|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 13, 2007 7:00:36 GMT -5
Does a country benefit from excluding a significant portion of the population from naturalization? Does that not perpetuate a sense of "otherness" instead of integrating permanent residents in such country? I mean these people are already permanent residents and they're not going anywhere. So, why not let them apply for citizenship if they're eligible?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 13, 2007 7:18:04 GMT -5
Realistically, the majority in a democratic society cannot decide all the rules. That's why we vote people to represent us in government so that we do not have to decide on every detail necessary for running the country.
Remember too that the majority is not always right, and sometimes it is the minority that effects change in society.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 13, 2007 7:40:18 GMT -5
There is no true democracy. The closest version we have is representative government.
I think representative government generally works. In the U.S. for instance, politicians are now more vigilant of public opinions, given the additional availability of information via the Internet, etc. One senator lost his seat last year after he was caught on camera making a racial slur, which was then highly publicized in Youtube.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 13, 2007 7:55:30 GMT -5
If the person can live happily and peacefully to the country's benefit for twelve years, i dont think that he/she should have to put forth his citizenship application to a community, the immigration department should be the ones who make the call in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 13, 2007 7:58:54 GMT -5
Well, Bush did fire his Defense Secretary when his party lost both houses of Congress last year. His Attorney General just resigned recently due to controversies. Bush doesn't have free rein now as much as he used to. That's why I said it "generally works".
I suppose you have more flexibility with parliamentary governments. At least in those, you can have elections for leaders more than once every four years.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 13, 2007 8:03:41 GMT -5
interesting thread....
alas, it's nearly impossible to find the right balance between democracy (aka tyranny of the majority) and protecting minorities....
i think one of the problems of the Swiss naturalization process may be that only those that can be bothered turn out to vote on a naturalization application....but referendums to change the law have been voted down...so i guess the will of the majority must be accepted...
to paraphrase Churchill, democracy's just an improvement on anything else...which is debatable too when it comes to poor "democratic" countries....
peace
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 13, 2007 8:06:06 GMT -5
to paraphrase Churchill, democracy's just an improvement on anything else...which is debatable too when it comes to poor "democratic" countries.... peace Well, if it's a choice between a poor democratic country and a poor country in anarchy, it should be easy to decide.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 4:16:02 GMT -5
^ theoretically yes, but in practice it's usually a corrupt dictatorship under another name. Wow, so pessimistic are you. Real dictators do not stand for elections and are never forced to fire their Defense Secretaries or Attorney Generals.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 4:19:49 GMT -5
Mugabe's elections, as you know, are a complete farce.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 4:21:59 GMT -5
No, I'm sorry, what was your point?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 4:34:42 GMT -5
Ha! Ha! I didn't put two and two together. Anyways, there are some poor democracies though that can be considered genuine, like India. I heard India's parliament can get really rowdy. Well, but that's nothing compared to Taiwan's, where catfights and boxing matches among legislators happen from time to time. But I'm digressing ...
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 4:49:26 GMT -5
Compared to other systems of government, democracy relatively works better. I mean what other better alternative is there?
With regard to democracy's shortcomings, I think it just boils down to the fact that people aren't perfect. So, if you do find a perfect country, don't move there cos you'll ruin it. Btw, is law your profession? Maybe that's the reason why you're so disillusioned.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 15, 2007 5:28:33 GMT -5
to paraphrase Churchill, democracy's just an improvement on anything else...which is debatable too when it comes to poor "democratic" countries.... Well, if it's a choice between a poor democratic country and a poor country in anarchy, it should be easy to decide. yeah, but what about between stable but undemocratic poor countries (say Cuba) and unstable but democratic poor countries (say, Colombia or the Philippines)... at least in Cuba and the former Soviet Union, citizens have/had a right to free shelter, education and health care....and the quality of life in the former SU has decreased since they became "democratic".... whereas there is no social security net in Colombia or the Philippines....there is in Venezuela now, kinda, but everyone complains about Chavez's dictatorial policies and repression even if it's nothing worse than in C or P.... personally, i think the mere right to vote is vastly over-rated....and i don't think crude democracy (universal suffrage in representative elections) solves many problems....many countries that are now almost rich and democratic countries, such as South Korea and Singapore, were not democracies when they were coming up.... i'm not against representative democracy per se - merely object to the assertion that representative democracy is a solution to anything - becoming a richer country or dealing with corruption, etc....because it simply isn't true..... if anything, holding regular elections doesn't seem to do the poorer countries any good.... peace
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 15, 2007 7:12:29 GMT -5
You think Singapore is a democratic country? I strongly disagree. It's essentially a one-party state.
As far as the Philippines, it has tried authoritarianism under the Marcos dictatorship, and failed miserably. When Marcos came to power, the Philippines was the second richest country in the Far East. Twenty years later at his ouster, the Philippines was one of the most desperate countries in the region.
Sure in Cuba, you have free shelter, education and healthcare, so long as you don't criticize Castro. Once you do, you forfeit all those benefits and you land in jail. Same thing with the Soviet Union, so long as you keep quiet and don't mind waiting hours to buy a single loaf of bread. By the way, ask the East Germans, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. if they wanna go back to the old Soviet Union days and you'll get a resounding "NO".
I did not say democracy solves everything. I just said that democracy generally works better than all the other government systems around.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 15, 2007 21:26:18 GMT -5
true, but at least you have a right to shelter, education and health care in Cuba as long as one refrains from criticizing the government - whereas in places like Colombia and Philippines, a citizen has a right to vote but their access to shelter, education or health care depends on their ability to pay for it...ditto in some richer countries.... and Cuba scores higher on the Human Development Index than either country: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Indexinteresting article on the perpetuation of income disparity in the Philippines under "democracy": www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ01Ae01.htmlas for Eastern Europe: depends on which country, but there is a lot of nostalgia for the Soviet Union's social security system.... just saying, it's much more complex than you're making it out to be - the poor in a poor country may be better off under authoritarianism than a "democracy".... the jury's still out on the verdict, i would say..... peace
|
|