Political ideologies

tarak · 05-10-2005

In the past people grouped together on a common ideology for a common goal.the ideology could be anything from a selfish totalitarianistic fascism to utopianistic socialism.
May be its simplistic but for example the ideal goal of any government would be welfare of its citizens and allround development of the state and meeting the national and international aspirations of the socio-cultural environment.To achieve this a particular political party offers you an ideology which forms the basis of running of all affairs of the state.
In the present world I donot find any great difference between the ideologies on which elections are fought
Everything seems arbitrary to me sometimes.Anyhow what is the role of ideology for political party??Should a political party govern on the basis of ideology??Do you think the present political parties across boundaries run on ideologies?? (extremes always occur).

Fishteacher73 · 05-10-2005

The problem with political ideologies or doctrines is that they often really only get a foothold in the populace when they are emotionally based. Sound logical ideology just doesn't get the flags waving for many people. Bush essentailly got re-elected by fear mongering of terrorists and homosexuals. 9/11 has become the emotional string that politicians still tug at to garner votes and sooo many citizens just gobble it up.

gubba · 05-10-2005

G'day tarak,

Ideology is such a value laden term in australia these days,most of our politicians would run a mile before admitting that they held to some form of belief system. The way they behave I suppose that's not so surprising, mind you the more devious amongst them do tend to sprout on interminably about "old fashioned values", "the family" and "principles" or "principled behaviour". No doubt rather confusing if you took them seriously, but the level of uninformed cynicism amongst the populace at large ensures that their hypocrisy goes unchallenged.

More seriously, you are quite correct to be concerned by the lack of significant differences amongst the major parties,in practise it leads to the disenfranchisement of the political aspirations of the majority of the populace. Down here the leaders of the major political establishments feel so little pressure to explain themselves, that the party political platforms are de-emphasised or simply ignored where inconvenient when the polies prepare their election campaigns. Not only do our beloved leaders treat their electorate at large as fools, they treat their own party supporters with contempt.

However, do not be deceived, all politicians hold to an agenda at the very least, if not to a fully fledged ideology, more often than not fully self-serving. Just look at the consistent international line taken by Bush and his cronies for a classic example of a self justificatory ideology in full flow. They maybe scoundrels or saints as individuals, but don't doubt their sincerety in their belief in what's good for them is good for the whole wide world. cheers gub.

tarak · 05-12-2005

". No doubt rather confusing if you took them seriously, but the level of uninformed cynicism amongst the populace at large ensures that their hypocrisy goes unchallenged.
Yheh you are right....political hypocrisy should make some sense in future.........
I understand world over politics is an important business and government is the most powerful industry(more so in the poorer countries).But if you a cosmetic name like liberal or republican or a democrat,you stand for a set of principles which one should follow religiuosly (if i have to put it naively).Further a political party should have a set of targets and achievements like a well managed company when it comes to implementing welfare programmes.If you pay taxes and want to see them spent in a proper way,what you need is an efficient system of governance and not an hollow ideology based riffraff (with bunch of clowns dictating what you have got to do and making laws for you)

gubba · 05-12-2005

G'day tarak,
I'd like to tease out some of your concerns more fully a little later when I have enough time to do you justice. cheers gub.

gubba · 05-13-2005

g'day tarak,

Someone's "set of principles" is more than likely another's "hollow ideology". The westminster style of parliamentary democracy is premised on our parliamentarians setting our laws, our legislative framework, I'm sure the situation in India as in the States would be much the same. I'm actually concerned by how small an interest the public at large seem to show in this fundamental aspect of our democracies.

From my limited reading of the world's western style governments (in particular the anglo-saxon bloc) it is the power of the executive that appears as a greater danger to functioning democracies than a few fanatics however bloodyhanded. There is almost an unconscious(?) collusion between big media interests and big (?) government by publicity decree. Where would you say that the battle for the hearts and minds of the electors in your nation is basically played out? On the floor of your national parliament or on your nightly television screens? cheers gub.

lindagarrette · 05-13-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by gubba

it is the power of the executive that appears as a greater danger to functioning democracies than a few fanatics however bloodyhanded. There is almost an unconscious(?) collusion between big media interests and big (?) government by publicity decree. Where would you say that the battle for the hearts and minds of the electors in your nation is basically played out? On the floor of your national parliament or on your nightly television screens? cheers gub.

You have a good point. The separation of powers in the US government, plus the fact that our laws are all based on the constitution, are supposed to protect against a fanatical executive although as is evident within the current administration, there are clearly ways to circumvent them.

Biochemist · 05-13-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarak

...if you a cosmetic name like liberal or republican or a democrat,you stand for a set of principles which one should follow religiuosly (if i have to put it naively).Further a political party should have a set of targets and achievements...

I think it is important to separate ideology from political party. The parties are only very generalized representations of the voters within them. I have usually voted republican over the last 20 years, but I can't think of a single Republican that I agree with on even 75% of issues. Most are more in the 30% range. I think most voters are in that same position. Although most voters don't think all that much about their basis for voting.

I am particularly bothered, frankly, that broadly held positions in the populace are rarely reflected in the positions of legislators. In America, for example, most voters (probably nearly 70%) are strongly opposed to abortion, and equally strongly opposed to laws precluding it. That position is rarely articulated by any legislator. Clinton was probably closest (by suggesting abortion should be "safe, legal and rare") but even he had a tough time getting distance from the reasonably extreme elements of the Democratic party that want abortion anywhere, anytime for anybody in absolute privacy (think of 13 years olds in their second trimester). You could build a similar profile for the "middle America" view of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, federal tax policy, welfare policy, and business law. These issues polarize the legislators, but not the electorate. Hence, we end up with close elections, where neither candidate reflects the simple, clear views of the majority of the population.

The American voter regards the voting populace as divided, even thought they are not really. The legislators are polarized to extremes, but the voters are not. It is just hard to tell at election time.

gubba · 05-13-2005

G'day folks,

Biochemist, our local member here on the outskirts of melbourne (a thoroughly nice bloke) originally hails from the good old U.S. of A. and he maintains that the greatest malaise on the american body politic is the immense expense of a political career. Even a lowly member of the lower house of congress needs a budget in the millions to ensure re-election thus effectively disenfranchising the populace at large. Our disciplined party system perhaps opens the door wider for individuals interested in a political career and until recently I would have claimed minimised the direct influence of the upper end of town on actual, political decisions. Now with the bypassing of parliament as we undertake increasingly presidential style, executive driven governance I wonder if our situation is even more undemocratic.

We are roughly analogous to the Brits and could you imagine a presidential candidate in the States so on the nose with the general electorate as Tony being successful? The choice for the functioning Labour machine over a broken down conservative non-party ensured victory for a thoroughly distrusted prime minister. The situation in Aussie is quite similar. I suspect very strongly that over the next few decades we will need at least some structural modification of both our respective institutions and our practices. cheers gub.

Kirk Gregory Czuhai · 05-14-2005

you all know do you not that the electoral college; each elector of it, after the general election is over, may vote for ANY person he/she wants to? provided that person is a legally able to hold the office of the usa presidency totally disregarding ANY result of the general election?
how's THAT FACT grab all of you?

And who's to say definitely if they have not been doing it all along since the first election for our USA presidents?

For a google search of our USA presidents, all conveniently arranged except for one addition of an outsider, see:

http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/USApresidents.htm