|
It's taken me a little extra time to get started on writing this part out. I think this is because I honestly, still, can't decide whether I think the American system is a net positive or a net negative.
Allow me to explain.
Another one of the historical prerequisites for a fascist takeover of government is an unstable democratic government preceding it. When democracy falls apart and clearly isn't working, people start wanting an authoritarian system that can actually get something done.
The German Weimar Republic already had the odds stacked against it. It was a democratic republic in a country where most people hadn't been particularly unhappy about the authoritarian monarchy, and hardly anyone had wanted a republic or a democracy before suddenly they had one. It came into being when the nation was in a state of shock and trauma, having just fought a gruelling, painful war - one most people had thought they would win, until suddenly they had already lost.
And it was hobbled at the outset by the punishing terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Small wonder, then, that the average lifespan of a government in the Weimar Republic was a matter of months.
In Italy - and in France's Third Republic - the reasons were different, but the problem was the same. Governments formed and fell apart within months, over and over. Political chaos means nothing is ever really achieved; it's rare that government policy lasts long enough to have an effect on anything. The country runs on bureaucratic inertia.
In some cases, this doesn't actually require fresh elections to be held. It can result from shifting political alliances, if the parliamentary body is filled with minority parties who form government in coalition. In other cases, it will require new general elections, because in most parliamentary-type systems, if the government becomes deadlocked, then it is dissolved.
This isn't always a result of a total and irreversible breakdown, mind you. Famously (at least in this country), it happened in Australia in 1975. (Controversially, but constitutionally.) The Government became deadlocked; the Labor Party held the Lower House, but the Opposition controlled the Senate, and refused to pass any of the appropriations (generally referred to as supply) bills that fund the operation of government.
This resulted in a Double Dismissal election, where every seat, in both Houses, was up for re-election at once.
How This Applies To America
America's House of Representatives is not functioning very well, but it's functioning. The American Senate, however, is a trainwreck that would be comical if it didn't have such comprehensive ramifications for the country and the entire freakin' world.
The Senate can't pass a budget, nor can it get through a number of truly vital confirmation hearings for presidential appointments. The Senate can't get through just about anything, because the Senate allows for so-called filibustering that doesn't require actual effort. Essentially, any single Senator can block pretty much anything until further notice.
In most systems, this would result in new elections being called, on the grounds that the knuckleheads currently there are clearly incompetent.
However, it's debatable how much this would actually bring about change. Especially when the House is falling apart, too; so many of the worst offenders would probably be re-elected, because most seats in Congress are terrifyingly safe.
So on the one hand, America's system of scheduled-for-always elections means that government is stable, even when it's broken. On the other hand, it means that, well, government is stable, even when it's broken.
I can't decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing overall, but at least in the context of the last decade, it's one of the reasons why America couldn't be given over to fascist dictatorship; democracy maintains the appearance of functionality, even if the democratic government doesn't.
|
|
Malaysia has detained an Australian Senator under armed guard.
My best guess is that this is perhaps aimed at intimidating Anwar Ibrahim, a sort of "oh you have foreign friends, well we won't let them in" thing, but it's a pretty bushleague way to go about it, because it's an unprecedented act of international aggression.
Because, seriously. Detaining a Senator under armed guard.
This is not something that we should let happen.
Things I want to happen now:
- Since the reason Xenophon has been deemed a "security risk" can only be that he's critical of the anti-democratic everything the Malaysian government does, and the reason for the now-cancelled visit was a low-profile mission to talk to a few people about how the forthcoming Malaysian elections were likely to be run, I want Australia - and our allies, including you, USA - agitating for United Nations intervention in the election.
- And by agitating I mean insisting. I mean that Australia should demand an apology from the Malaysian government, and demand the Malaysian government accept international administration of their elections. I think we should insist on an electoral police action, like we did in East Timor, sending in the army to ensure that Malaysia gets free and fair elections, if UN observers that we demand Malaysia accept see *anything* suspect at all.
Seriously. Wars have happened over less than this. And while I don't normally advocate getting all pushy and aggressive in international relations, the scale of oh no you better didn't involved in the detention by armed guards of a serving Senator is beyond the expression by mere words. This is a mobilise your active military and start positioning them in "training exercises" scale of national offence.
|
|
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}