Government Sleaze

[Amicus]

Sarcasm is such fun

And this will continue until change actually happens, or his next cruiseship vacation. Then, when that cruiseship stops in Martinique, he will move on to the "Martinique1" website forum to talk about the imperitive for change there.

I typically like mockery and ridicule, especially when it is satirical and well done. And, congratulations, yours is well done. Not rare, not medium, but actually well done.

It's a shame that you do not know the rules of debate, however. Ad hominem rebuttals are never an adequate substitute for cogent reasoning. Rather, they are the refuge of those bereft of rational argument.

Anyway, your satire serves to lighten the drudgery of this thread. A shame that for each nugget of intelligence one must sift through so much sh ... uh ... malarkey.

 

[Keith R]

Re: Re: Need Reforms!Due for a Trujillo?

Funny enough, with the exception of Switzerland, such referendums are rare. In some European countries it is hell to get a referendum on a ballot. It makes one wonder, "Just what are parliamentarians afraid of". That their power will be sapped by public referendum. Politics is all about power.

Amicus,
You forgot California and Oregon, where referendums are anything but rare (Oregon had 300 statewide initiatives during the 1990's, and California had just under 300). And last I checked (admittedly a while ago), 22 other US states allowed referendums and many of them had them during the past election cycle.

Australia also allows for referendums to amend their consitution. So far 18 have been held. Not so rare, huh?

As for Europe, your remark is not as true now as it was in the past. Many European nations are using referendums to decide on EU membership, or whether to ratify the latest version of the EU treaty(ies), whereas 10 yrs ago only Denmark chose to do so. And then Ireland has had referendums on abortion, the death penalty, the N Ireland peace accords, and the International Criminal Court.
Regards,
Keith

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Even the smallest parties can influence change, look at the Liberal Democrats in the UK, or the Free Democrats in Germany or the Greens everywhere. These parties are persistent, and if they never run a government, they can have leverage influence on those that do.

Since we're debating again, let me point out that the above referenced countries have parliamentary systems, while the DR has a US-style bicameral system. That, along with a tradition that leans on strong executive power, makes these comparisons inopposite. Small parties can have no power in the DR.

Again, if you were actually in the DR (and you're not), you would know that.

 

[Amicus]

Vox Populi

You forgot California and Oregon, where referendums are anything but rare (Oregon had 300 statewide initiatives during the 1990's, and California had just under 300). And last I checked (admittedly a while ago), 22 other US states allowed referendums and many of them had them during the past election cycle.

Australia also allows for referendums to amend their consitution. So far 18 have been held. Not so rare, huh? Keith

Good stuff, Keith. I am pleased to see that referendums are more prolific than I indicated.

However, in most countries a national issue does not come up for referendum unless approved by parliament/congress, which is rare indeed. Yes, referendums are employed on the larger issues of national sovereignty, but that is the very least that one should expect.

I have yet to see national referendums that can be brought by the public at large merely by signing a petition. Neither have I seen it to such an extent as practiced in Switzerland, where the very fact of the referendum forces the government to proffer a counter-proposition (since the referendum is typically about a law that has been passed) that actually remodels the law.

It is pleasing enough however that people should be asked to vote up or down any legislation. It is my fervent opinion that referendums should be the rule and not the exception.

Republican government comes from past when representatives were sent to parliaments due to the simple fact that popular votes could not be taken throughout the land. What has happened to republican government (the use of lobbyists to influence representatives, the complete control of parties by a select few, etc.) leads me to believe that referendums are a better way to have the real voice of the electorate evident.

Referendums implicate the public, and give voters a direct sense of influencing thier nations legislation. I don't see how that can be anything but goodness.

 

[Robert]

I would suggest some of you keep out of this thread.
If you cannot debate or at least keep it at an intelligent level, please refrain from posting.

 

[Amicus]

.... let me point out that the above referenced countries have parliamentary systems, while the DR has a US-style bicameral system. That, along with a tradition that leans on strong executive power, makes these comparisons inopposite. Small parties can have no power in the DR.

Had the DR a two party system in the purest form, as in the US, then yes.

But, it doesn't and a small party, well funded, but more importantly well led would have a chance.

Even in the US, currents within the two largest parties are built in order to derive a presidential candidate. This happened with both Carter and Clinton, who were initially disliked. It also happened with Dubya who was an unremarkable governor but brought to power by right-wing oil money.

If the political process is stagnant in the DR, it is because of public apathy. The public is apathetic because, given the choice ... there is no real choice.

Is there not a political leader with "clean hands"? Not one?

 

[Amicus]

From the Internet

Race and Politics in the Dominican Republic (by Ernesto Sag?s)

Ernesto Sag?s examines the historical development and political use of antihaitianismo, a set of racist and xenophobic attitudes prevalent today in the Dominican Republic that broadly portray Dominican people as white Catholics, while Haitians are viewed as spirit-worshipping black Africans. More than just a ploy to generate patriotism and rally against a neighboring country, the ideology also is used by Dominican leaders to divide their own lower classes.

Sag?s looks at the notions of race held by Dominican elites in their creation of an imaginary "white" nation, particularly as the ideas were developed throughout the colonial era, then intellectually refined in the late 19th century, and later exalted to a state ideology during the Trujillo era. Finally, he examines how race and nationalist anti-Haitian feelings still are manipulated by conservative politicians and elites who seek to maintain the status quo, drawing on examples from recent political rhetoric and cartoons, campaign advertisements, and public school history textbooks.

The first book-length study of antihaitianismo, this work offers important lessons for studying racial and ethnic conflict as well as nationalism and comparative politics.

Any comments?

 

[Texas Bill]

Amicus, ole buddy, you got some licks in, but it's about time you quit intellectualizing and got down to brass tacks.

MY opinion is that all the ranting and raving about referendums is a bunch of hog wash. In the first place, coupled with such action is the tool of recall. With today's society (Dominican Republic, USA, Europe or where-ever) one must realize that the general public is as diverse in their political thinking as there are people. And, since I'm an advocate of a strong centralized government, it really is hogwash to allow the unwashed, uneducated masses do anything but exercise their vote for the person they want to represent them in the houses of the central government. If the advocacy of referendum is carried too far we have essentially anarchy in which each person thinks he knows what is best for everyone else (shades of good ole Southern Baptist BS).
Thankfully for you and all the others reading these threads, my electricity has gone to sleep and I've got to go.
Good luck on inciting your next referendum.

Texas Bill

 

[Amicus]

since I'm an advocate of a strong centralized government, it really is hogwash to allow the unwashed, uneducated masses do anything but exercise their vote for the person they want to represent them in the houses of the central government.
Texas Bill

If you leave the "unwashed masses" (from the DR to Iraq) to themselves they remain "unwashed". It is the first principal of democracy that the rule of all the citizens, regardless of class or education, be reflected in its governance. (You forget that 85% of Dominicans are literate, which means - at least - that they are not entirely unwashed.)

The real "hogwash" is the unwillingness to recognize this: The poor and the middle-class have a voice, as long as they have a viable, credible option to express it. It is all too easy to manipulate people in a state where patronage is systemic, and thereby apathetic about the electoral process and politics in general. (This is how Castro succeeded in his Cuban revolution. Unfortunately, he simply replaced one totalitarian state by another. No advance, there. Ditto Saddam Hussien, who decided to add a touch of genocide to the recipe.)

Democracy is a duty as much as it is a right, for as long as that duty is expressed in elections. Otherwise, it is also a form of modern slavery, at the hands of the "anointed few", of which the DR is far from being the only country to suffer.

But, of course, how could I understand, I don't live in the DR, do I?

Finally, I have to agree with you in one respect. Referendums are sophisticated means of self-governance. It takes a fairly well developed political system for referendums to be effective. I don't discount it however as an additional means of expression, and would suggest it for any modern democracy. After all, what is the difference between having referendums or surveying constituencies to understand their political desires. Answer: One is a genuine poll and the other is statistical.

NB: The notion of equitable democracy came with time in the US, as well. Senatorial candidates had to show a net wealth of a certain amount in order to run for office in the early times of the American republic. It was ingrained that "landed gentry" somehow had a higher rank than the rest, and America's founding fathers thought this was perfectly correct. After all, they were Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton ... all rich men (who thought owning slaves perfectly normal as well).

 

[Criss Colon]

During that time it was "Perfectly Normal"!

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

 

[Texas Bill]

Amicus;

Democracy is Neither a Right nor is it a Duty!!!

Democracy is simply a system of government!!

Referendum was the vehicle of early Athenian government under which they (the citizens of the city-state of Athens) voted on issues and/or promulgated the same(I think the correct verbage was used).

As to early Colonial America and it's emergence as a nation with a Republican, bi-cameral representation of electoral constituants, with a seperate excecutive administration and judicial system of government that was eventually to evolve into a "democratic" system with the franchise offered to all, just let me say this; The original elective system was set up for what was viewed as for a 'responsible, informed electorate. That is, one had to have an income of Forty pounds per annum and or own the equivilent in property in order to exercise the vote. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson became President that the franchise was extended to the populace as a whole (of course, women were'nt included until almost 100 years later).

So, you see, Democracy as we view it today is an evolved subject, the definition of which has changed over a long period of time, and as such cannot be either a Right or a Duty as you would prefer it to be.

So, I call upon you to cease and desist with the intellectualizing. It serves no useful purpose except to expose the personality behind the words written.

And since I wrote that, I expose myself, don't I????

Enough said, let's drop this whole line expose' and get on with the discussion/solutions of Dominican government sleaze.

Texas Bill

 

[Amicus]

deleted

 

[Amicus]

Originally posted by Texas Bill
So, you see, Democracy as we view it today is an evolved subject, the definition of which has changed over a long period of time, and as such cannot be either a Right or a Duty as you would prefer it to be.

This is the very point I was trying to make. (Didn't you read my post?) The notion of democracy has evolved and continues to evolve. So, we agree. Will wonders never cease...

And, we disagree. It is not just a right, democracy is a duty. It behooves each and every citizen to protect, promote and further democracy as an institution and as a political objective. It is a highly fragile idea.

Do you think democracy is being served when Big Oil can buy an election and put its President in the White House? I don't. Same thing happened in France when Mitterand dipped into the treasury of the Elf Oil company to pay his party's election campaigns. Democracies can be manipulated by anyone, but particularly by the monied plutocrats in Washington. They think they deserve to rule.

Money buys power, and power accumulates money - which can happen anywhere, Santo Domingo or Washington, DC.

So, I call upon you to cease and desist with the intellectualizing. It serves no useful purpose except to expose the personality behind the words written.

Who?s intellectualizing? We're having a debate. Stop with the self-indignation and debate, dammit!

Enough said, let's drop this whole line expose' and get on with the discussion/solutions of Dominican government sleaze.

No, I'll have my say now, thank you very much.

As I was saying, it will take time for any democracy to evolve, even that of the DR, which has, effectively, only a decade's experience at it. They are taking their first steps, and so far the result is pathetic.

They have got to cut the umbilical cord with the past, by which whoever is elected President thinks they have a divine right to the nation's till. They then throw crumbs to whichever ass-kisser helped put them in power. That's democracy?

And, I ask you: Is it really any different from what has happened in some parts of the USA? Chicago? Boston? Miami? Etc.?

 

[Amicus]

Is there hope ... ?

Independence for District Attorneys

The Dominican Senate approved last April 7 a bill guaranteeing the independence of the country's prosecutors. Up to now, prosecutors were chosen and removed at the discretion of the Executive.

Under the new legislation, district attorneys will be elected for four years by a special Council of Prosecutors while the Attorney General will be chosen by the Executive from a list of three candidates proposed by the Senate.

From: http://drlawyer.com/txt/newsapril03.html#1

 

[Criss Colon]

George W Bush IS the President of the United States of America!!!!

Elected by the Citizens of same! "Big Oil" doesn't get to vote!He is doing a great job,and is very popular with the vast majority of Americans,even those who voted for....? I can't remember his name.President Bush has now helped the people of the DR with loans to help repair the damage to the Dominican economy caused by "Banintergate"! What a great man! Cris Colon

 

[Texas Bill]

Government Sleaze!!!!

Amicus?

In one respect , I concede that there is, in a democracy, a DUTY to be performed by the electorate. That is to cast their vote for the candidates who best represent their particular political thinking. You notice I left out any allusion to a particular ECONOMIC system which may accompany said government.
Your insistance that democracy is a DUTY still doesn't hold water and is fallacious in it's foundation. The SYSTEM does not have a duty. The political exercises within the system are an entirely different matter, as are those who administer the system. I truly think your definition is skewed toward your own particular interpretation.
It is the DUTY of the electorate to vote the way they feel. While that may not always be satisfactory in the long run, it is nevertheless the way it truly is.
Insofar as Big Oil buying the Presidency of the United States, you full of S---. That money was contributed by Big Oil is a fact, but then they contribute to EVERY political campaign, no matter who the candidate is.
That money begets money is a financial and economic fact.
that such gains the possessor with power after a fashion is an historic fact. That the possessors of money tend to attempt to leverage such into personal power is also an historical fact.
What you are saying is factual, however you're stating it out of context with the issues.
I'm not really certain what your political leanings are, but I've read your words before in Michaevelli, Robspierre, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Marx. Also, in Adam Smith.
You claim this is a debate. I must say that I have never participated in a debate formally, so I don't know the rules very well. What I do know is that facts must be presented by one side to convince the other of their authenticity and accuracy. Maybe I'm just dense, but you haven't done that. You have merely presented innuendo, fallacious reasoning, and with an air of extreme condesension. And YES, my spelling is atrocious. I know it, you know it, and everyone on this forum knows it and forgives the slippage. Sorry, but I learned to spell phonetically back in the 1930's in a country school.
Texas Bill

 

[mondongo]

Good post, TB. Amicus has s schizzo thought process....cannot focus on one subject. A debate starts with one party making a single assertion....then the competing party gets a rebuttal....etc. It does not consist of throwing shit against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.

CC...the US is NOT helping Dominicans by giving out yet another loan. Thats like handing a drunk gift certificate to a liquor store. Furthemore, the USA does not loan money to the DR out of the goodness of its heart. The terms that some of these loans carry are scandalous. For example, loans by the Export/Import arm of the US govt requires that the DR give back some of the loan money immediately, to use as collateral. It also requires that the DR use a significant portion of the loan proceeds on goods and services from US companies ....at pre-arranged prices. The rest of the money, the DR politicians steal (but of course).

This Mejia ship must continue to take on water, finally sink...I want to see these pea-brain minows struggle for their last breath.