Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 14th, 2013, 07:47 PM   #1
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: australia
Posts: 2,449
parliament?


"Breaking News: China's Li Keqiang formally elected as premier by parliament"

----------------
A previous Chinese president was invited to address the Australian parliament and only 1 member walked out in protest. French "parliament" means "speaking the mind" so maybe any dictator was a parliament like Hitler when he raved on. A "rubber-stamp" parliament shows how far language is twisted, spun, knifed and dumped. "Democratic Republics" are normally severely not. But China has money and so do many politicians and $$$ spells "success".

Last edited by chimera; March 14th, 2013 at 07:50 PM.
chimera is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 15th, 2013, 12:23 AM   #2

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 19,893
Blog Entries: 19

The conception of "parliament" in socialist countries is quite particular [when not peculiar]. It's actually an issue of the unique party, so that it's a facade organism produced by the political structure of the dominating socialist force. Usually a Communist Party.

Technically it's anyway a parliament, sure from a democratic perspective the absence of dialectic confrontation among different political parties or at least among different opinions and groups of power [theoretically a democratic parliament can exist also without political parties] makes such a parliament at least not that credible.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old March 15th, 2013, 01:30 AM   #3
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 16,748

Political parties does not make government democratic. It is common misconception.
arras is offline  
Old March 16th, 2013, 07:12 AM   #4

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,784

The main difference between an authoritarian government like that of China and democratic governments in terms of existence of political party is that in the former there is only one that leads which is the Communist Party, whereas in the latter there are at least two of them, like that of Republican and Democratic in the case of the U.S.
dagul is offline  
Old March 19th, 2013, 04:47 PM   #5
Pim
Academician
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimera View Post
"Breaking News: China's Li Keqiang formally elected as premier by parliament"

----------------
A previous Chinese president was invited to address the Australian parliament and only 1 member walked out in protest. French "parliament" means "speaking the mind" so maybe any dictator was a parliament like Hitler when he raved on. A "rubber-stamp" parliament shows how far language is twisted, spun, knifed and dumped. "Democratic Republics" are normally severely not. But China has money and so do many politicians and $$$ spells "success".
Who "walked out in protest", chimera? I know there was debate before Hu's address to the Australian Parliament and a motion by both Democrats (i.e. Australian Democrats - not to be confused with US Democrats) and Greens that Hu be received in the Great Hall of Parliament House rather than be invited to address a democratically elected Parliament in the chamber of the House of Representatives. The motion was defeated. I also recall Senator Bob Brown's "street theatre" stunt of interrupting President George Bush's address to the Parliament in which he, Brown, managed to get himself thrown out of the chamber. But I can't recall any member of the House of Representatives, or any Senator, walking out during the course of Hu Jintao's address.

It may well be that individual Members or Senators might have decided to boycott Hu's address. Maybe Brian Harradine and the odd Democrat might have stayed away. Bob Brown had no choice since he'd been sin binned because of his stunt during Bush's speech the day before so he was in disgrace anyway and consigned to the naughty boy's corner. But I repeat, to my knowledge nobody actually stood up during Hu Jintao's address to the Australian Parliament and walked out. It would have been viewed as grossly discourteous by the Chinese and caused a loss of face all round. I'm sure that Bob Brown would have pulled some sort of stunt if he'd been there but he blew that opportunity by his stunt the previous day. The cultural differences were most revealing: when Bob Brown interrupted the US President, George Bush's response was to grin and say "Well, I'm in favour of free speech!" Then he looked at a glowering and furious John Howard, winked, and went on with his speech! I doubt that Hu Jintao would have reacted in that way!

I take your point about parliament being a rubber stamp, and the legislature being reduced to the role of cipher whose job it is to endorse the dictates of an all-powerful executive. That's especially true in our country. But if you're going to argue those points - and I agree there are strong arguments you can mount in support of those points - then you diminish your own argument when you falsify history.
Pim is offline  
Old March 25th, 2013, 01:00 AM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: australia
Posts: 2,449

Ah, I spoke from memory of a TV clip 10 years ago. No-one walked out. The ABC has this transcript:
>[ The Greens say they will wear black armbands to Parliament, while other protestors have been kept as far away from the visiting president as possible that they've come up with some rather creative ways of conveying their message.

For Senator Bob Brown, the Australian Government's decision to keep protestors away from the Chinese leader may in fact have backfired.

BOB BROWN: Yeah, the interesting thing is they've taken the public address systems of our protestors in Canberra. But I think protestors have a right to be loud, to speak loudly and to be heard.]<
----
parle le ment.
chimera is offline  
Old March 25th, 2013, 06:06 AM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: portland maine
Posts: 2,026

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Political parties does not make government democratic. It is common misconception.
In so many countries the U.S. has been involved in one goal is to establish an election day. Just as political parties do not make a government democratic, voting alone does not make a democracy.
Port is offline  
Old March 25th, 2013, 03:39 PM   #8

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,784

Quote:
Originally Posted by Port View Post
In so many countries the U.S. has been involved in one goal is to establish an election day. Just as political parties do not make a government democratic, voting alone does not make a democracy.
Certainly the act of voting does not mean there is democracy because in the first place there must be choice in the exercise of suffrage between two or more forms of policies from different political parties as far as democracy is concern in contrast to casting of votes in totalitarian regime under one policy of a political party like a communist party, ergo, the act of voting does not carry with it the right to choose.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
parliament



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If Guy Fawkes had the parliament blown up Joe Freeman Speculative History 5 March 7th, 2013 02:45 PM
Colonial seats in Parliament wilber6150 American History 197 December 2nd, 2012 01:32 PM
anarchist carrot bombing over parliament morula European History 4 August 5th, 2008 11:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.