OK. Around the world, democracy is trending towards a more or less false dichotomy of two party systems, appealing to basic mindsets and differentiating themselves from one another on the basis of hot button issues.
Some people might disagree with that assertion, but tend to concentrate on hot button issues when trying to refute it. Go figure.
Now, a 2 party dichotomy might not be such a bad idea if one looks at the historical precedents (a cursory glance, because a deeper view eliminates the conundrum).
Hitler and the Nazis were supposedly “elected”. That’s become a buzz on the web, but in reality, the Nazis won less than 40% of the vote and came to (ordinary, democratic) power on the basis of being the largest bloc in parliament. IOW, they won on a plurality, and Hindenburg grudgingly let Adolf form a government.
On face value, Hitler’s government wasn’t so very different from the plethora of other-coloured governments that preceded it under Wiemar, or from any other government arising from a pluality majority in any other parliamentary system. Hitler’s “genius” was to apply the fear factor in order to erode basic rights – and thus become a dictator.
The Reichstag fire was his deus ex machina to overcome the German constitution, and the rest is history.
Supporters of the false dichotomy can argue that such a thing would be impossible if power was only contested by 2 parties. Pluralities don’t enter into the picture (electoral colleges aside), and the strength of the opposition and the limits of the division of powers make diictatorships impossible. And because of the shallowness of democratic political discourse, we have learned by rote that dictatorship and tyranny go hand in hand, and cannot exist without one another.
To quote Mr. T, “I pity the fool…”
Nowadays, within our false dichotomy of a “two party” system, we have seen how “both” parties have conspired to erode basic democratic values to the point of allowing – nay, EMBRACING- the ideas of preemptive war, extrajudicial murder of citizens, and a plethora of abuses that the founding fathers couldn’t even have imagined.
Hell, those dudes were angry because they had to pay for their own defense against the French via taxes. Go figure.
Jefferson famously mentioned something on the lines of a democracy requiring a well-informed electorate in order to survive.
I don’t think that anyone here disagrees with that.
The problem is that even the most politically savy folks on the web fall for such mundane tricks as the fear factor.
Could it be that we have been confronted with a more subtle form of a coup than what Hitler accomplished in ’33? Hitler wanted to win with his image, to be the winner. Could it be that today’s tyrants, with the benefit of historical hindsight and of the capacity of today’s scientific spin, hace accomplished what Hitler did?
The next post might be disturbing
You must be logged in to post a comment.