Plurality keeps the peace.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
This entry was posted in politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Plurality keeps the peace.

  1. Leadeye says:

    Been keeping up with the news in Australia much? :P

  2. Lars says:

    Or, in latin: divide et impera.

  3. Brad says:

    Implied, but this is why we need more, smaller political parties here in the U.S.

  4. Simon says:

    Reckon Leadeye got it right, as an aussie I can’t help but see the connection :)

  5. Greg says:

    Brad:

    there are tons of political parties in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

    the question really is why a large number of parties don’t work here, when they do elsewhere.

  6. daan says:

    Another Aussie here picking up the connection instantly.

  7. Anshul Gupta says:

    @Brad

    First of all, it is a misconception that large number of parties works elsewhere (like in countries like India!), Because behind this seemingly working joint venture between multiple political parties is a compromised contract for sharing the profits proportionally . Till they work withing the bindings stated in that unspoken contract, they stay together, other-wise we what happen (take the case in point-Pakistan).

    @ Jassica

    This simplistic explanation of the relationship between factions and ease of coup is a little be naive!( Take Britain as a case in point!).

    Actually the relationship is so complex that, even a single thought of greedy nightmare can result in a coup(take again Pakistan as a case in point!).

    Moral of the wisdom:: “Until the sole objective of the politics is to do good to everybody, we can not have peace within/outside…”

  8. Someone says:

    Well, I like it. Smaller problems have more solutions.

  9. Gareth says:

    Greg: the question really is why a large number of parties don’t work here, when they do elsewhere.

    It’s called “First Past the Post”, and it makes elections two-party races.

    To have more than two parties with viable election chances you need to consider ditching it,

  10. drew says:

    Yeah, I saw this and thought “What? She’s not Australian.”

  11. Alex says:

    Um, not sure you have any basis for this claim whatsoever (except folk wisdom). Here’s a simple thought experiment: where would it be institutionally easier for Sarah Palin to become head of state, the U.S. or Austria? She’s quite popular in the U.S., but the two party system keeps her out, because she’s never going to get more than 35% of the national vote (she’s too much of a crackpot). She could win elections in a multi-party system. The same goes for coups: if you can get enough people to represent a plurality, you’re able to effectively stage a coup in a country with more parties because you can rely on splits between the rest of the parties to buffer any backlash (Hitler exploited the rift between the Democratic Socialists and the Communists). So multi-party systems may bring certain advantages, but preventing coups is not one of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>