Beginning of the end for autocrats trying to pervert democracy...

Prime Minister of Israel is ousted by a coalition of ministers, by one vote.  But it is a steady march of ousters of politicians who tried to pervert democracy, by saying 'up-is-down', 'cold is hot', and 'wet-is-dry'…ie, challenging truth.  President Trump, of the United States, tried to claim he won re-election, even though he lost by the greatest landslide in US history (7-million votes).

First it was Trump, now Netanyahu...and although President Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia, still survive, they are on shaky ground in their own countries.  It is the beginning of the end for flim-flam barkers in politics.

BBC wrote:Netanyahu out as new Israeli government approved

Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his 12-year hold on power in Israel after its parliament voted in a new coalition government.

Right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett has been sworn in as prime minister, leading a "government of change".

He will lead an unprecedented coalition of parties which was approved with a razor-thin majority of 60-59.

Mr Bennett will be prime minister until September 2023 as part of a power-sharing deal.

He will then hand power over to Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid, for a further two years.

Mr Netanyahu - Israel's longest-serving leader who has dominated its political landscape for years - will remain head of the right-wing Likud party and become leader of the opposition.

During the debate in the Knesset (parliament), a defiant Mr Netanyahu promised: "We'll be back," [echoing Mr. Trump].

After the vote, Mr Netanyahu walked over to Mr Bennett and shook his hand [unlike Mr. Trump, who refused even to acknowledge the landslide of his opponent, Mr. Biden].

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57462470

It appears the world may be tiring of the cult of liars and cheats in politics.  People in the worldwide community worry that Trump may yet return, and restore the politics of greed and self-dealing.  They argue that Trump has a hold on 90% of the Republican Party, one of the two political parties in the US.  But as the popularity of Trump diminishes, so too does the popularity of the Republican Party.  The overwhelming majority of the US voters have rejected Trump and the cult of autocracy.

Democracy was designed to be self-correcting: if the people disapprove, the people vote them out.  However, following his mentor, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump has tried to change the rules and eliminate democracy by voter repression: It’s democracy, says Trump, but only for the voters I select.  People are not buying it.

It is heartening to see Trump's ouster followed by the ouster of lebensraum leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.  It means the autocrats are being shown the door: democracy has won, and the autocratic gambit didn’t work.

Right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett has been sworn in as prime minister, leading a "government of change".


Is this an improvement?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/naftali-bennett-israel-far-right-palestinians


He seems to have plans for the Palestinians. I don't think they are going to like them.

Maddog wrote:Right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett has been sworn in as prime minister, leading a "government of change".

Is this an improvement?

Bennet hasn't tried to destroy democracy, yet.  There are two things going on in 21st century politics: (1) the traditional conservatism v. liberal dialectic; and (2) the cultism v. democracy, that challenges truth and screws with the public mind.

Like the US, Israel has just rejected the cultism.  That's the biggest battle.

Maddog wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/naftali-bennett-israel-far-right-palestinians

He seems to have plans for the Palestinians. I don't think they are going to like them.

Palestine is not as big an issue as the cultism v. democracy issue. Without democracy, any ethnic group, or any person, can be repressed. Cults are built around personalities, and personalities mean dictatorships.

Note, too, Bennet is only in for a little over one year. "He will then hand power over to Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid, for a further two years." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57462470 That gives peace, and the two-state solution a chance.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/naftali-bennett-israel-far-right-palestinians

He seems to have plans for the Palestinians. I don't think they are going to like them.

Palestine is not as big an issue as the cultism v. democracy issue.  Without democracy, any ethnic group, or any person, can be repressed.  Cults are built around personalities, and personalities mean dictatorships.

Note, too, Bennet is only in for a little over one year.  "He will then hand power over to Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid, for a further two years."  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57462470  That gives peace, and the two-state solution a chance.

Sure.

So... A coalition of losers become the winners...!?


Is this democracy???

Tommy Monk wrote:

So... A coalition of losers become the winners...!?

Is this democracy???

It's the parliamentary system.  The British have had a coalition government. The Cameron–Clegg coalition was formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg when Cameron was invited by Queen Elizabeth II to form a new administration, following the resignation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 11 May 2010, after the general election on 6 May.

It's subscribed to by the British, and they call it democracy.  

Democracy is not a candidate, party, or movement winning by 50.1 percent and getting to dictate how everything's going to be for the 49.9 percent that disagreed. Democracy should involve proportional representation for dissenting voices.

That's why I'd never support Biden if he tried to trample the rights of those he didn't vote for ... even if they're generally a quite decieved group of people.

Ben Reilly wrote:Democracy is not a candidate, party, or movement winning by 50.1 percent and getting to dictate how everything's going to be for the 49.9 percent that disagreed. Democracy should involve proportional representation for dissenting voices.

That's why I'd never support Biden if he tried to trample the rights of those he didn't vote for ... even if they're generally a quite decieved group of people.

Actually, that's exactly what a true or pure democracy is.

That's why most systems have protection against the tyranny of the majority.

It's why we were formed as a constitutional republic.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Democracy is not a candidate, party, or movement winning by 50.1 percent and getting to dictate how everything's going to be for the 49.9 percent that disagreed. Democracy should involve proportional representation for dissenting voices.

That's why I'd never support Biden if he tried to trample the rights of those he didn't vote for ... even if they're generally a quite decieved group of people.

Actually, that's exactly what a true or pure democracy is.

That's why most systems have protection against the tyranny of the majority.

It's why we were formed as a constitutional republic.

Well, that was the theory of Thomas Hobbes, who said that once the people choose a monarch, he can rule forever, and in any way. It's called Authoritarian representation. There are many other theories of representation. This was covered by Hannah Pitkin, in her book, The Concept of Representation (1967). Read it, if you're interested.:

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Concept_of_Representation.html?id=yaEwDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Democracy is not a candidate, party, or movement winning by 50.1 percent and getting to dictate how everything's going to be for the 49.9 percent that disagreed. Democracy should involve proportional representation for dissenting voices.

That's why I'd never support Biden if he tried to trample the rights of those he didn't vote for ... even if they're generally a quite decieved group of people.

Actually, that's exactly what a true or pure democracy is.

That's why most systems have protection against the tyranny of the majority.

It's why we were formed as a constitutional republic.

A true or pure democracy would let the people vote on every decision that needs to be made, so, no -- a candidate elected with 50.1 percent of the vote dictating everything is not true democracy.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Actually, that's exactly what a true or pure democracy is.

That's why most systems have protection against the tyranny of the majority.

It's why we were formed as a constitutional republic.

A true or pure democracy would let the people vote on every decision that needs to be made, so, no -- a candidate elected with 50.1 percent of the vote dictating everything is not true democracy.

A representative democracy like you described is not.a direct democracy, but it is a democracy where minority opinions don't have to be entertained or protected.

Democracies are about majority or plurality rule. It's the abandonment of the democratic process that protects the minority opinion.

Democracy includes a wide range of theories. Some exclude minorities, some provide for minority input, as with vocal backbenchers in the British system. The parliamentary system tries to provide for fluidity by (theoretically) making each issue a potential breaking point.

The US democracy is the oldest, and really most archaic...almost not even a democracy. It tried to provide for two different cultures (north/south), one of which eventually become morally repugnant and started a civil war. (This difference is still with us, and it’s the reason why I urge a two-state solution as the most peaceful way to bring about accord.)

At the foundation, we have a popular vote in the House of Representatives, but a regional emphasis in the Senate. And, to further serve regional interests, ‘states rights’ is a theory that is still alive and kicking: (as the theory goes) let each state shall have its own laws, and we’ll have no uniformity, but everyone is happy.

The US system is timeworn and archaic, but we can't change it. This is because at one time or another it serves someone's partisan interests. We cannot get rid of the electoral college, meaning a president is appointed and not elected. This often results in the less popular candidate prevailing (Republicans have only won one presidential term this millennium, although they have enjoyed three terms altogether).

We need an overhaul.