|
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
[quote1253372765=kvn_m]
Is it a bad thing should there be a chance for someone to be a president for his lifetime? It's not as if the voting would stop. It's different from a monarch or an autocrat who leads the country for his whole life. Indeed, FDR is one example where it seems better that there was no limit to the number of terms a man can serve as the president.
[/quote1253372765]
I would argue that there being a chance for someone to be president for life is indeed a 'bad thing'. This runs contrary to democratic principles on several levels. The limitation on terms is a means to limit the accumulation of power that is at the center of the political in practice. As we have seen in the US, voting is merely a formalized ritual that serves to reinforce anti-participatory democracy. 'We have a democracy because we hold elections.'
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
TimeLine
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 4765
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: -2
|
|
I agree with CMZ - the reason why political administrations are somewhat successful is because of these limitations; how do you know that this supposed "good president" won't become "bad" later. And, anyway, as we have seen with the Bush admin, "bad" merely laid dormant, which is why the two-party system is a greater issue.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
TimeLine
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 4765
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: -2
|
|
I just have to add the following:
[quote1253426170=kvn_m]Having found one, it is a pity that he should be removed no later than 8 years of office. [/quote1253426170]
Commonsensical? !mistrust
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Zero
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 2368
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
[quote1253474686=kvn_m]Suppose people like Thatcher was removed after 8 years, I wonder if it wasn't a great loss to UK.
[/quote1253474686]
I wonder if it wasn't a great loss to the UK that there was no limit on the amount of time Thatcher could continue as PM.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
It's really an absurdly over-attended corner of the not-entirely consistent space of reason.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
But then the counterexample is FDR, right?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Solitude, my mother, tell me my life again. -- O.V. de Milosz
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
kvn_m
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 35
|
|
Re: Second-Term Limit 2 Years, 8 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
[quote1253495399=TimeLine]
I agree with CMZ - the reason why political administrations are somewhat successful is because of these limitations; how do you know that this supposed "good president" won't become "bad" later. And, anyway, as we have seen with the Bush admin, "bad" merely laid dormant, which is why the two-party system is a greater issue.
[/quote1253495399]
It doesn't matter that these 'good presidents' become bad... because, unlike the systems outside, there will still be regular elections going on. I think the best trait of democracy is that the people are given a legitimate power to curb an obvious tyrant (the weakest point about democracy is the average knowledge of the general electorates... which doesn't become as much a liability anymore when the people feel a significant oppression...). It's too pessimistic to say that the people would always be under a tight control of the man in power and that voting is merely a formality. For as long as he doesn't go bad, then probability is just that.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
