Hmm. I am not sure the comparison is so crazy. I'm not saying Israel is a Nazi state. I'm saying that having a ridiculous number of elections in a short period of time is an indicator of political instability, and when you have political instability, bad things can happen.
Case in point: Austrian newspaper 'Kurier' is out with a piece quoting one Peter Lintl of the Berlin-based think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Foundation for Science and Politics) whose assessment is:
Israel's incoming gov't could be 'as far to the right like none before' (so rechts wie noch nie).
Political Parties exist not for the benefit of nations, constitutions or citizens, but for the sole purpose of winning, stealing, appropriating, accumulating and concentrating raw governing power for its own sake.
The whole idea of America that was and is so unique among nations is that the government as well as the citizenry were to be governed not by men or by ever changing opinions and desires, but by a permanent, fixed and unchanging law - the constitution. As opposed to rule by ever changing and evolving popular political agenda items.
The individual states of the USA are sovereign, bound together under federalism for mutual defense and mutual trade and prosperity. Federalism (the governing authority of the federal government) is quite limited (see Article 1 Section 8), and there is no other governing authority standing between the states and the federal government. In fact, constitutionally, there is no other governing authority, period.
Contrary to how it's described by media and politicos alike in western nations, having lots of lections, referenda and so on is not a sign of dysfunctional democracy, but the reverse.
Having elections because governement and/or parliament cannot get majority support for their suggstions is democracy.
Having secret backdoor dealings where every party involved gets to cut the pork just to keep the machine going and where the stability of said machine becomes its own goal is not democracy, but demokratur: whatever the people vote for, they still always get the same politicis since all the parties involved agree almost completely.
So Israel when loooking at elections and formation of governement - all else aside - is much more democratic than say the US or Britain.
But I am not so sure. Maybe elections are the analogue, in the political realm, of mask mandates and such. They do not improve the situation, and what is the conclusion? More of them! All the while, the machine is humming in the background and doing its thing.
Well, the concept of democracy is a fuzzy one. We try to approximate it by using tools such as elections. On the other hand, presumably there is not a single country on earth without some kind of election process.
The solid concept is the rule of law, and it had to take quite a lot of damage, all over the West, in recent years.
Recently there was an article on substack (can't find it now for the life of me) that rang true basically saying that cutting the public spending is the only policy that will give normal people some breathing space.
Following this logic the only time when government (any level) can't take on new credit is during the election process and until the new government is formed.
So then, let us have endless elections and even longer negotiations :)
That's an interesting take, thanks for bringing it up.
Often, there's also a built-in procedural mechanism that esp. 'investigative' committees and the like may not be 'carried over' into the next legislative session, i.e., if the gov't is supremely corrupt (doh), getting rid of such a committee and its public hearings is a, shall we call it, 'desirable side-effect' of a snap election…
As to the spending issue you mentioned, well, I'd agree, esp. with central banks currently running amok and 'creating' ever more 'money' while raising interest rates to 'combat' inflation.
It may very well be that 'political instability' is the price our 'advanced' economies have to pay to let non-political forces rein in the worst excesses of the past years…
Hmm. It may or may not be a sign of democracy trying to assert itself. However, it's most definitely a sign of political instability. No system can survive too much political instability for too long. If democracy results in too much instability, then democracy gets abolished one way or another (revolution, foreign invasion...). People don't like chaos.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't invoke "democracy" as an inherent good, i.e., a word conveying necessarily and exclusively sublime qualities. It, too, has multiple weaknesses, dependent as it is upon a (and here I'll paraphrase a couple of the Founding Fathers) moral and religious citizenry. Or as de Tocqueville observed, once the word is out that there is money and influence to be had at the public trough, the game is up.
Speaking of democracy being electing pre-selected professional politicians (which is what it's devolved to over the generations, different pace in different natons) and not being the people telling the politicians' the will of the people on issues, how about this:
Now this is a major taboo that is being broken, openly yet quietly. Nukes on our soil has always been a Big No all over the political spectrum (at least since they dropped the swedish nuclear weapon's program in the 1950s/1960s) yet the silence from all the parties in parliament, from the Communists to the Christian Democrats was deafening.
Democracy is certainly not voting for parties, something Simone Weil pointed out long ago.
Hmm. I am not sure the comparison is so crazy. I'm not saying Israel is a Nazi state. I'm saying that having a ridiculous number of elections in a short period of time is an indicator of political instability, and when you have political instability, bad things can happen.
Case in point: Austrian newspaper 'Kurier' is out with a piece quoting one Peter Lintl of the Berlin-based think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Foundation for Science and Politics) whose assessment is:
Israel's incoming gov't could be 'as far to the right like none before' (so rechts wie noch nie).
https://kurier.at/politik/ausland/experte-israels-regierung-koennte-so-rechts-wie-noch-nie-werden/402201654
What could (will) go wrong?
Political Parties exist not for the benefit of nations, constitutions or citizens, but for the sole purpose of winning, stealing, appropriating, accumulating and concentrating raw governing power for its own sake.
The whole idea of America that was and is so unique among nations is that the government as well as the citizenry were to be governed not by men or by ever changing opinions and desires, but by a permanent, fixed and unchanging law - the constitution. As opposed to rule by ever changing and evolving popular political agenda items.
The individual states of the USA are sovereign, bound together under federalism for mutual defense and mutual trade and prosperity. Federalism (the governing authority of the federal government) is quite limited (see Article 1 Section 8), and there is no other governing authority standing between the states and the federal government. In fact, constitutionally, there is no other governing authority, period.
Contrary to how it's described by media and politicos alike in western nations, having lots of lections, referenda and so on is not a sign of dysfunctional democracy, but the reverse.
Having elections because governement and/or parliament cannot get majority support for their suggstions is democracy.
Having secret backdoor dealings where every party involved gets to cut the pork just to keep the machine going and where the stability of said machine becomes its own goal is not democracy, but demokratur: whatever the people vote for, they still always get the same politicis since all the parties involved agree almost completely.
So Israel when loooking at elections and formation of governement - all else aside - is much more democratic than say the US or Britain.
While not familiar with the Israeli situation, but could it be voting until getting the desired results?
Sure, it could be.
That also seems to have been the 'desired' way out in Weimar Germany…be it as it may, what could go wrong?
But I am not so sure. Maybe elections are the analogue, in the political realm, of mask mandates and such. They do not improve the situation, and what is the conclusion? More of them! All the while, the machine is humming in the background and doing its thing.
It's a conundrum if there ever was one, eh?
So, maybe the incidence (muahaha) of elections testifies to the 'vitality', or 'effectiveness' of democracy as the condition of the body politic?
While I see your (somewhat sarcastic, I presume) point, I'm unsure of the implications of further medico-sanitising of discourse here.
Also: bruahahahaha.
Well, the concept of democracy is a fuzzy one. We try to approximate it by using tools such as elections. On the other hand, presumably there is not a single country on earth without some kind of election process.
The solid concept is the rule of law, and it had to take quite a lot of damage, all over the West, in recent years.
My take on this issue is different.
Recently there was an article on substack (can't find it now for the life of me) that rang true basically saying that cutting the public spending is the only policy that will give normal people some breathing space.
Following this logic the only time when government (any level) can't take on new credit is during the election process and until the new government is formed.
So then, let us have endless elections and even longer negotiations :)
That's an interesting take, thanks for bringing it up.
Often, there's also a built-in procedural mechanism that esp. 'investigative' committees and the like may not be 'carried over' into the next legislative session, i.e., if the gov't is supremely corrupt (doh), getting rid of such a committee and its public hearings is a, shall we call it, 'desirable side-effect' of a snap election…
As to the spending issue you mentioned, well, I'd agree, esp. with central banks currently running amok and 'creating' ever more 'money' while raising interest rates to 'combat' inflation.
It may very well be that 'political instability' is the price our 'advanced' economies have to pay to let non-political forces rein in the worst excesses of the past years…
Hmm. It may or may not be a sign of democracy trying to assert itself. However, it's most definitely a sign of political instability. No system can survive too much political instability for too long. If democracy results in too much instability, then democracy gets abolished one way or another (revolution, foreign invasion...). People don't like chaos.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't invoke "democracy" as an inherent good, i.e., a word conveying necessarily and exclusively sublime qualities. It, too, has multiple weaknesses, dependent as it is upon a (and here I'll paraphrase a couple of the Founding Fathers) moral and religious citizenry. Or as de Tocqueville observed, once the word is out that there is money and influence to be had at the public trough, the game is up.
Speaking of democracy being electing pre-selected professional politicians (which is what it's devolved to over the generations, different pace in different natons) and not being the people telling the politicians' the will of the people on issues, how about this:
[https://www.document.no/2022/11/01/sveriges-forsvarssjef-apner-for-natos-atomvapen-i-sverige/]
Now this is a major taboo that is being broken, openly yet quietly. Nukes on our soil has always been a Big No all over the political spectrum (at least since they dropped the swedish nuclear weapon's program in the 1950s/1960s) yet the silence from all the parties in parliament, from the Communists to the Christian Democrats was deafening.
Democracy is certainly not voting for parties, something Simone Weil pointed out long ago.