Comments on: Kicking down the Barriers

By: Sandy

Sandy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:47:34 +0000

I think Sparky makes a good point in the #14 we are to disregard - and I agree with John and disagree with “Me” on who Saudi’s would elect- though I wish it were the other way around. And I think some of the fiascos in our Municipal elections have shown even more issue than what’s being discussed here.

Solomon2- I think by most definitions, representative governmnent (Republics) are still seen as a democracy – just not a “direct” democracy. Of course the real measure is who is allowed to vote IMHO.

By: Solomon2

Solomon2 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:10:52 +0000

IMO, a civil society forms when and where people can talk to each other about the goods and services provided in their community AND accept that they have a duty to make these things happen. So there isn’t a civil society in prisons or communist countries, because the authorities dictate everything, but civil society did exist in the London of Henry VIII, even though he was the most absolute monarch England has ever known, even though speech was restricted, because London had a representative (not democratic) government which provided goods and services to citizens who felt they had a responsibility to ensure things like sewerage and financial transactions worked.

And Sparky has plenty of sense, much of it uncommonly good!

By: Me

Me — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:33:35 +0000

@20 john, my first major disagreement with you!
ELECTIONS *ARE* THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY! DON’T CONFUSE DEMOCRACY WITH FREEDOMS!

Furthermore, i’m not sure what you mean by “conservative islamists”. i thought you were past the western characterization of the country as /just/ “liberal” vs “conservative”. if elections were held, “saudis” as a whole want political freedoms as in 21. social freedoms would be somewhat like the other gulf states (sans dubai and bahrain) with the freedom to speak freely against rulers. this is what the people want.

..oh and i don’t know how you expect an independent “civil society” to be formed /first/ before democratic institutions. only the hypothetical benevolent dictator might allow for that.

@22 thanks for knocking some sense into 21.

By: Solomon2

Solomon2 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:06:22 +0000

Sparky, the whole principle behind nobility is that the nobles get to decide what laws they have to obey, and which they can ignore.

If you want transparency you’ll have to do the digging behind executive decision-making. (A free press helps.)

If you want accountability you have to develop a mechanism to exert public pressure. (Mass demonstrations will do.)

If you want “fairness under the law” you have to develop an alternate system of justice. (A “people’s court” or “Star Chamber”.)

They may go through some polite motions, but the nobility isn’t going to do these things for you just because you request it, though elements within them may be co-opted to do bits and pieces – if they don’t co-opt you first, that is.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:14:38 +0000

Well how do we get a civil society?

An eye for an eye?

Guidance Requested!

I don’t give a crap about elections to be honest and they have been prone to corruption as well. I want what others’ have been saying here:

1. Transparency
2. Accountability
3. Fairness under the law

Three simple request please

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:02:56 +0000

Actually, when the Taleban first came to power in Afghanistan, they were popular not only with Afghans, but with foreign governments, the US included. They stopped the battles between the war lords (mostly by removing the war lords), cut crime, stopped opium production… for a while. Then they showed their ‘truer’ colors and stomped all over civil and human rights and grew extremely unpopular with the West, at least.

If Afghanistan had had elections, they would have been elected. If Saudi Arabia had elections, I don’t doubt that conservative Islamists would win. That is why elections are not the definition of democracy. A civil society needs to precede elections if they are to be truly democratic.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:20:06 +0000

Breathe….basically if ye serve me a pile of shit Im gonna throw it back in your FACE!

I love you all heheheheheheheh

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:42:35 +0000

2nd piece of advice if eat person stopped eating crap, change would happen faster than you can blink a dink your eyes.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:22:12 +0000

I am not that familiar with Spain. I will research it. There are different theories on history. Some believe and cite proof that it always repeats itself in stages. I don’t subscribe to that belief. I believe people can learn from past mistakes and not repeat them. I don’t know if we must wait upon the intelligentsia to aid this cause or a Facebook and a Saudi Magna Carta.

By: Solomon2

Solomon2 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:31:55 +0000

The English Kings were never, (save for a short period during the Hundred Years War) nearly as rich as the Sauds are today; in fact, the English monarchy is remarkable for so often keeping taxes down and remaining poor compared to its counterparts on the Continent.

Rather, a more appropriate comparison may be to the Spanish Monarchy which, soon after consolidating its rule on the Iberian Peninsula, struck it rich on the gold and silver of the New World and proceeded to fund a binge of Imperialism, emigration, and religious wars.