Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hao!nbires!seismo!mcvax!unido!ztivax!david
From: david@ztivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: S.A., Soviets, & Sanctions - (nf)
Message-ID: <2400008@ztivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 04:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ztivax.2400008
Posted: Fri Sep 19 04:29:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 04:39:29 EDT
References: <2387@unido.UUCP>
Lines: 51
Nf-ID: #R:unido:-238700:ztivax:2400008:000:2340
Nf-From: ztivax!david    Sep 19 09:29:00 1986

>As for proportional representation - the impression I get is that leads
>to there being a thousand and one different parties being represented
>in Parliament which leads to *unstable* coalition governments. Just
>my impression which could very well be incorrect. 
>
>J.B. Robinson

In reality, isn't any political party some form of coalition?  You
will certainly find dissent within the ranks of Democrats within any
of the elected bodies.  Also within the Republicans.

The good thing about having a large number of parties, which may have
to assemble coalitions to get anything passed, is that the parties can
each speak their own ideas during the election process.  Therefore,
the people can really understand why they are voting for one crook
(oops, I mean politician) rather than another.

Within the two major political parties in the USA, the candidates
really must toe the party line.  Even during the Presidential campaign, the
platform is developed by the power brokers in the party.  Since the
candidate is not really saying what he believes, but only what it takes
to get elected within his/her party, they are very unlikely to follow
the campaign promises.

Also, the stress is virtually always on "I'm a good Republican,
he/she/it is a grotty Democrat" or vice versa.  This tends to attract
the ignorant and the bigotted to stay with one party, and therefore
the power of the _party_ is more firmly established.  But the
representaion of the people is drastically eroded.

The Israeli government seems rather stable, especially when taken in
the context of a country which has been literally fighting for
existatnce for 40 years.  The Rhodesian government had more or less
the same war-like problems as Israel, but they lasted only about 20
years.  Rhodesia had two major parties, Israel has a large number (not
quite 1001, but close).

So, I dunno.  I figure the most stable government is one where
everyone feels represented, fairly.  When this is not the case,
terrorism starts, and revolution is close behind.

I feel one of the major reasons that the USA tends to be a terrorist
target overseas and not within the USA is as above.  The way Washington
deals with foreign people and governments is repressive.  Within the
USA, they pretend to be democratic.

Keep Thinking!
David Smyth

uucp:
seismo!unido!ztivax!david