKIP storm Westminster, they want it to do so by way of the ballot box, not with rifles.
To the second, I would argue a cautious yes. The most obvious example is the slide towards autocracy in several nations. However, even in Western nations, politicians are perceived as being increasingly interested in their own careers than their constituents' wishes. As a result, many democratic systems seem designed to favour incumbents, regardless of their policies.
Overall, there is certainly room to improve the institutions through which democracy is practiced, but this alone does not constitute a threat to the desire for democracy itself.
Dear Sir,
What makes this issue particularly difficult to address is the effect of global capitalism on the operations of democracy. Capitalism respects few boundaries and the capitalist elites become "supercitizens" of the nations in which they operate, wielding much more power than they could in a functioning pluralistic democracy. This has the effect of democracies trying to survive despite an unhealthy environment of the heavy influence of the few supercitizens.
I feel that Mr. Diamond is right that democracy itself is growing ever more popular (he speaks elsewhere of the growing "hunger for democracy" around the world), even while the immediate signs reflect the growing power of supercitizens who refuse to share their new globalized power with actual people (individual citizens). Supercitizens enact or bend or subvert laws in their own favor while mere citizens can only respond to those threats in retrospect. Yes, the signs are dismal but in the great arc of history, human beings will only survive in cooperation, which bends history in that direction. Democracy will survive– despite its being an easy target for popular frustrations over representation– but will only be truly healthy when it learns to resist and reverse the power of supercitizens.
Dear Sir,
In El Salvador the ruling party fmln that represents the former guerrillas has embarked in a process to dismantle all the democratic institutions to perpetuate their mandate. Furthermore, the same party is forging alliances with criminal groups such as gangs and international terrorist groups MS gangs and FARC.This is proof that democracy was only a stepping stone to obtain power. As a result El Salvador has one the highest murder rates in the world.
Dear Sir,
By and large oppressive regimes have been given notice by its electorates. Nobody can claim that there is some democratic Shangri-La where everybody works in tandem and corruption and ineptitude is vanquished. Incumbents either perform their duties or are replaced by their guarantors. The economy is largely irrelevant in this debate, but seems to be the purported yardstick for democracy's success. The only thing that the vote here demonstrates is fear of power which has the ability to corrupt the most sanguine candidate. But for all the upheaval that the Arab spring has caused it has increased the power of the proletariat. The violent cycle of uprisings will simply continue until there is a legitimate government, or military coup. So far we have been saved the latter in most but the most dire cases. Oppressive laws are rescindable in more stable periods.
Every country is different and I'm not going to discuss the finer points in each case. The lacklustre attitude on both sides of this debate is being aggravated by an over-dependence on statistics that either invoke panic or lethargic malaise. There is still no solid argumentative case for why democracy is either in good or bad health. I do not believe it to be under siege, because there simply is no coherent fabric to supplant it. What we have seen is that no electorate is satisfied with oppressive regimes and will drive the change without fear.
Dear Sir,
After reading the discussion and comments it looks like many people are arguing that in recent times democracy has become bad idea because of anti incumbency, slowing down economy, poor-rich divide, growing poverty, growing unemployment etc. Let me take it one by one.
1. As Asutosh Varshney rightly argues here http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-wave-the-waning/ - Anti incumbency shows the health of democracy. It shows that power is still with people and how they can change the regime if it functions against their will. For an instance, in recently held election in Delhi, a new party AAP has emerged and they have formed the government. It is the beauty of democracy that it provides the platform for other parties to highlight the wrong doings of ruling party and participant in election. Democracy provides the medium for peaceful power transfer provided, fair elections are held.
2. I think we are mixing these concepts of slowing downing economy, growing poverty, unemployment with democracy. Democracy is nothing to do with these events, rather it reflects the ideology and methods of the ruling government in which way they want to govern. In this highly globalized world, many a times government do not have control over these economic conditions though certainly government can take the corrective measure to lessen the impact of these events. Recession hit almost all the countries despite their methods of government.
However, in recent days corruption and biased decision making have raised the questions on the functioning of democracy. Time is to deepen the democracy as India's 3-tier decentralized governance models provides the opportunity for the people to participate in decision making even at the ground level.
Dear Sir,
The pessimists are largely engaged in the same kind of self-reflection that happens so often in the midst of crises. This is not to say that democracy cannot be improved, nor is it to say that it delivers to the demands of all of its citizens all the time, but that given the alternatives and its successes, democracy is largely as strong as ever. If there are so many inherent problems in democracy, then why did so many sacrifice so much in Tunisia, Libya, and the Ukraine to fight for it? Why does the Chinese government still censor anything that remotely condones democracy? Why does the Russian government denounce Europe as decadent and corrupt when the Russian people have repeatedly shown their anger with Putin and his repressive policies?
The autocrats fear democracy because they know it is strong; that if left unchecked, their tyrranical rule will crumble. Should referenda be more closely incorporated into the democratic process to increase how people are connected to their governments? Certainly. Is there a greater need for tolerance and civil debate? Indeed. But to extrapolate from these and other faults to say that democracy is in danger or losing what makes it great is fallacious at best and misleading at worst.
Dear Sir,
I can only begin from the premise that "human nature is only as good as the conditions the human being lives under." Happy and contented with a home, a job, a future ---- people will act rationally. Considering the general discontent around the world, I can only assume it will be all the angry people who will be in control of the discontent of their situation which, at present, does not show some hope, promise, and improvement. There will be a continuing break in the fault lines until the global economic situation is seen as fair and NOT run by "capitalism the bad" as opposed to a working model of "capitalism the good." We must begin from a moral starting point that democratic capitalism is fundamentally based on benevolence, not greed.
Dear Sir,
As foreshadowed in the comments to the opening phase:
1. It appears that advocates of a more direct democracy have NOT been invited to contribute as guest speakers. In keeping with The Economist's elitist agenda and its program of denigration of any form of popular democracy, the only people invited are those who interpret "democracy" as "the stage-managed election of elite rulers who collude to rule on behalf of the privileged".
2. The Propagandists of Privilege have NOT addressed the essential question: "By what logical argument are the People forbidden from effectively choosing the form of government they prefer for their state? Forbidden from choosing what they mean by Democracy? Forbidden from effectively choosing what they intend their Democracy to be?"
The Economist is on the wrong side of history. With each passing day it becomes ever more apparent that The Economist is nothing but "The Mouthpiece of Privilege" for the elite sponsors of the magazine.
Dear Sir,
If we can agree that natural selection generally selects for individuals that maximize their chances of passing on their genes and maximizing the amount of control an individual has over itself and its surroundings only increases those chances, then we can agree that natural selection will generally select for individuals that maximize the power they have over other individuals.
Society, as part of nature, will generally select for those individuals that maximize the power they have over others. Whether they do it democratically or "authoritarianly" makes no difference. All leaders rely on their ability to force others to do what they want.
A pure democracy should only be defined by complete equality between individuals when it comes to making decisions about how society should be organized. Any deviation from that would be a drift towards the authoritarian rule of a group of individuals, a monarch, a general, or even a piece of paper (Laws are notorious for being inflexible and imposing their unwavering rule on the people). Obviously, there is no perfect democracy in existence and despite what we were taught as children, democracies are not infallible. Please note that a pure democracy or dictatorship is near impossible to achieve and societies today resemble some mix of the two.
So the here is question, is the power to make decisions about the way society should be organized more or less evenly distributed across individuals in a society today than it was in the recent past? The answer is no. Though there was a period in history where society was creeping towards democracy and today people around the world are being pulled out of poverty at an astonishing rate; statistics show that the power to make and enforce decisions (which we have good reason to approximate using the amount of wealth an individual controls) is increasingly being concentrated among fewer people. From an economics perspective, as time approaches infinity technological advances allow individuals to effectively control larger shares of the means of production. In other words, Capital's share of the inputs of production continues to rise and an individual's ability to effectively control it is also rising. These "alpha males/females" are able to use their market power to bully competitors into behaving a certain way, usually to the advantage of the "alpha". In the near future, it is perfectly conceivable that advancing technology will allow those in power to use complex computers systems, AI, and weapons to control societies increasingly ignorant of the systems they rely on a daily basis to survive that are already being used to monitor and control them. Sure, they will still need to distribute power among their "enforcers", but that will likely be a diminishing percentage of the population.
Let's run another exercise to see where the near future might lead us. Divide the world right down the middle. On one side we should have 50% of the world's societies that more closely resemble democracies relative to the other 50% that more closely resemble authoritarian regimes. Over the last 20 years, which half has experienced the largest increases in ability to make decisions about global society? The authoritarian side. If the past 20 years is any indication of the types of governments/societies that will be economically and naturally selected for in the near future, then I predict traditionally "democratic" countries around the world will become more authoritarian in an attempt to compete or they will lose market share.
Dear Sir,
Larry Diamond claims that "Within Democracies, the predominant response to economic failure and political scandal has been to throw incumbent parties out of power at the polls ..." I dispute this statement. It is certainly not the case in Brazil, a country often rather blithely cited as being a major democracy. The two-term presidency of Lula de Silva presented us with the greatest political corruption scandal in the country's history, involving top presidential aids and most probably Lula himself. It took years to finally see only a few of those involved in the scandal being judged by the Supreme Court for their involvement. For Lula's aids, jail sentences ended up being minimal - a few years spending nights in jail, while remaining free during the day, while the majority Labor Party openly declares the Supreme Court's decision to be "political" and those condemned to be "political prisoners".
Ideally, the degree of citizen "engagement/disengagement" can be measured by voter participation. In Brazil, where voting is obligatory, this is impossible and merely serves the interests of populist leaders by making millions of the non tax-paying poor and uninformed available for manipulation. Polls here in Brazil show that these millions are unconcerned about rampant government corruption, as long as they receive in return for their votes a pitifully small government cash hand-out. Pitifully small, but sufficient to guarantee the victory of Dilma Rousseff in the coming presidential election.
Last year's street protests in Brazil were an expression of middle-class frustration with a "democratic" political system that allows the government to squander billions on "first world" soccer stadiums to showcase the country to the world, while economic growth is practically zero, inflation is growing, and basic public health, transportation, safety, and education remain in the "third world" category. The coming FIFA World Cup will be an opportunity for Brazil's middle class to reveal its frustration to the world.
Dear Sir,
Democracy has long been - and is still being - idealized by numerous scholars. But in reality, neither democracy nor autocracy are good or bad in and of themselves. How good or bad each model is depends on its concrete effects on a given society's overall stability and economic well-being. Because of their geography, demography and history, certain societies simply cannot be managed successfully in a truly democratic fashion; they inherently require some sort of authoriatarianism even if they are nominally defined as "democracies". Russia is among typical examples of these, as well as most of the Middle East, Africa and numerous parts of Asia or Latin America; in Europe, it is the Balkans that for the most part fall into this category.
A notable example that democracy is not necessarily better than autocracy or dictatorship are - with the partial exception of Slovenia - the countries of former Yugoslavia, where I come from. Yugoslavia was a clearly autocratic country, but its people not only enjoyed a far higher living standard but also felt essentially freer - plus incomparably safer and more trustful of vital state institutions - than they do today in their post-Yugoslavian "democratic" (ethno)nation states, even though on paper they are now granted much more freedoms than in ex-YU. You probably would be surprised how many people from ex-YU countries would choose to "swap" their present life for the one they lived under Yugoslavian "dictatorship" if they only could.
And to be clear: the reason why ex-YU fared a lot better than its successors do is certainly not rooted in socialism as an economic model. Yugoslavia was relatively prosperous for a communist state, especially when compared to the former Soviet bloc, but primarily thanks to its favorable geostrategic position in the context of the Cold war, rather than because of its socialism. That's why the bloody collapse of Yugoslavia coincided directly with the end of the Cold war, but that's another story that does not change the notion that a well-measured autocracy can sometimes, if not often, prove to be a better option than democracy at all costs.
Another problem with democracy lies in its inherent potential for public disappointment. In order to come to power, politicians are forced to make populist promises that can hardly be fulfilled, but sound attractive to large masses of people. But once you are in power, you must behave in accordance with reality that surrounds you and is full of obstacles that ultimately shape your policies. Need I say that Mr. Francois Hollande is just the latest example in this regard?
Dear Sir,
Democracy has long been - and is still being - idealized by numerous scholars. But in reality, neither democracy nor autocracy are good or bad in and of themselves. How good or bad each model is depends on its concrete effects on a given society's overall stability and economic well-being. Because of their geography, demography and history, certain societies simply cannot be managed successfully in a truly democratic fashion; they inherently require some sort of authoriatarianism even if they are nominally defined as "democracies". Russia is among typical examples of these, as well as most of the Middle East, Africa and numerous parts of Asia or Latin America; in Europe, it is the Balkans that for the most part fall into this category.
A notable example that democracy is not necessarily better than autocracy or dictatorship are - with the partial exception of Slovenia - the countries of former Yugoslavia, where I come from. Yugoslavia was a clearly autocratic country, but its people not only enjoyed a far higher living standard but also felt essentially freer - plus incomparably safer and more trustful of vital state institutions - than they do today in their post-Yugoslavian "democratic" (ethno)nation states, even though on paper they are now granted much more freedoms than in ex-YU. You probably would be surprised how many people from ex-YU countries would choose to "swap" their present life for the one they lived under Yugoslavian "dictatorship" if they only could.
And to be clear: the reason why ex-YU fared a lot better than its successors do is certainly not rooted in socialism as an economic model. Yugoslavia was relatively prosperous for a communist state, especially when compared to the former Soviet bloc, but primarily thanks to its favorable geostrategic position in the context of the Cold war, rather than because of its socialism. That's why the bloody collapse of Yugoslavia coincided directly with the end of the Cold war, but that's another story that does not change the notion that a well-measured autocracy can sometimes, if not often, prove to be a better option than democracy at all costs.
Another problem with democracy lies in its inherent potential for public disappointment. In order to come to power, politicians are forced to make populist promises that can hardly be fulfilled, but sound attractive to large masses of people. But once you are in power, you must behave in accordance with reality that surrounds you and is full of obstacles that ultimately shape your policies. Need I say that Mr. Francois Hollande is just the latest example in this regard?
Dear Sir,
Looking comparatively
we might ask - how did the health of communist governing go?
and of course the answer is not to well
Communism as a system or process may not have been
at fault as much as the fact that it had
leaders such as Joseph Stalin which rather much circumvented a truer form
So coming back to Democracy the question might be
what is it about the democratic system of forming a government that is flawed or presents the
opportunity to for its truer form to be circumvented
And quite obviously one look at what - well every democracy today - is going through
shows us that over extending, over budgeting and much sovereign debt
is a critical weakness of the democratic form of government
of course we can discuss unrest and criminal elements and trade and all of that
but what it really comes down to is what sort of funds do you have to solve any of those problems
and if you're underwater as far as government debt
any of these problems become extensively more difficult
hence the feeling these governments are just not
in good health
In order to resolve this sort of thing there must
be a fundamental or we might say constitutional change in the way democracies today are organized so that they are constrained to live within their means (with extensive raising of taxes - no one wants that of course)
Democracies need some sort of judge or constable in place which says "No, you've budgeted too much and have too much debt, go back and rework it" and because of some constitutional power (if you will) they would have to do so
Dear Sir,
Democracy is rule of elite where masses are allowed to choose the elite (according to me, i know this is not official definition)
In age of before information technology revolution, this rule of elite had checks and balances of institutions & judiciary and the government took all the time in world to respond to the needs of masses as the only form of showing dissidence was through ballot that too once in 5 years so things we dull, only thing we achieved out of it was change in who will govern us and a hope that someone among us i.e. masses, can also one day become part of elite.
Today, in digital age, we have multitude of opinions - institutions, judiciary and legislature are too slow to respond and we see hell lot of dissidence in every walk of life (if you dont believe check change.org). This has led to unrest and small-time leaders invoke anarchy like system as an answer to democracy. This solves immediate problem but it is far from cure. The best parable I encountered is of it being a pain-killer for problem of gangrene.
So I feel democracy has to create new system of governance to adopt to new age, institutions and judiciary must instill right views before anarchic leaders take hold of masses.
Dear Sir,
The proliferation and sophistication of surveillance technologies that have come to light in the Edward Snowden case show that even in leading, advanced democracies (America, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) the principle of free expression and dissent--a cornerstone of democracy--is at risk. This is indeed cause for worry.
The governments in question have argued that there is no demonstrable harm to ordinary citizens that has come from the vast intelligence surveillance programs revealed in the Snowden case. That may be, but that is not the real issue here.
The primary concern is that the amount of data now stored by intelligence agencies in these nations have the potential to be used ex-post-facto for a vast range of dissent-crushing purposes familiar to those living under autocratic regimes (e.g. China).
Some might claim that these worries are far-fetched. Perhaps they are right. Yet to brush these concerns off entirely is short-sighted and ignores a great deal of history. If new surveillance technologies can threaten free dissent and expression in the world's most advanced democracies, what then of the world's developing democracies?
Dear Sir,
Communism has failed and Democracy has won. More people vote today than at any time in history. Even more people want Democracy than at any time in history. Occasionally a country will experiment with some other form of leadership but it will always be for nothing but lost time and broken lives.
Dear Sir,
Main reason for Democracies' failure is basic human nature is non-democratic. Here are some undemocratic tendencies of human
1. Always focused on benefit of self rather than benefit of all
Every democratic country has some common vision. It would be great if everyone works as a team towards the common goal. In reality different parties tend to serve their own benefits rather than common goal. Rich will like to grow their money through public policies for example. Companies will like to grow their business. Labor unions will like to extract as much as benefits as possible. People who take drugs often push for legalization of drugs.
2. Little respect for opposing views/ comments
Everyone looks at the common goal through their own prism of perspectives. When taking oposing views/ comments we tend not to apply reason and keep on harping same tune. That is why people can't agree on right economic policies for the country. They can't agree on right immigration policy or healthcare policies. If we develop respect for other side and understand follies in own views and positives on the other side, reaching common goals is not that difficult
3. Power struggle
As human we always want to maintain superiority of own or of the side on which we are. Moment we see losing influence we panick. Because we are not comfortable with it. We can relate that behaviour to tea party candidates, conservatives, progressives , lobbyists, multi national companies, labor unions, teacher unions
No democracy will work in true sense unless these non-democratic tendencies are worked upon by humans. Unfortunately theory of evolution doesn't apply to human understanding. The level of understanding one develops can't be passed on to the next generations in real sense. That is why highest standards established by forefathers in terms of democracy are not carried over by further generations.
Still democracy in its current form is lot better than not having it altogether. Mainly because every side have some representation. It is far better than living under non-democratic rule. But it can reach its idealistic levels if we are successful in removing non-democratic tendencies from humans
Dear Sir,I consider the concept of "democracy" and its real benefits are being(1) misinterpreted and (2) oversimplified. Just to view democracy in a narrow context of having the right to vote and elect and discard government is doomed to failure It is only the first of several aspects needed to enable the democratic process to flourish. Without a proper judicial system in place, effective financial and accounting systems operative, a political structure working for the rights and interests of all the diverse components of a country,a vibrant social - cultural environment and the opportunities for an individual to thrive no matter what religion, colour etc. then democracy cannot succeed. It takes time for such processes to develop and it is a fragile journey. Current experiences throughout the world are evidence of this.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Problem is not vvith democracy but the manner of selection of the representatives. Often minority of voters are able to elect majority of representatives and this leads to problems. It is time look at alternative modes.Prof.VV.A. Levvis's Politics in VVest Africa has interesting proposal that can provide starting point for discussion. R.P.Gosvvami
The struggle to build a "real democracy" is difficult since there are many more negatives working against the concept of a free society.
Every society/country is built and abides by different rules. Often the laws are created by the few elite without the consent of the majority.
We honesty believe that if the majority were to be appeased, a true democracy could be created.
Honesty, integrity and transparency must trump connections, tax fraud and off shore bank accounts.


text: As with most things that I decide to try, I jumped in to mead making with both feet. I read all the available information, both on this site and in The Complete Mead Maker and I started two batches yesterday. The first was Joe's quick Pyment, 3 gallons, 1118 yeast, S.G. 1.120. The second was the recipe for medium sweet show mead from Ken's book, 6 gallons using orange blossom honey and D-47 yeast with a S.G. of 1.082. I hope I read the S.G. right on both....I used nutrient and energizer for both and sterilized everything. Both batches were bubbling away merrrily when i got up this morning. I'll let everyone know how they turn out in a few weeks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000
At a Glance
(1 items)
Microsoft's Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000 is like Apple's Wireless Keyboard ( ) in that both keyboards are compact, both have low profiles, and both use Bluetooth. The Keyboard 6000 is a good keyboard for packing in a backpack or suitcase, but you'll have to make a few adjustments when using this keyboard on a Mac.
Measuring 14 inches wide and 6.5 inches long, the Keyboard 6000 compares in size to the 11-by-5.25 inch Apple Wireless Keyboard. The Keyboard 6000 doesn't rise up as much as Apple Wireless Keyboard—the top of the Keyboard 6000 rises a barely-noticeable .5 inches, while the Apple Wireless Keyboard rises .75 inches. The near flatness of the Keyboard 6000 makes it easy to stash; it fit nicely with my 15-inch MacBook Pro in my backpack's padded laptop compartment. The low profile didn't bother me while typing, but if you need a higher angle, you'll need to use something to prop the Keyboard 6000 up—it has no way to adjust the keyboard's height.
The Keyboard 6000 has what Microsoft calls the Comfort Curve that puts the keys at a better, more natural angle for your hands. It takes some time to adjust to the Keyboard 6000's curve, especially if you're used to straight keyboards like the Apple Wireless Keyboard. I liked the feel of the Keyboard 6000; it has a lot more spring than Apple's keyboard, which makes my fingers sore after a day of use.
The most annoying aspect of the Keyboard 6000 is the inability to customize any of the keys. Microsoft doesn't include any Mac software, and the downloadable Microsoft IntelliType Pro software didn't work with the Keyboard 6000.
The Keyboard 6000 doesn't have a Command key; there are Alt keys where Mac users are used to having Command keys, and there's a Windows key to the left of the Alt key on the left side of the keyboard. By default on the Keyboard 6000, the Windows key acts as the Command key. You can change this in the Keyboard system preference; under the Modifier Keys section, change the Option key setting to Command, and the Command key setting to Option. This will set up the Command and Option keys to familiar locations for Mac users.
When using the Keyboard 6000, the F-keys at the top of the keyboard support the F-key functions of the OS. You no longer have the ability to make adjustments for screen brightness or keyboard backlighting on the MacBook Pro. The Keyboard 6000 has volume keys and a mute key on the upper right. There's a Delete key under the mute key and next to the Backspace key; under the Delete key is a Page Up key, which is next to the Enter. I often pressed the Delete key when I wanted to press the Backspace key, and the Page Up key when I wanted to press the Enter key—frustrating, to say the least.
The Keyboard 6000 comes with a keypad, which is handy for data entry. Interestingly, Microsoft includes a protective cloth pouch for the keypad, but not one for the keyboard.
The Keyboard 6000 uses Bluetooth, and if you have a Bluetooth built-in to your Mac, you don't have to plug a transmitter into a USB port like you would with an RF device. However, it takes several seconds for the keyboard and keypad to reconnect after idle.
Macworld's buying advice
The Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000's thinness and light weight make it ideal for travel, but it's a basic keyboard that will require you adjust to its design and layout. The keypad is helpful for anyone who frequently works with numerical data.
[Roman Loyola is a Macworld senior editor.]


text:
Washington, DC - The International Association of Emergency Medical Services Chiefs (IAEMSC) announced the results of its 2012 election of officers. The latest association officers were seated on March 1st and will serve two year terms.
William Sugiyama of the Oakland (CA) Fire Department was installed as IAEMSC President, following a two-year term as President-Elect and succeeds Chief Lawrence Tan of New Castle County (DE) EMS. The current IAEMSC leadership
Vice President: Chief Robert McCaughan, Pittsburgh (PA) EMS
Secretary: Chief Brendan Kearney, Boston (MA) EMS
Treasurer: Chief Christian Callsen, Austin-Travis County (TX) EMS (Ret.)
Directors (At Large):
Chief Peter Howes (2014), San Francisco (CA) Fire Department (Ret.)
Chief Chris Colangelo (2014), Wake county (NC) EMS
Chief Martin VanBuren (2013), Hennepin County (MN) EMS
Chief Patricia Dukes (2014), Metro Chiefs Section Chair, Honolulu (HI) EMS
Chief Dean Wilkinson (2013), Essex-Windsor EMS (Canada)
Chief James Coles (2013), San Juan Island (WA) EMS


text:
Product Information
Product Information
Brown Mustang Collection Shower Curtain
Rustic shower curtain warms up your cabinVarying shades of brown Features horseshoes, stars, cacti, and mustangsWoven 100% polyester with chenille blend threadsMeasures 72" x 72"Dry clean onlyHeed the call of the wild with the Brown Mustang Collection Shower Curtain. This collection paints a vivid picture of wide-open spaces, warm hearths, and sheer grit. Varying shades of brown are accented with horseshoes, stars, cacti, and mustangs. Made of 100% polyester with chenille blend threads, this Brown Mustang Shower Curtain is perfect for your home on the range! Measures 72" x 72". Dry clean only. Imported. Matching Brown Mustang Collection pieces sold separately can be found through keyword search by typing in the keywords "Brown Mustang Collection"
SHOP.COM Reviews
Write a ReviewThis product has not yet been reviewed. Be the first to write a review.


text:
AROUND THE WORLD (FOX44) – Mexico, we've talked about her all week and now we're seeing the impacts of tropical storm Arlene. The storm is hitting parts of Central Mexico making landfall near Cabo Rojo and as much as 15-inches of rain have hit some parts of the Mexican coast this morning. Arlene's just the first in what experts say will be a very active hurricane season. Torrential rains from tropical storm Arlene are hitting swathes of Central Mexico.
Uganda – Twenty-two students and a teacher are dead after lightning hit a school. Police say over fifty other students were injured. Meteorologists say the lightning struck because the school doesn't have lightning conductors and they're built on high ground. Across the country the strikes have killed almost 40-people this year alone.
Canada – Parts of the country are dealing with the effects of a massive mudslide. It swept over the trans-Canada highway earlier this week. Crews had to immediately shut the road down in both directions and it backed up traffic for miles. There have been several mudslides in this part of the country before but no word on what caused this one.
Japan – Months after the earthquake and tsunami children near the failed nuclear power plant will have radiation monitors on them at all time. Its set to happen when school starts back up in September. It's the latest move to protect the kids from dangerous radiation levels.
Tune in every night at 9:00 p.m. on FOX44 News Baton Rouge for more Around the World.


text:
The weather wasn't really playing along. It was cold, the wind was chilling things down further, and frankly the thought of a cosy breakfast was farRead More
Just behind the lower end of the cable car ride in Vila Nova de Gaia stands a proud, mustard coloured building. This is the lodge forRead More
Port – it's a winter thing aint it? Like many I've sipped on white port cocktails in the spring and drunk chilled, fruity, LBV's through aRead More
© 2004-2015 Spittoon.biz All Rights Reserved


text:
Home | Register | iTrader | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Store | Photo Gallery | Chat |
greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
August 11th, 2006, 12:11 AM | #6 |
Fuck talk, Duck walk!
im thinking about it
I'm the man in White. If you want peace, prepare for war! Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting. |
August 11th, 2006, 09:29 AM | #8 |
I can has layinframe
If my trans decides to work correctly by then I'm in I think Stef would like to wheel a bit she's never been to the mounds
August 11th, 2006, 10:10 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Dirtspot, I'll be leaving the Royal Oak area about 11am, arriving at the Mounds about 12PM. After that, hollar on channel 4 on the CB. |
August 12th, 2006, 06:03 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
It's well within your certified mechanic's capabilities. Have Jina or someone else do any torching or cutting, since you have a fear of sparks or flames. I offered a long time ago. Well before you moved to highland. I had also offered to drive you 2+ hours to get your parents xj so you could have the downtime. I robbed my own vehicle to get you needed parts, free, as has Spro. I even dragged your jeep to your place of employment so that it could later get towed to Spro's and have everyone but you work on it. Since many of the frequenting members basically know me, they also know why it's not appropriate for me to extend my offer anymore, as do you. I stuck up for you in the past because you were buisy and trying to do something with your life. Others did too. You are making us look bad for defending you. This also shows plain laziness, since you have the lift, are no longer employed, and have the free time to do it. You can rack up amazing scores on Tetris... the jeep is just a big puzzle. Hell, there are plenty of members on here in good positions within your field. Next time you look for a job on here, do you think anyone will help, given that you can't replace components on your own vehicle? Needing help on breaking things loose is perfectly fine. I know you are having a rough time. I know things arent going well. It happens. I am publicly calling you out just this once. I hope you just need a push. You're extremely capable, and far better than this Shift. Show it. I am done, and this will not be continued. Publicly or private. My apologies to the other members that have to weed through this post to get to the content they are looking for. Last edited by Tonka; August 12th, 2006 at 06:15 AM. |
August 12th, 2006, 09:19 AM | #15 | |
August 12th, 2006, 04:21 PM | #20 | |
Fuck talk, Duck walk!
I'm the man in White. If you want peace, prepare for war! Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |


text:
Josh Paterson, Executive Director
Josh Paterson joined the BCCLA as its Executive Director in January 2013. Josh's legal career has focused on protecting some of the most marginalized people in Canada from human rights violations, civil liberties restrictions, discrimination and environmental injustice.
Prior to joining BCCLA, he was the Aboriginal and Natural Resources Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, where he led that organization's highly effective legal work protecting the rights of people in northern and coastal BC. In 2012, his legal work on oil pipelines and tankers landed him on the cover of LEXPERT magazine, one of Canada's leading legal publications.
Josh got his start acting as the Director of the Freedom of Expression, Equality and Dignity Project at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto. After moving to Vancouver, he joined a busy union-side labour and human rights practice, and spent much of his time working on one of BC's largest racial discrimination cases in history.
Josh is Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law. He holds law and master's degrees from the University of Toronto, and clerked at Ontario's Superior Court of Justice. Outside of his legal practice, he is a founding board member of the Vancouver Public Space Network, where he has served for several years as the coordinator for Surveillance and Security issues. In 2007 he was honoured by Pro Bono Law of BC as "Lawyer of the Year" for his volunteer work.
Micheal Vonn, Policy Director
Micheal Vonn is a lawyer and has been the Policy Director of the BCCLA since 2004. She has been an Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in the Faculty of Law and in the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies where she has taught civil liberties and information ethics. She is a regular guest instructor for UBC's College of Health Disciplines Interdisciplinary Elective in HIV/AIDS Care and was honoured as a recipient of the 2010 AccolAIDS award for social and political advocacy benefitting communities affected by HIV/AIDS. Ms. Vonn is a frequent speaker on a variety of civil liberties topics including privacy, national security, policing, surveillance and free speech. She is an Advisory Board Member of Privacy International.
Grace Pastine, Litigation Director
Grace Pastine is the Litigation Director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Grace conducts litigation and oversees the management and strategic direction of the legal activities of the BCCLA on a broad range of civil liberties cases.
She has directed over 70 high profile cases for the BCCLA on issues including freedom of speech and expression, national security issues, access to governmental information, police misconduct, privacy rights, women's rights, voting rights, right to counsel and prisoner rights. She has appeared as counsel or co-counsel for the BCCLA at public inquiries and at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
Grace was counsel for the BCCLA at the Braidwood inquiry, a public inquiry established to inquire into the death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after he was tasered five times by the police at the Vancouver airport. That inquiry led the provincial government to announce the establishment of a civilian-run investigation body, ending the practice of police investigating themselves. She was co-counsel for the BCCLA before the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver (City) v. Ward, which established that monetary damage awards are available to Canadians whose Charter rights have been violated even if the government did not intentionally violate the person's rights.
Prior to joining the BCCLA, Grace was a lawyer with Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP in Vancouver, B.C. Grace is a frequent speaker on civil liberties issues. She has taught law school courses as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria.
Grace received her law degree from the University of Washington and graduated summa cum laude from Wells College with a B.A. in English Literature. Grace is called to the bar of British Columbia and is a member of the Oregon State bar.
Carmen Cheung, Senior Counsel
Carmen Cheung is Senior Counsel at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, where she focuses on issues relating to national security and works generally on litigation matters for the Association. From 2013 to early 2014, she took a leave from the Association to serve as the acting Director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, where she taught international human rights advocacy and the law of armed conflict.
Before relocating to Canada, Carmen was an associate in the litigation department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, where her practice focused on white collar and regulatory defence. Her pro bono practice at Paul, Weiss included challenges to the Bush administration's various fronts on the "war on terror" in the federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the United States; representation of victims of sexual violence and torture; an intervention in the New York appellate courts in support of equity in state educational funding; and litigation defending a living wage ordinance in Santa Fe, New Mexico. For her work on behalf of victims of sexual violence, Carmen was honoured by New York's Sanctuary for Families Center for Battered Women's Legal Services for excellence in pro bono advocacy. She was also honoured by the City of Santa Fe for her work in defending the living wage.
Carmen received her law degree from Columbia University and her undergraduate degree from Harvard University. She is called to the bar of British Columbia and is a member of the New York State bar.
Raji Mangat, Counsel
Raji was an associate in the litigation department at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York, where her practice focused on securities class actions and regulatory defence. Her pro bono practice at Sullivan & Cromwell included representation of victims of torture and political persecution; advising the Nepali Law Commission in the preparation of an Interim Constitution; litigation representing the New York City Council to seek enforcement of an Equal Benefits Ordinance protecting the rights of same sex individuals. Prior to her work at Sullivan & Cromwell, Raji served as a law clerk to the Hon. Justice Frank Iacobucci at the Supreme Court of Canada (2003-2004). Since leaving private practice, Raji has worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague and the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in London. Along with her work for the BCCLA, Raji provides consulting services to Ensaaf, a non-profit organization working to end impunity for state violence in India and sits on the board of Rehabilitation Through the Arts, a non-profit providing arts education in prisons in New York State.
Raji received her law degree from the University of Victoria and earned her B.A. in political science at the University of British Columbia and an M.A. in international development studies at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University. Raji is called to the bars of British Columbia and Ontario and is a member of the New York State bar.
Charlotte Kingston, Communications & Engagement Manager
Charotte Kingston joined the BCCLA while completing her MA in Political Science at UBC. Prior to coming to Vancouver for graduate work, Charlotte spent a year working for the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership; a human rights and civil liberties organization based out of Calgary, Alberta. She has worked as a facilitation trainer for youth and community groups, and for several post-secondary student organizations promoting access to education. Her academic work focuses on truth and reconciliation processes between the indigenous and settler peoples of Canada. She is passionate about creating opportunities for democratic dialogue between all segments of Canadian society, and engaging community members in important conversations about public policy.
Alyssa Stryker, Caseworker
Alyssa Stryker joined the BCCLA after completing her MA in human geography at UBC, where her research interests included racism, colonialism and critical perspectives on Canadian multiculturalism and global development. Prior to moving to Vancouver to pursue her Master's, Alyssa earned a BA (Hons) from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario with concentrations in Global Development Studies and English Language and Literature. She has worked and volunteered with a variety of nonprofit organizations and groups, including UBC's Humanities 101 Community Program, the Alberta Native Friendship Centres Association, Big Sisters of the BC Lower Mainland and Queen's University's Education on Queer Issues Project.


text:
Scholars A-Z
Born on 1500
Died on 18 Apr, 1558
Hürrem Sultan, also called Roxelana, was born in year 1500 to an Ukrainian father. She was enslaved during the Crimean Turks raids on Ukraine during the reign of Yavuz Sultan Selim, and presented to the Ottoman palace. She was the most beloved concubine of Süleyman the Magnificent and became his wif...
Born on 803
Died on 871
Ibn al-Hakam provides an early history of Egypt is the Futuh Misr wa'l Maghrib wa Akhbaruha (Conquest of Egypt and the Maghrib; Conquest of Egypt and the Accounts thereof) in seven books.
For more detail click here.
Ibn Abi Al-Hawafar wrote a treatise on ophthalmology, Natijat al-Fikar`alaj Amrad al Bassar (The Thoughtful Conclusions on the Treatment of the Diseases of Visions).
For more detail click here.
Born on 1181
Died on 1205
Abu Muhammad 'Abdallah ibn al-Hafid was born in Seville in 1181-2. He became a successful physician in the Almohad service, and just as his father, he died (poisoned) in 1205-6, and was buried in Seville near his family ancestors.
For more detail click here.


text:
Portable Fold-Down Saddle Rack
No spot for your saddle? The Portable Saddle Rack is the perfect solution. It lets you tack up anywhere. Simply slip it over the edge of any wall, fence or ledge. Lightweight and easy to transport.
Read more...
The Portable Fold-Down Saddle Rack fits over stall walls, wooden or pipe paddock fencing and ledges in horse trailers. It lets you tack up anywhere! Made of galvanized steel tubing with welded construction and powder coating for durability. Lightweight and strong. 7"W x 24"H.
100% Satisfaction Guaranteed - Your Money Back Any Time, for Any Reason.
Smith Brothers is proud to offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee on all of our products. We stand behind the quality of our products, and should you not be satisfied with your purchase, simply return it and we will refund, replace or exchange it for you.


text:
I stay here because I can't get a room at the Orange Court Service Apartment (located at the same block as this hotel). This is an old hotel with settings from late 1960 and many things need to be replaced (towel, bed linen, pillows, TV etc) Staff are friendly and helpful. In addition to excellent sea view, the restaurant down... More
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Expedia, Booking.com, Hotels.com, Despegar.com, Agoda, TripOnline SA, Odigeo and Tingo so you can book your Rex Hotel reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Rex Hotel Vung Tau


text:
Gentlemen. Hysterical.http://www.plumbingforums.com/forum/f15/welcome-urologists-320/
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!
Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more. Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here
Benning is the crazed genius of the bunch.
I had a little fun with that one!
That was a good time. I'm glad you thought it was funny. Into firearms at all?
If the pain is lacking so is the discipline... "the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer
Forget the doctors. What about a little help for a little person with a small plumbing problem?
From C3Shooter: Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!
And I thought I needed medication. So how long have you guys had these alter egos?
I have been an Amateur Pediatrician, Amateur Surgeon, Amateur Pharmacist, Amateur Chiropractor, Amateur Psychiatrist and Amateur Gynecologist for 30 years. Heck, I am the best doctor in Texas, practicing w/out a license. It was not much of a stretch to take on the role of Urologist.
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire. "Robo is right" Fuzzball
It was a co-ordinated attack. The plan was hatched by Benning in the Bunker. Good times.


text:
Sign in or Sign Up
lowest rate guarantee
Palolem Beach
Agonda Village
Before the Church, Tamborim, Cavelossim Beach
Varca Village, Fatrade
Colomb Near Masjid, South End, Palolem Patnem Road, Palolem
Great reasons to book with Agoda
Over 600,000 hotels worldwide – more added every day
Trusted by over 18,500,000 satisfied customers
Best Price Guarantee
9 million+ hotel reviews by Agoda customers
With availability in over 60,000 cities worldwide
agoda special offers
including last minute offers(even same day!)free nightsfree upgrades!
Customer Support
Good location, courteous staff and...
0.15 Km.
Location near the beach and...
0.16 Km.
Soothing ambience, great...
0.24 Km.
Air con is an option; A popular...
0.26 Km.
Friendly staff, good rooms, very...
0.29 Km.
Cleanliness, Comfort, Pleasant...
0.36 Km.
Cleaniness,The rooms are spacious...
0.37 Km.
0.41 Km.
0.42 Km.
expect better room conditions...
0.43 Km.
pool was clean house keeping was...
0.48 Km.
Location to beach, great travel...
0.5 Km.
0.59 Km.
Homely food , Excellent room...
0.63 Km.
0.69 Km.
privacy / polite staff behaviour /...
0.7 Km.
0.87 Km.
0.89 Km.
4.5 / 5
over 80,000 reviews
of users recommend us
Go To Top
All material herein © 2005 – 2015 Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., All Rights Reserved. AGODA ® is a registered trademark of AGIP LLC, used under license by Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. Agoda is part of (NASDAQ:PCLN)