mikimouse

I'm Proud Of Spain And Their Use Of Real Democracy

▼

I'm Proud Of Spain And Their Use Of Real Democracy

When 90% Say No To No Avail, It's Not Democracy

from JoeUser Forums
The US is leading the charge against Spain and saying their actions are a victory for the terrorists. But of course that is the ignorant way of looking at it. Let's think. What's democracy? It's being able to vote for representatives who will represent them. One-person-one-vote. We know this. So when 90% of Spain was telling their politicians: "Don't send the men to Iraq without the UN, don't send them to war or false pretenses" and their politicians sent them anyways to suck up the US, that's not democracy. The huge majority of Spain said no, so their leaders should have listened. The new leader has acted like a true representative of his people. As opposition leader, he said if elected he would recall the troops back to Spain. And he did. When was the last time a US president followed through with his pre-election promises? Think about it for a year. Good luck. Thank the Lord there is a government somewhere who actually listens to its people and responds in kind. Sending troops to Iraq over huge majority protests was a travesty of democracy which should have infuriated the free world. But instead an act of true and real democracy is villified as wrong and they take to cowardly position by saying it's supporting terrorists. I don't support terrorists. I support democracy. Do you?
politics
37,216 views 91 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unless it's something bad like a coup, I still don't see anything wrong with applying pressure.


You are right that it is not as extreme as a coup, but the guilt trip (I'm so disappointed that the Spanish government is giving into the terrorist) is a blantant disregard for the democratic will of the Spanish people. Spaniards spoke, their government listened. The US government should respect that.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
It now has to be a super majority, just like the Dems in the Senate do when appointing a Justice. Isn't that right girls?


why the "girls"--simply because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have the right to belittle me by referring to me as a "girl"--I would never say, Isn't that right boys? I'm more than willing to debate you ON THE ISSUES but only if you remain respectful and that comment was not.

But, back to the issue--depending on how the poll question is ask, the results are dramatically different. Check out Link to see what I mean. When asked if how President Bush was handling the situation, 54% disapproved (with a 3% margin of error), but when asked if it is still worth fighting 51% said yes (same margin of error).
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, grey, not intended to disparage you. I can't help it if you are a pessimist. Only you can prevent pessimism.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
51% is still a majority, however thin. Take into account the 3% margin to the negative, that would be 48%, right?
conversely, 3% to the non-pessimistic would make it even bigger than 51%. Right?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
51% is still a majority, however thin. Take into account the 3% margin to the negative, that would be 48%, right?
conversely, 3% to the non-pessimistic would make it even bigger than 51%. Right?


Right but the same holds true for the 54% that disapproved...it could be as little as 51% or as high as 57%, but it is still a majority that DISAPPROVES.

My point was simply that the way the questions are asked creates different preceptions of how much support there is for the war.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Semantics debate notwithstanding, I feel that Spain did right by their people. Whether it proves correct for the nation as a whole will be seen later along with whether it was a good thing globally. I am sure you all know where I land on those two questions so I won't bother repeating them.

On a side note (a phrase overused by a good friend), I think a bit of "Imperialism" can be a good thing. I love it when another nation calls the USA the "New Rome". Let me just call myself a facist and save youa ll the trouble:)
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry this is going back a bit:

"whatever baby but you can't spin real democracy. 90% said no, they did it anyway = not democracy"

I dont agree with this. I'm happy that Spain now has an anti-war government, this is a very positive development. However governments can act against the majority wishes without being undemocratic. Once a government is elected it's supposed to implement its manifesto. Obviously, the whole Iraq situation wouldn't have been in the Popular Party's manifesto back in 2000 when they won their second term.

They made the decision to support the US, fair enough that was their right. Governments aren't bound by opinion polls. They're within their rights to do unpopular things but, of course they run the risk of being booted out, which is exactly what happened. The socialists were elected on a platform of withdrawing the troops unless the UN got a much greater role. It was a manifesto promise so they should stick to it. I dont think anyone in this case has acted undemocratically.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
To do a bit of Devil's advocating:

How absolute is our support for strictly following the wishes of the people in a democratic country? One thing that often disappoints me on this forum is the very black & white view people seem to have of things, and the willingness to trade in black for white when it suits them.

I see America going to war, the gravest action of them all, to remove a dictator and install a democracy (for arguments sake I'll leave the original reasons for attacking Iraq out of it and just go with the spin the Bush administration has put on it). At the same time I see the same people who say they fully support this policy criticize the people of Spain for making a majority decision.
I see Algeria some years ago, where the elections were won by a party which openly said they would abolish democracy, only to be stopped by a coup that prevented them from taking power, a coup that got widespread support from our western democracies.
I see Germany electing Adolf Hitler in the '30's and democratic zealots criticizing Europeans for letting it happen.

Democracy is in my view the best way when compared to the alternatives that have been tried so far in history. However it has one major loophole which is being used over and over again by the smart ones who want to be elected. People base their vote on what they know, on information and on how they feel about this information. In a true and worthy democracy, all voters would have full access to all information, free of spin, distortions and outright lies. That's not going to happen, ever. Therefore, democracy will remain imperfect and it will turn out at times that the majority got it wrong, in hindsight anyway.

The Germans got it wrong when they elected Hitler. Did the Spaniards get it wrong when chose the party that was going to pull out the troops from Iraq (again, for arguments sake I'll leave out the simple fact that Iraq was just a portion of the reason for people to vote)? Who knows. Who are we to judge? our information, hence our opinions are as teinted as theirs, we're just as likely to be "wrong".

What's my point in this? There is no right and wrong, even on the matters where you might claim it IS absolute. It is my (undoubtedly flawed) opinion that most horror in this world is caused by the denial of that basic fact and the insistance of people to force their definitions of right & wrong on others who might disagree. Osama Bin Laden is an excellent example of this. As is the Bush administration.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think the previous Spanish government was being un-democratic when they sent troops to Iraq. They were acting against thw wishes of the vast majority of their people, but that was their legal right as the government. They made a decision and had to live with the consequences. Perfer democracy at work.

The new government is not being more democratic than the last. It's just respecting the wishes of the population. It also campaigned on this very issue so is keeping the promises it made during the election campaign.

It's also worth noting that the new government did promise to return the troops if the US ever hands control to the UN.

Paul.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
How can Solitair say "They were acting against thw wishes of the vast majority of their people" and then end with "Perfer democracy at work."? What in the hell is this person reading to be able to say things that are so contradictory and screwed up. I hope he/she doesn't pass that opposite-of-the-meaning-of-the-word on to his/her kids.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Governments aren't bound by opinion polls"
true, they should be bound by democracy and their citizens. Nice spin fellas. Making Bush's job easier. He's got people convinced that lying and deceiving are legitimate acts of government. Even Stalin had more problems sucking in his citizens into fearing an imaginary enemy.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mikimouse,
democracy does not mean the government must do the action the majority of the people want. It just means that government is accountable to the people through an election system. The previous Spanish government was a perfect democracy. They chose to do what they felt they had to do, the population were upset with them and chose to replace them. Nothing wrong with that. It does not make the new government more democractic, just more representative of what the population currently feel.

Paul.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't stop laughing. Sorry Soltair but you're off the deep end when it comes to the definition of democracy. But I think it's awesome how rooted the misinformation can be. Here you are telling me democracy is doing whatever you want with no accountability to the people they represent. *claps*. I bow down to you and your illogical reasoning. It reaffirms my own sure truth.
"It does not make the new government more democractic, just more representative of what the population currently feel."<------oh.....my.....God.....
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, I have missed a lot!!!
I apologize for my absence.
I am glad you liked it > miki!

Gerry Atrick (love it)
I just want to say, I did not mean > Maybe the Iraqi people should learn a lesson from them > in a bad sense.
Maybe I should have explained.....
I agree with your point. >> "Above all the people have to want democracy and for this to happen, they must first understand what it is. You cannot just impose a democracy on people."

What I meant was, they stand to learn from the Spaniards that Democracy DOES work (we haven't exactly shown that recently) They didn't want to be apart of the war and they got out, the Democratic way.
Further more, the anti-democratic are the ones that need to learn that lesson.

Oh, and thanks! I TRY to admit when I'm wrong....
Hubby might not agree....
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Solitair said:
democracy does not mean the government must do the action the majority of the people want. It just means that government is accountable to the people through an election system.


mikimouse responded:
Here you are telling me democracy is doing whatever you want with no accountability to the people they represent.


Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
The previous Spanish government was a perfect democracy. They chose to do what they felt they had to do, the population were upset with them and chose to replace them. Nothing wrong with that. It does not make the new government more democractic, just more representative of what the population currently feel.


I agree, with exception, of course. The new government is not more democratic, but if they choose to ignore the people's will this time (having campaigned on an antiwar manifesto) they would be less democratic. My point simplying being that the US governments efforts to guilt the Spanish government into staying in the war showed a lack of respect for the democratic process in Spain.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Spain deserves some applause for not wavering and not bending the democracy backbone simply in order to achieve some brownie points. Listen to the people and show democracy works.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shadesofgrey,
exception certainly accepted. A government that makes a major election promise and then fails to implement that promise is less democratic. Not undemocratic, but definitely less democratic.

mikimouse,
I apologise for not making my definitions clear enough. Accountability to the people is the corner stone of democracy. Always doing the wishes of the majority is not. Not doing the wishes of the majority is likely to lose an election but is not undemocratic. You are right that Spain deserves applause for making the decision that it believes is right irrespective of eternal pressure.

Paul.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Most Americans support the war in Iraq. In fact, at the time the war started, Americans favored military action against Iraq by 67% to less than 20% against according to CNN/Washington Post poll.

Therefore, all people who complain about the US action in Iraq are anti-Democracy right? France and Germany and what not are just trying to "strong arm" the will of the American people.

It works both ways my friends.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
France and Germany and what not are just trying to "strong arm" the will of the American people.


Not exactly, France and Germany were saying that they were not going to support the war, and that they were voting against the UN intervening. If France and Germany had strong armed the US into not going to war, that would be undemocratic --but they didn't they simply said they weren't taking part. (I'm just agreeing with your polls, though for every pro-war poll you give, I am sure counter with an anti-war poll).

People have the right to voice their opinions, that is not anti-democratic.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then doesn't the U.S. have the right to voice its opinions on Spain's actions?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
I shoud rephrase that "citizens within a democracy have a right to voice opinions about the rule of said democracy."

No the US has no place voicing opinions about what Spain should do.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm sorry but that's a load of shit, shades. Germany and France certainly applied a lot more pressure against the US than the US has put on Spain. Have you seen massive protests in the United States calling Spain "Chamberlain"? No. Has the US put on any sanctions on Spain? No.

You're just trying to have it both ways. If the Spanish people don't want to be involved in Iraq then good for them. That's their right. But at the same time, Americans DO want to be involved in Iraq and the "world community" needs to get off our collective asses. Bush isn't going against the will of the people, he is carrying out its will.