|
Frank
|
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2 nd, 2026 at 1:18pm: Frank wrote on Mar 1 st, 2026 at 7:07pm: That is NOT the argument at all.
The argument is that a religious tyranny is not equal to a liberal democracy. Iranian theocracy, Afghan theocracy, communist dictatorships, deranged Koreans are NOT equal to Norway, Switzerland, Australia, US, Israel and other normal countries.
Treating them AS IF is always the problem. Certainly religious tyrannies often abuse human rights; but a recent poll in Oz showed Aussies respect Xi more than Trump...why is that? Here is google's comment on one-party meritocracy versus adversarial-party democracy. The comparison between one-party meritocracy (e.g., China, Singapore) and adversarial party democracy (e.g., U.S., UK) represents a fundamental debate over the best way to select leaders and manage governance, balancing long-term efficiency with public accountability. One-party meritocracy emphasizes competency, long-term planning, and performance-based promotion within a single governing body, while adversarial democracy prioritizes competition, voter choice, and accountability through regular, free elections.
One-Party Meritocracy (The "China Model")
This system is characterized by a single ruling party that selects, trains, and promotes officials based on demonstrated ability and performance outcomes, often rooting itself in a Confucian tradition of governance by the educated elite.
Strengths:
Long-Term Planning: Without the need to appease voters every few years, governments can focus on long-term, strategic goals (e.g., infrastructure, economic growth).
Performance-Based Selection: Officials are often promoted based on metrics like economic growth, environmental goals, or social stability, promoting a highly competent leadership.
Efficiency: Decisions can be made and implemented rapidly without long delays caused by parliamentary gridlock.
Weaknesses:
Lack of Accountability: If the leadership fails, there is no easy mechanism for citizens to remove them, potentially leading to arrogance or corruption.
Limited Pluralism: The absence of competitive parties can mean diverse perspectives and citizen voices are ignored.
Information Bottlenecks: Without an free press or opposition to highlight errors, leaders may make poor decisions based on flawed data.
.........
Adversarial Party Democracy (The Western Model)
This model features multiple parties competing for power through free elections, with policy-making often marked by contention between opposition and government.
Strengths:
Accountability and Legitimacy: Regular elections allow citizens to remove unpopular or incompetent governments, providing strong democratic legitimacy.
Feedback Loops: Active opposition parties and a free press highlight failures, fostering accountability.
Representation: Offers a wider range of political choices, allowing for the representation of diverse interests and minority views.My comment : yet 'minority' views eg 'tax the rich' or ' 2 -state solution now' never get legislated because 50%+1 of the vote is all that's needed to prevent implemetation. Weaknesses:
Short-Termism: Politicians may prioritize policies that yield results before the next election cycle, rather than long-term, necessary, but unpopular decisions.
Gridlock and Polarization: Intense adversarial competition can lead to paralysis in governance.
"Merit" Issues: Electoral popularity does not always equal governing competence, and campaigns may favor populism over policy expertise.So equating religious tyranny with other forms of government is a false dichotomy. As usual, your (google generated ) post bears no relation to my point or to anyone else's. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a very blinkered parrot with aphasia.
|
Forum
Pages: 
