politics

Real democracy or electors bribery?

Few years ago, a populist political party came to power in Poland, the party in question “PIS” is hostile towards the EU, and the main reason it came to power is because they proposed a program called Rodzina 500 plus basically offering money to parents with 2 or more kids. Why 2 or more? probably because the cost of such a program was so big that it is not even possible to finance it if it was money offered for every child.
>> Result >>> The party in question won the elections.

This kind of legal bribery happen in every election, and in most countries, populist parties are the ones usually using bribery to the highest extend.

For example in a debate for the French Elections -see video below-, Marine Le Pen, the far right candidate have a several proposition to cut taxes, give more social aid in some cases, etc etc … Her program would bring and additional 100-170 billion dollars in deficit, and she has no concrete and serious solution to finance these newly proposed expenses.

Democracy is broken

The usage of monetary incentive is simple bribery, the society is not choosing what is better for it, simply because the poor and often the middle class, will fall for the ploy and vote for the money into their pockets.

In Lebanon, while growing up, i remember on each election, parties were paying for votes, i remember it was 100$, i hear it is around 1000$ now … So what is so different between the 2 cases above and this case ?
Absolutely Nothing, in all the 3 cases, money is used to win elections, and that is bribery.

Real Democracy

In a real democracy, voters should choose candidates based on programs not based on incentives. It is true that most societies are mature enough politically to not fall for this kind of bribery, but still some do, especially when you have a lot of poor population.

What are Trump chances ?

After watching the last 2 US presidential debates, i came to notice that Donald Trump is not the dumb guy portrayed by the media. In many points he makes sense …

It is visible though that Hillary is way more prepared and experienced, due mainly to her 30 year presence in one way or another on the political scene. This is not necessarily a good thing for electors, as they might associate her with previous politics failure.
Another point is interesting from a political point of view, is that Trump is a bit naive when it comes to the US foreign policy, even though he does quote wikileaks often, it seams that he do not give the same importance to all the revelations, which also include the US involvement in changing and shaping regions to it’s liking , i would recommend reading or watching “the confessions of an economic hitman”

But back to the question, What are Trump chances in Winning the US Elections ?

I would describe them as high, for the following reasons:

1- Hillary does not appear trustworthy, as a neutral observer, it stroke me several times that she is manipulative. Don’t get me wrong, Trump also appears lying, but the difference is that he does not appear manipulative, but simply lying to save face.

2- The media have demonized Trump so much, that it’s not possible to identify his supporters anymore, the supporters did not abandon him, but they are just pretending something else. They might tell you they want to vote for Hillary or Sanders (eventhough he’s not on ballots anymore) or charlie brown etc…, but at the end of the day, they will vote for their candidate. So, no way to trust the Polls, the margin of error is HUGE (sorry couldn’t resist).

3- He is definitely getting all the votes of people fed up with illegal immigration, and that include: many African American, many American Latinos.

4- He has the bible belt support, and don’t be surprised if your local church is telling you to go vote for Trump just before election day.

 

So yeah, Trump chances are still pretty high, need to wait and see.

 

Freethinker VS Contrarian thinker

I have labeled myself a freethinker since many many years, to be honest, i was born a freethinker, and did not really coexist peacefully with rules and general opinions. But as i got older and hopefully wiser, i started noticing that being a freethinker is not enough, being a contrarian thinker fit me even better.

But really what is the difference and what are the similarities?

Let’s take the definition of a freethinker: A free thinker is defined as a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what others say. Freethinkers are heavily committed to the use of scientific inquiry, and logic.

The definition of contrarian thinker is: A contrarian is a person who takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority, regardless of how unpopular it may be.

So to be a contrarian thinker, you’ll need to be a freethinker, but that’s not enough, you’ll need to have the courage to say out loud your opinions, regardless of how unpopular they are.

To understand this you’ll need to visualize yourself within a group of people defending an idea, that most find unacceptable.

For example, the champion of contrarian thinking, and my personal hero, is Peter Thiel, this guy is really unpopular these days, especially after expressing his interest in young blood transfusion

But as a contrarian thinker true to his nature, he is going after what many consider a taboo, but at the same time, if this science works, it would be a great scientific achievement.

There are so many practical solutions to world problems that are not considered, due to political correctness, human emotions, etc … Contrarian thinkers need to start knocking and showing the way, maybe the world would be reasonable again.

 

The ideal government structure

We are in 2016, everything is changing fast from technology to individual rights …

Many countries around the world are trying to include more and more women in government, but still government compositions are still far from being ideal.

Here, i will try to list how governments should be composed:

1- Gender Equality: Half any country population is made up of females, so there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to not offer equal number of seats to women.
Let’s be honest, politicians are not really selected according to their specific skills, so women and men are both equally qualified to serve their populations.

2- Minority Representation: The government should be representative of the people, if there’s 10% of the population that belong to a specific ethnicity, then they should have 10% of the politicians, and they should choose their own politicians.

3- Field of competence: Each one of the civil servants and politicians representatives should work in the domain that he/she is competent at. let’s see some examples:
Minister = secretary of state = member of government in-charge of a department.

so Minister of health, should be someone who have worked long in the health sector: doctors etc …
Minister of education, should be a teacher, professor …Interior Minister, should have worked in police or secret services …
Foreign Minister, should be someone that have lived in more than 1 country …

can future politicians be criminals ?

The way politicians are chosen in democratic countries is a very transparent and thorough process,

the candidates  history is usually screened under the microscope!

but, now with this new generation, could some criminals or bad people be elected without population even knowing their true personality?

On the internet anonymity allows people to spread hate, racism, bully, threaten, steal from, hijack, hack etc … , and all this will not be documented anywhere, it will not even be associated most of the times with a specific person.

Before the internet, people used to express their radical views, and thus allowed others to identify them according to their views , but now the new generations are expressing their views anonymously and thus they might appear as normal friendly people for friends, neighbors and families but in reality they are violent extremists, fanatics or racists or even crazy , a good example is the shooters in norway.

so i quote Mr Halpern from “shit my dad says”

“It means that the future leaders of your country,…, are gonna be people that have absolutely no experience with actual confrontation.  Thirty years from now the President of the most powerful country in the world is going to be some little shit who sat at his computer and hurled insults three feet away from his mommy’s tit like it was no big deal.  I don’t condone fighting, but when a human being understands that his or her actions might result in a giant fist up his or her ass, he or she learns a thing or two about acting before they speak.  ….”