|
Hah, thanks for clarifying, I had a suspicion, but still wanted to write out the argument in case there was some truth to the sarcasm. It's hard to talk without going down into specifics. Different people got into power in different countries in different ways and are kept in power by different means. Switching out the hierarchy that's in power seems healthy for a society, and happens every once in awhile, as well (e.g. in Nigeria's recent election). I don't think we should expect politicians to be altruistic and I think democracy is a spectrum. America has a somewhat democratic system, although almost half the eligible people don't vote, and a large portion of the population that does vote appears to mirror campaign spending, which is controlled by a much smaller, but still relatively diverse number of donors. Increasing the number of people with enough discretionary spending to give to campaigns makes this system more democratic, as does lowering the max amount an individual can contribute. Perhaps one day we will have a society where everyone contributes ideas evenly to this distributed system that is democratic government, but for now, I think it's important simply to look for steps in that direction - get more people thinking and talking about political ideas, understanding the issues, and weighing the consequences of their vote. Personally, I find the electoral college system the biggest barrier to engaging people... "what does it matter, our state is going for candidate X anyway". I don't think the IC uses their capabilities to advise campaigns or blackmail dissidents anymore. They might have under J Hoover, but I imagine that to be wholly a blemish of the past. |