Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print
Gandalf's version of democracy (Read 21604 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #90 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:48pm
 
Quote:
"expecting" them to vote on this issue signifies political motivation wouldn't you say? Thats what I disagree with.


You think they would abstain?

Quote:
Saying they agree with a hypothetical concept in a meaningless, consequence-free survey is a long way from actually deciding to vote in favour of it becoming a reality if ever given the chance.


No it isn't. It is one step away, and that one step is actually getting the chance to vote on it. Obviously they would currently lose in Malaysia, but in other Muslim countries they can and do win.

Such survey's are never consequence-free in a democracy. Political parties use them to gauge and respond to the views of the people. The only reason you can pretend it is in this case is because it is still a minority issue.

Quote:
motivation and interest in what though? You can't even make an educated guess as to what "issues" Malaysians had in mind when they voted for PAS. So merely saying this "indicates a high level of motivation and interest" is completely meaningless and worse than useless.


The PAS is an Islamist party. I would expect they have an interest in political Islamism - of a more extreme kind than what they already have. Given they already have lost of backwards laws, it is not a good sign.

Quote:
I agree. The point is though, an election in which the leading muslim candidates are tripping over themselves to promote their anti-hudud credentials, and even the one pro-hudud party has to quietly pretend that the issue is not really there - is not exactly the sort of election environment you would expect if muslims really do want these laws enacted.


It is exactly what you would expect on such an issue if only 1/3 of the population support it.

Quote:
Irrespective of all the intricacies of the Malaysian system, you would still expect there to be political capital on this issue for the parties that primarily stand for muslims - and that these parties would attempt to exploit this capital.


That's what PAS is, and that's what PAS is doing. The two "major" parties (coalitions in Malaysia) do not stand for Muslims. They stand for the majority of Malaysians and are actively seeking to get the majority of the vote. You cannot expect that they would side with the Muslim extremists on an issue that splits the Muslim community nearly down the middle, given that roughly 40% of the population is non-Muslim. You would expect both major coalitions to side with the 2/3 who oppose the laws, because any other stance would guarantee that they can not gain power. This is what you fail to understand about representative democracy. You cannot take an obviously minority stance on a contentious issue and expect to gain power.

Quote:
Personally, I prefer to exercise caution when judging an entire group of people to be "little Hitler's" and demonize them based solely on one survey in which they are asked to answer "yes" or "no" to a hypothetical.


It is what they think Gandalf. You of all people should appreciate the chance for Muslims to speak for themselves rather than have other people say what they think.

Quote:
I think its fair to judge them on their actual behaviour - and quite frankly it is not the behaviour of "little Hitler's" to live in harmony with their non-muslim neighbours


Malaysia has rehabilitation camps for apostates. It has all sorts of nasty laws designed to promote Islam. Most people call that oppression, not harmony. Sure they aren't killing each other, but the Muslims aren't exactly in a position to do that - at least not yet. They are probably more than happy to exploit the dmoinant position they have and let the machinations of state opression grind on until they can be more assertive.

Every time someone else suggests we judge Muslims by their behaviour, you and the other apologists whine that we cannot possibly judge Muslims by the actions of the governments or the specific individuals. Yet here we have the opportunity to judge Muslims by what they actually think, and you immediately backflip. It seems that whatever the issue or action, Muslims and Islam cannot possibly be judged by it. There is an excuse for everything, even when the majority of Muslims openly admit that they support a barbaric law that comes straight from the heart of Islam.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #91 - Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:18pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 2:00pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 12:32pm:
You were attempting to read an absurd level of detail into specific election results. That is what I was criticising with those arguments.


Obviously it wasn't your intention to snooker yourself with your own argument, but thats exactly what you have done. You can't argue that Malaysian democracy makes it impossible for Malaysians to make a decision on any one issue at the ballot box, and then turn around and say 'oh but they could definitely make a decision about this particular issue - if they really wanted to'.


That's what democracy means - literally - the will of the majority. That is about the only thing you can read into the outcome. You obviously need to be careful, which is why I qualified my claim. It does not howevver mean that Gandalf can read whatever he wants to into voting patterns and policy stances. It is not the same argument. I never argued that it is "impossible for Malaysians to make a decision on any one issue at the ballot box". I argued that you cannot break it down the way you attempted to.

You can still have the outcome reflecting the will of the majority even if people vote insincerely and parties hold positions that are rejected by the majority of their support base. This becomes increasingly likely and pretty much inevitable as you drift from a near 50-50 split to a 1/3-2/3 split. Both of those apparent flaws in a representative system can actually contribute to the outcome reflecting the will of the majority. A party will hold a position that is rejected by the majority of it's support base if the overwhelming majority has a different view. Likewise, people will vote insincerely in a first past the post system in order to pool their vote with the nearest significant plurality. What it does do is make the processes behind it less transparent - which is exactly why I can criticise you for trying to read into the voting patterns and party platforms the way you attempt to, while still claiming that the outcome reflects the will of the majority (obviously having independent surveys that confirm the will of the majority helps here). The major parties and coalitions still make it their business to know what people really think and to gain support from the majority of people, even if you cannot see how they do this based on voting patterns.

The criticisms that people make of these democratic mechanisms are not intended to equate them with dictatorship or oligarchy. I challenge you to find a single democracy that permits opposition parties in which the system maintains a position on a controversial issue that is opposed by 2/3 of the population.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #92 - Aug 31st, 2014 at 6:55pm
 
Bump for Karnal and Brian.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 95294
Gender: male
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #93 - Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm
 
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
|dev|null
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #94 - Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am
 
Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   Grin Grin Grin Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 95294
Gender: male
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #95 - Sep 1st, 2014 at 5:01pm
 
|dev|null wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am:
Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   Grin Grin Grin Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Grin Grin Grin


Abu got the better of him. FD's never gotten over it.

From that day on, it was a war against the Muslims. And if there aren't enough Muslims around, FD will go for the spineless apologists.

Believe it or not, FD used to be one of those apologists. Ipso facto, FD is at war with himself.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. It is a jolly world, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #96 - Sep 1st, 2014 at 9:53pm
 
Karnal wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 5:01pm:
|dev|null wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am:
Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   Grin Grin Grin Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Grin Grin Grin


Abu got the better of him. FD's never gotten over it.

From that day on, it was a war against the Muslims. And if there aren't enough Muslims around, FD will go for the spineless apologists.

Believe it or not, FD used to be one of those apologists. Ipso facto, FD is at war with himself.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. It is a jolly world, no?


Kismet, I suppose?  Wink
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print