Why Democracy Never Really Works
.
Most people will understand that they should vote or keep quiet about decisions made in their name if they haven't. Almost all democracies have a number of parties who are established with a party doctrine set by their members. There will also be a number of specialist parties set up to achieve a single goal, perhaps women's or gay rights for example.
Of the established parties, they will pitch themselves somewhere on the political spectrum which ranges from Communism on the left, to Fascism on the right. In the UK, the two mainstream parties, Labour and Conservatives are to the left and right respectively. Neither are at the extreme, to find these we need mostly to look for dictatorships. In history, we do see extremes in parties, most notably the Nazi party of the 1930s which managed to rise to power on a wave of populism and introduced some extreme policies, until it was stopped by invasion of the Allies.
The normal way of things is a party gains power and, if it has a significant majority, will introduce changes to all aspects of society to bring it more closely in line with party policy. Then, after a few terms of office at most, the country considers that these policies have gone too far and tend to vote the other way. The newly elected party then sets about undoing much of the work done by its defeated foe. Thus politics wallows about somewhere not too far from the centre ground with some ambitions being only semi implemented.
Governments often rely upon centre leaning parties to help them win parliamentary votes, so again policies are watered down by the need to appease those from whom support is necessary.
This is where we find the issue of politics not working. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for a Communist or Fascist system here, but pointing out how this swing between left and right leaning politics proves the rule that a "camel is a racehorse that was designed by a committee". In other words, the best parts of any policy are often watered down by the need to pacify the opposition and is therefore fatally flawed from the outset.
Of the established parties, they will pitch themselves somewhere on the political spectrum which ranges from Communism on the left, to Fascism on the right. In the UK, the two mainstream parties, Labour and Conservatives are to the left and right respectively. Neither are at the extreme, to find these we need mostly to look for dictatorships. In history, we do see extremes in parties, most notably the Nazi party of the 1930s which managed to rise to power on a wave of populism and introduced some extreme policies, until it was stopped by invasion of the Allies.
The normal way of things is a party gains power and, if it has a significant majority, will introduce changes to all aspects of society to bring it more closely in line with party policy. Then, after a few terms of office at most, the country considers that these policies have gone too far and tend to vote the other way. The newly elected party then sets about undoing much of the work done by its defeated foe. Thus politics wallows about somewhere not too far from the centre ground with some ambitions being only semi implemented.
Governments often rely upon centre leaning parties to help them win parliamentary votes, so again policies are watered down by the need to appease those from whom support is necessary.
This is where we find the issue of politics not working. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for a Communist or Fascist system here, but pointing out how this swing between left and right leaning politics proves the rule that a "camel is a racehorse that was designed by a committee". In other words, the best parts of any policy are often watered down by the need to pacify the opposition and is therefore fatally flawed from the outset.
