The number of parties has fuck all to do with how democratic a particular system is. It’s whose interests the parties represent that matters. In capitalist societies, parties serve the interests of the ruling capital owning class, and the working majority simply gets to pick which member of the exploiting class will rule over them and repress them.
Pluralism has nothing to do with whether or not the will of the people is accurately reflected. One party states often have higher democratic representation because the people can more directly influence policy.
Last elections in Poland seen a whooping 17 parties and over 40 independents elected to sejm. However, you could not find a single socialist among them, not to mention communist, all 17 parties and over 40 independents are representing various flavours of liberalism
Excellent point to make. Pluralism isn’t bad in every case, though it can lead to factionalism of course, but the idea that it’s democratic itself is horribly wrong.
Sure. But, the Polish people seem to be happy with a far right representation.
I really don’t care about left or right. I’ve been working with politicians the last 15 years and I’ve met socialist people on the far right and extremely liberal people on the left. The boring centrist seem to get it right more often but they don’t get elected.
Democracy is rule by the majority, which really means in practice a country where the working classes are in control. Bourgeois “democracy” guises capitalist control in a cloak of electoralism, obscuring unpopular candidates with positive wins in the realm of capitalist controlled elections.
Dude, half of my country has been ruled by elected socialist for 70 years now.
Socialists have been part of the federal government since the 2nd World War and in their prime they formed a purple government together with the liberals.
Our most liberal party is struggling to get enough votes to participate in tge elections. What you’re on about?
PTB has a decent and growing foothold in Belgium, which is fantastic, but that’s about as good as it gets in bourgeois democracy, and speaks more to the effectiveness of parties like the PTB than the effectiveness of bourgeois democracy.
The number of parties has fuck all to do with how democratic a particular system is. It’s whose interests the parties represent that matters. In capitalist societies, parties serve the interests of the ruling capital owning class, and the working majority simply gets to pick which member of the exploiting class will rule over them and repress them.
The number of parties influences the percentual result.
You could say that in a 51/49 outcome 49% of the people isn’t represented but it’s still democratic.
I’m Belgian. We hold the world record in government foundations. I know how small percentages work and am pretty sure it’s democracy at work.
Do I like it? Not really, but it still democracy.
Pluralism has nothing to do with whether or not the will of the people is accurately reflected. One party states often have higher democratic representation because the people can more directly influence policy.
Last elections in Poland seen a whooping 17 parties and over 40 independents elected to sejm. However, you could not find a single socialist among them, not to mention communist, all 17 parties and over 40 independents are representing various flavours of liberalism
Excellent point to make. Pluralism isn’t bad in every case, though it can lead to factionalism of course, but the idea that it’s democratic itself is horribly wrong.
Sure. But, the Polish people seem to be happy with a far right representation.
I really don’t care about left or right. I’ve been working with politicians the last 15 years and I’ve met socialist people on the far right and extremely liberal people on the left. The boring centrist seem to get it right more often but they don’t get elected.
You make no sense. Please elaborate.
Democracy is a compromise. The irony is that by representing everybody partially you’ll never represent anyone fully.
Democracy is rule by the majority, which really means in practice a country where the working classes are in control. Bourgeois “democracy” guises capitalist control in a cloak of electoralism, obscuring unpopular candidates with positive wins in the realm of capitalist controlled elections.
Dude, half of my country has been ruled by elected socialist for 70 years now. Socialists have been part of the federal government since the 2nd World War and in their prime they formed a purple government together with the liberals.
Our most liberal party is struggling to get enough votes to participate in tge elections. What you’re on about?
PTB has a decent and growing foothold in Belgium, which is fantastic, but that’s about as good as it gets in bourgeois democracy, and speaks more to the effectiveness of parties like the PTB than the effectiveness of bourgeois democracy.