What I found seems to say that Hassad built his political base carefully and then took over in a bloodless coup. However, he then proceeded to imprison his opposition
Sorry if it seemed like I was approving of Assad. I don't. I was just giving his 98% vote in election as an example. "Built political base carefully and then took over in a bloodless coup" sounds very much like the earning personal loyalties of tribal leaders through consensus building that I described...
Is the coup the way regimes change?
Thinking back on the history of the world, I guess the answer is "Yes". Unless, of course, the US wants to take the matters in its own hands, in which case no internal coup d'etat is necessary - US will invade to change the regime :-)
Sorry, just kidding. I guess you didn't really mean to say "regime change", but was referring to one administration's time expiring and another taking its place, although within the same "regime".
Remember that we are talking about a place where the system is not democracy. (except Turkey, where governments actually change a bit too often). So, there are not many examples of a leader having a fixed period of time to govern. In this case, it is understandable that he would lose his position only when a significant number of tribes are not happy with him and start supporting his "opposition".
And if so, then it seems to me that this is a weakness in the system you describe, and is what we avoid here.
Yes, I agree with you, that the difficulty in changing the leader is a weakness of this system. I have to admit, though, taking the Turkish example, it is not that good to be able to change them too often, either. Because what happens when you topple governments every six months to hold elections is that governments tend to be very populist, only planning short-term stuff that will endear them to their own electorate. Nothing gets done.
Just a rant. I do agree with you that it is better to be able to recall a leader through peaceful means.
It has other weaknesses as well, such as that only tribal leaders are asked what they want from the leader. However, the consensus system in the Middle East stems from the necessity to minimize dissent and cooperate in an environment of unpredictable and frequent dangers. Despite its shortcomings, it has worked for them, and it is engraved deep into their traditions and mentalities. Understanding this is crucial, I feel. Thinking of ME people as dark-skinned North Americans who just wanna drink beer, watch football, vote, and sue their neighbour is a very big mistake. Especially at a time when US is trying to force another system down their throat with THIS very assumption - that they WANT it.
There may be suggestions of wrongdoing like misplaced ballots
If I recall correctly, misplaced ballots werenot the only "suggestions". I seem to remember that Bush's "victory" was announced before the recount as per the decision of the Supreme Court who put their foot down so the country wouldn't remain without a leader for longer. The end result of the recounted votes seemed to point at Gore as the winner.
Anyway, there are serious shortcomings to the American system as well, and not just with regards to felony. How about the system of selection for candidates, corporations giving money to candidates' campaigns so that they will get decisions to their benefit once he takes office?
no one was shot for protesting the election results
That is, of course, a Very Good Thing :-)
Let us make the distinction between the system of governance and the system of civil policing: That some leaders brutally handle dissent is not the fault of the consensus system of governance, which would very well work with more civil rights.
I give Turkey as an example again, because it is such a borderline case as a democratic country so lacking in human rights - here is a country where there are democratic elections and a peaceful system of changing leaders periodically. Still, police seriously beat up, take into custody, and sometimes even "disappear" protesters. Just trying to show that election vs consensus building is separate from how the leadership uses that power.
I don't think our system is perfect
It is pretty well thought out, actually. I am just trying to point out that it is not the only system, not even the only good one. That it also has problems.
Looking from the outside, one bizarre characteristic of the US system is that the two parties are just so very similar. They just differ a bit about social security, taxes, etc. Where are the Greens, where are the Social Democrats, isn't there anybody who thinks a little bit different than these two mainstream parties, one wonders... |
