Washington or Weimar?

Post Reply New Topic

Many people here are somewhet unhappy with the American 2 party system (or the German 5 party system for that matter). But would you really prefer a really fragmented alternative? 14.4 parties in parliament on average, fragile coalitions, lots of compromises since no party can rule alone...

If I manage to get a poll up, I'll offer the 2 scenarios: 2 like in Washington D.C. or 15 like in the Weimar Republic.

IMHO, despite all the drawbacks, a situation like in the Weimar Republic sound far more advantageous to me than the false dilemma between Kang and Kodos.

To anticipate criticism: Yes, it's a strange topic, but I am a strange person, you know

I know I will get bad comments over this, but I favor a one-party system like the one in China. I believe this can work but of course minus the human rights violations, it has to be a good party (and yes, this is open for debating of course... I believe in a socialist system, not communist but with a strong socialist flavour)

In the end I have seen too many damage done by right wing and conservative parties in my native country to still believe in democracy and the vote of the majority. Rather than different parties fighting each other and constant waves of new political climates, I would favor a one party socialist system. I believe this can work, maybe I am naive, but in the end I still have to witness any major proof of what right wing politics have brought us, and democracy has proven IMO to not be the perfect solution neither. And no, I also don't support an absolute freedom of speech as the only limitations needed would be those against for example racial abuse etc, exactly the sort of mess that certain parties used to make me lose my faith in the current system.

So neither a 2 party system nor a 15 party system is ideal IMO. It only causes fractions and divides. If I must choose the better of 2 evils, then I'd say the Weimar system is better because at least it offers more options. But in fact, the ideal option IMO is to not have political divide and to have 1 reliable party in charge.

There's evidence that the writers of America's Constitution favored a no party system. Apparently they thought that it would be possible for there to be several nonaligned candidates, and in a debate they would take positions on issues individually, then return to nonalignment awaiting the next issue. This idea was never seriously tried in the US-practically from day one there was a Liberal and a Conservative party like in England. (The names have changed over 200 years, but the basic system has remained the same.) Various attempts at a third party have flopped. I think that if the founders' original idea could be tried, and parties abolished entirely, that would be the ideal system. I'm not sure if it could work however.

Also from day one in America, votes were a commodity. In the early days, the candidate who dispensed the most free whiskey got elected. Even George Washington didn't try to buck that system, although he apparently didn't agree with it. Today the group that donates the most gets the ear of the politician, and members of the "donor class" compete to give the most. The votes of the people are pretty much superfluous, the donors hedge their bets so no matter who wins they have the upper hand. It's a form of legal bribery.

Bribery isn't available to the average guy, but only to the uberwealthy. At least in some countries anybody with the cash can bribe. In America, a little guy who offers bribes goes to jail, while a big fish gets away with it. In one case a guy was charged with bribery for offering a cop $5 to forget about a speeding ticket. But the cops have a list of donor class people, and if one of THEM gets stopped the ticket is torn up. It's really a plutocratic system.

Yes, you are. Name a single country that has had a one-party system and has managed to avoid widespread human rights violations.

And this basically means it has never been applied correctly rather than it cannot be applied correctly. But depending if you believe in this system or not, you will call that naive as well.

I am not saying it will work definitely. But I am sort of on the outlook for a system that could replace democracy. I do not believe in communism in its pure form (even though I do strongly believe in a socialist regime, but that is different than communism) but I lost my faith in democracy as well. I dislike how far right parties have polluted politics here in Europe, if this is the consequence of democracy then it is time to look for an alternative system.

I think a one-party system needs some form of enticement to value human rights for it to work and I can not see how this would work.

Why would this one party necessarily break human rights? It is not because the known one party states are governed by parties who do violate human rights, that the one-party system necessarily includes that. I do believe it can work if the right party is in charge.

Of course, "right party" is debatable. To me as a leftist this would be a strongly socialist party, I guess many other people would have a totally different idea of that "right" party.

If we consider life a bit economically in a way that everyone tries to maximize his gains (which are most of the time non-monetary) and tries to minimize its losses. I believe a one party system can only work if a set of enticing factors is engineered in a way that abusing the power would not ... be advantageous anymore.


Exactly how can a one-party system please those with completely different opinions.

I guess it cannot, unless the entire population supports that specific system OR unless the party makes the people welcome their system (so there lies a challenge). In any ways, the democratic system also keeps people divided politically so it does not solve the problem neither that some people are left behind unsatisfied ; democracy thus faces that same problem and cannot offer the solution neither.

I am not sure if that one party system is the right solution, it is just the best I can think of right now. As I said, I lost my faith in democracy and I am wondering what alternative there is. Maybe there simply is no political system that really works and maybe every system tried is just a temporary thing until people realise it will not solve their problems and try something new...

Of course, people are left unsatisfied, I for example am very annoyed with the current German politics, but for me, it led to becoming active in a minority party. Maybe we'll fail, maybe we'll never get a foot into the Bundestag, but Bündnis90/Die Grünen proved that it is possible. A one party system would rob you of that possibility.


I can even agree with you on that. Democracy can be horribly scary (look at certain stupid people, for example who's vote weighs as much as your own), it can lead to tyranny by majority and to lobbycracy, of course. But it is the best system so far. Of course, the German proverb still stands: Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten. (The better [thing] is the enemy of the good [thing])

One-party political systems form when the one party uses brute force (including murder and civil war), sabotage, and other tactics to utterly destroy the other parties and make anyone with differing views too afraid to challenge the hold of the one party on power. It is not a system wherein the other parties forfeit for the greater good. Sometimes puppet parties are set up to lend the régime a façade of democratic legitimacy; usually the parties are sycophants to the supreme party and my play only a ceremonial role while real opposition is repressed brutally (see also the People's Republic of China).

A one-party system is a slap in the face of liberal (in the broader sense of a society founded on basic civil and political freedoms and tolerance) values. You cannot respect the freedom of people to disagree and associate by their own initiative if only one party is tolerated. The notion that somehow a benevolent one-party socialist state might somehow do better than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, and the rest is intellectually dishonest at best. Even with an ideology espousing equality, prosperity, and the like, it's only too easy for the leaders of the revolution to rationalize every sort of atrocity to prevent reactionary bourgeois from undoing their precious work (or basically to oppose their raw claim to power). A one-party system of any ideology cannot work because it does not provide the active, independent opposition that keeps any one side from going out of control. Bolsheviks not only crushed tsarists, the Orthodox Church, and the haut bourgeoisie; they also crushed liberals and milosheviks and social democrats more closely aligned with their communist ideology.

Ideological purity does not work; reality has too many gray areas and tricky compromises. Enforced adherence leads to flagrant hypocrisy and the rationalization of crimes against humanity.

Do not consider speculations, which I made for the sake of the argument as my true position. It was a thought on how the CSU and the SED differed.

I like something in between. I'm comfortable with the four or five here.

Bump.


So, is the binary system of the USA laudable or contemptible?

So? You could say the same about a dictatorship. Theoretically, anything could be applied correctly, but some systems lend themselves to ways that generally tend to work out poorly.

I think an autocratic empire would work out fine if you had the right leader.