The presidential system is the most defunct form of democracy. Direct/parliamentary democracy is way better.
Seems like the balances of power worked properly here, though. The president went rogue, and the rest of the government told him to get fucked.
Even a lot of parliamentary systems have presidents, with similar controls. The problem with the US is that the legislature has been enabling executive power creep for centuries. If they’re already not acting in good faith, no amount of social rules will keep them in check.
The president shouldn’t be able to go rogue in the first place
Well, when you find out how to eliminate the human from the equation, you let me know.
Direct democracy needs to have some sort of concept of human rights enshrined in its system somehow, and make it very hard to violate, otherwise, it could get ugly. Mob rule isn’t always good. It could easily lead to torches and pitchfork “justice”.
And representative rule doesn’t lead to “justice” presently?
I’m so sick and tired of hearing this argument against direct democracy in that if it doesn’t solve every flaw we have today that it should be viewed skeptically.
Not skeptically. Carefully. You can’t just say “okay, everyone vote on the laws directly” without thinking it through. You have to guarantee everybody’s rights, not just the ones who managed to overpower everyone else.
We already don’t guarantee that.
So why are you holding DD to this standard and not RD?
Because I don’t want to crawl out of one shit hole only to fall into another hastily constructed one. Let’s get it right. Let’s learn from the past. We know how misinformation and mass propaganda manipulates people against themselves in our current system. We can act to prevent that. We know the people who start amassing more than a certain amount of wealth start becoming unstoppable. We can fix that too. We know how minority rights get trampled now. Let’s put safeguards in for that too.
Like I said, let’s be careful. Or the new system will get taken over by greed, hate, and fear just like any other.
deleted by creator
Thats honestly a super interesting idea…
By looking at Korea ans France, do it ! Here, we hope it does not inspire Macron too much
They’re referring to South Korea, but trying to push the narrative that there is only 1 korea.
spits
You were confused? In this story about democratically electing parliaments and presidents, you needed it clarified whether they were talking about North Korea or South Korea?
In South Korea, they just call it Korea.
Like people from the USA call their country just “America”.
Both Koreas agree that there is only one Korea. Everything else is different between the regimes but they agree on that point.
Both Korea’s think they’re the only correct Korea. Nothing new under the sun.
It is quite common for people to refer to South Korea as just korea as I’ve heard time and time again. There is also the fact that in this context, the south is implied even just in the post title alone.
There’s one Korea. Part of it is occupied by terrorists though.
They absolutely should. The Presidential system is one step too close to a dictatorship.
As we are seeing unfold in the U.S.
