Populists and democracy: What is ordinary people's responsibility to their elections?

Ordinary people select people who are using power in parliaments. That means. Also, ordinary people have a responsibility to the state and its policy. Electors should listen to the candidates. Especially the entirety of the candidate's agenda should interest electors. So that they know who they will elect. The electors should elect a person who makes the best decisions. But who decides what is best for the nation? 

There is the possibility that some solution or decision is good for us. But that solution can cause catastrophe for the next generations. And that thing causes problems when we make decisions about the person who earns our trustworthy? And could that person be our election to parliament? We must realize that person who represents us in parliament makes decisions about how to use our money.

When some person represents us in parliament. That person would be in that position the next sessional period. And in that period. The parliament makes many more than just one decision. So don't look at only one statement. 

People should look at the agenda's entirety. And ask what that person wants to give to people. And what is that person's position on that agenda? 

People should know that parliamentary elections are not jokes. These people are selecting their representers to parliament for use of tax-payers money for a certain time. The problem is that there are no perfect candidates. All candidates have some things that do not please everybody. So whenever an elector makes choices they must make compromises. 

If good things >Bad things the candidate is positive. 

They must calculate Good things (minus) Bad things. And if good things win the elector chooses that person. If there is no candidate with more good things. And that thing is dangerous. If the candidate promises too much. That causes disappointment to electors. 

But also promises are compromises. The candidate must promise something to the main group of the constituency. And in some cases, the main group in the entire state is different than in the candidate's constituency. 

Individual constituencies may be home to unusually large numbers of super-rich people. And this can cause the candidate to have to please this minority. The candidate must therefore be in parliament as a representative of an economic minority. Every state always has a larger group of cleaners than managers. But in small constituencies, there could be more managers than cleaners.

 

In the world of the Internet, information travels faster than ever before. And that thing also causes problems with democracy. Populists are good to use social media platforms to deliver their agenda. They are offering lots of candies for people. And that makes them interesting in the eyes of other people. Also, some governments are using media as their tools. So in those states, the role of media is to support the people in power. 

When somebody promises lots of candies, we must ask how long people will live if they eat only candies. For living person must sometimes eat something else than just some candies. That means in working life. We must sooner or later do something that is not pleasing us.

Media plays a key role when information is brought to people. Of course, people like journalists have their own opinions. And in some cases, people like Secret Police agents are acting as journalists. 

In those cases, the information that is delivered can be propagandist. And the purpose of that news is just to support the political agenda of the people who are using power in some nations. 

The thing that can change information on one side or even propagandistic is self-censorship or the ability to black out other data that supports us or pleases us. When people are reading only things that please them that thing has a similar effect to propaganda. Self-censorship means that people read only things that please them. Those things are things that support their political opinions. 

We are wrong if we think that things like where companies make power or what power source those power plants use are not political decisions. Everything that used public money is politics. And we select representatives who represent us in parliament.

People argue that rulers have their responsibilities. But ordinary people also have their roles. In a democracy, they elect the people who make the decisions. The problem with the Internet is that people only choose the information that interests or pleases them. To get balanced information people have to listen to everything else that pleases them. And the ability to choose only things that seem pleasant to them makes information monotonous. People who deliver information have their supporters. And there are many ways to see things, that seem clear. 

 

There are four main types of governments 

• Closed autocracies
• Electoral autocracies
• Autocratic democracies
• Liberal democracies

Closed autocracies are nations like North Korea where the head of state doesn't even play democracy. 

In electoral autocracies is elections. But some non-democratically selected organization keeps the final control. Those nations are like Iran. There are parliaments but there are limits to the parliament's freedom to make laws. In those nations, the MPs or members of parliaments must follow strict roles in their work. 

In autocratic democracies is free elections. But things like the social environment and the common narrow attitudes make some people's life difficult. In those democracies, criticism against the parliament is not allowed during its sessional period. 

In autocratic democracies, people who criticize the parliament or government would be persecuted by media that support the party. That is in command. Criticizing the government can cause consequences like the loss of military rank. That kind of government is under the control of high-class populists. 

In liberal democracies, people are allowed to criticize governmental actors. That thing is so-called real democracies. In those things, the problem is that populists are using those systems for supporting their agenda. 

The problem is this. What if some solution that seems good in a short period turns or can predict to turn against people? What if the best for people requires sacrifices? Things like climate change are one thing that requires compromising on one's comforts like leaving the car to home. But those things are difficult because many people used to drive to work using cars. And changing attitudes is difficult because the car has an image of freedom and independence. 

But the car is also telling about social position. And public transport has the image of poor people's transportation system, which is used by people who cannot buy their car. The things like the high price of gasoline and energy crises. Along with the loss of capacity of parking areas are causing that we must re-estimate the role of public transportation. 

The science itself is not democratic. Scientific facts like Galilean moons are not following votes or elections. We can make as many votes as we want. But that thing doesn't affect those moons' trajectories. If we believe that democracy is turning science to state that it gives answers or solutions that please everybody we are wrong. We cannot transfer things like the planet's trajectory to please us by voting about them. 

But when we are thinking about the worst threat to democracy, we can say that is democracy itself. Populists are people who give great and simple promises. And if electors are not using critical ways to think. They would fall into the trap of populists. 

The best fellow for democracy is truth and a critical way to think. When we are seeing people who give simple and good-looking promises, we should ask at least a couple of questions about things that those people promise.

• If we make some decision, what happens after that? 
• What is those people's position in the new system? 
• Where do they get money for those projects?
• And then we should ask, why do those people want that change?
• And who introduced those things to those people? Or where do those people get their ideas?
• If we think of things like loan money from foreign lands. That requires that the state must pay the loan back.
•  Of course, the state can say that it will not pay that money back. But then the problem is how to get the next loan. 
• And if the multinational corporations are leaving the country. That causes problems with taxes. 
• If the country nationalizes that property, what happens to trust in that government? 
• Would somebody sell things like weapons to that nation? Or does the deliverer of the highly advanced weapon system allow the country to use its systems?  
• If the state nationalizes the property of an example U.S citizen? Is the use of GPS possible in that case? 
• And finally, if something changed, what is the thing that replaces the old thing? Where the investments that the old thing required will aim in the new system?

Sometimes people say that the media should ban far-right from the media. But censorship can cause those politicians to turn more fascinating than they are without censorship. 

And if those far-wing radicals are banned from the media. That gives them a chance to turn the focus from their political agenda. In those cases, discussions are turning into fights. And while people yell at each other. Nobody can ask about those participants' political agendas. 

They can say that other people do not give them a chance to talk or finish their speech. So then they can start to argue with others in some symposiums. And their agendas will not come to public knowledge. But people will know that those politicians are banned. 

And that thing is what they want. If the person is banned it allows that person can avoid questions of political agendas. They can discuss things and why they are not allowed to talk freely. That allows them to avoid critical questions. 

Who is the leader of the nation?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Everybody wants to be the rulers of the nations. But that thing causes the problems with private life, and that's why the power is easier to use out of the public eye, and sometimes in the history have been happening that the real users of power have been hiding in somewhere at the palace. Cardinal Richelieu might be the most well-known user of the power, and that very notorious person hide in the back of the king Louis XIII of France and breathed things to the ears of the king. But sometimes people have thoughts that the orders for the actions, what Richelieu made, came from the King,

And sometimes those things came from the head of cardinal, who mentioned that his own political enemies were planned something against the king, and that caused that they executed by the royal order.  Louis XIII  like other kings in that time was not a Democrat, and he was one of the most notorious and powerful people in the history, and maybe his propagandists made the role of Richelieu bigger than it really was because of those persecutions against political enemies of the Louis XIV, the Solar king.

Richelieu mission in the government was to support the King and leader of France, and the benefit of the successor of the Luis XIII was that the internal political crimes like the persecution of Huguenots. the Protestants, who lived in France, was made by Richelieu, what kept the King's reputation pure in the eyes of the citizens. Sometimes the privileges, what Huguenots had got from the Louis X were claimed to give for make hate against those religious minorities.

Sometimes this kind of things are happening also in democratic states, and somebody claims, that some officer or some other official would act against democratically elected persons.  "There is no democracy" is the words, what some people use when they are talking about the political situation, and sometimes I think that those persons may be partially right. In the constitution laws the state guarantee, that every person, who wants can become the candidate in the elections, and this is the best thing in the world.

But there is one thing, what is not handled many times in the public discussions. That thing is, the person, who would be voted must be in the list, and there are good and bad things with that. The good thing is that every candidate is voluntary for that duty, where they would be elected. But the bad thing is that just being on the list is not enough for getting votes. And that's why those candidates need publicity. That is the thing, what costs in the campaigns.

Also, the programs, where the commercial would be broadcast must be, that the targeted audience would watch it, and the commercial must be interesting, or the candidate would leave without votes. Those campaigns are very expensive, and that's why candidate needs financial support from the businessmen. This is the thing, what those "real democracy" persons are judged. We know that nobody gives money for campaigns without terms, and that means that the candidate must promise something to those persons. And here it goes a little bit more interesting.

There are two kinds of permissions, the things, what candidate would give for the great audience, and the permissions, what is given in some back office, and what are not told to normal people. There are men behind those public users of power, and when some person goes to meet them for getting the support for the election campaign would that be a similar situation with the job interview. Those financial supporters must know "the man" because they would give that person the great power.

 Of course in the constitution guarantees that the voters would give the mandate to use power, but if the candidate would not get publicity will that person ever elected to the place, where power is used in the state. When those supporters come, they must have the power for the man, who would become the man with power. They don't give support if they are not sure about their man. And in the real world, the politicians are the frontmen for their lobbyists.

This is the problem with democracy. Those men who give support for politicians are very powerful, but there are many lobbies in the top of the politics. And the thing, what makes things more complicated is, that the candidate must promise something to the ordinary people. There are more cleaners and hamburger workers that the top economists and bank leaders. And this makes difficult to plan those campaigns.

If ordinary people would not get anything, would that person leave out from parliament or congress, but if there would things, like broken promises, would that cause the damage to the trust of all political movement, what single politician would represent. And this makes the politics very complicated thing. And the complicated structure of the political field makes it a very interesting field to investigate things, like conspiracies and another kind of stuff, what makes the World very interesting place to live.

How to become popular in politics?

The Parliament of Finland
(Picture I)

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/p/how-to-become-popular-in-politics.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Many people might think, that this is the re-take of another text, what I wrote yesterday, but the reason, why somebody becomes popular in the political field is the very good question, and that's why I write it here. First, the person, who wants to be popular, must make speeches about the things, what people want to hear. And sometimes that is far away from realistic opportunities, what the state can give to the voters. There are always limits, what the state can pay because the national economy would and property of the state give limits, for what the government can buy, and what kind of taxes it must take from people. If there would be big payments, must the state increase level of taxes to fix the budgets.

Also, friends in the press and media would help the politician to get the opinions known to the large group of people. So politicians must make good influence about themselves for media, that the reporters would say good worlds for their program. And praise the opportunities, what the politician would give to the field of politics. This is the very good idea to become popular in every field, and of course, the good way to see, what makes people interested and like about the politician, is use decibel meter, and meter the time of the applause after speaking.

The feeling at the front of the speaker is the very good meter for the political leader or person who wants to become the political leader, that people want to hear the speeches of that person. And one of the worst mistakes is made in this field because if somebody offers something from some organization, should this person also mention, own position in that system.


Uniformed organizations are of course the very good field when something wants to promise, but there is one little problem with them. There is so little number of police officers and professional military men in the western democracies, that their votes would not raise any person in the position of prime minister. But those kinds of groups are the good field to give permissions because they seem like big and homogeneous groups. But the problem is those people afraid uniforms, and if the politician promises very much for those actors, would that cause that normal people would not give votes to that politician, what seems like some totalitarian.


And this is one reason, why the Second World War veterans got so much positive publicity, and many permissions were given straight to them. They were the big group of people, who have the same background. And if those big groups of people like some political movement or party, that brings votes for politicians. This is the mathematics of democracy. If somebody wants to get the workplace in the parliament, this person must get popularity from the people, that have only one vote to give. And only the vote, what is dropped in the box means in the election. The politicians want to please the major part of the electors, and if they want votes for new political movement, they must promise something different than old-school political leaders. And of course, they must get publicity.


That's why every political movement is very radical when it begins the work. Radicalism brings votes, and then they would get the place in the cabinets. And new political movements can always blame old actors, that all mistakes are made by them. One thing what would bring support from media is mention that some political movement has the biggest group of members in the political field. This might be sound good, but then we must ask one question: how many members are found in the party? And at the same time ask, clear answer to the question, by using numbers. In the field of politics is a good thing to find supporters from the media, because that brings free space for political advertising.


Same time, we might ask how many members are in the average party, what acts in the country, where lives five million people, and in the parliament is ten parties. There are 17 registered parties in Finland, and this makes me ask, how many members really is in those parties. But the being biggest party in the political field is the very notable thing, and it would bring more positive writings in media because big parties can get more sure places from parliaments than small parties. The membership of big party would bring more personal good for the active member, who is the good speaker than membership in the small party.


But same way we must say, that in the big party is found many opinions and the one permission is not enough, because the votes must be collected from the larger field. And that's why there must make investigations of average persons in the voting area, and make some permissions to them, and then some permissions, what are targeted in some precisely selected areas. If there would be many families with children, they might want some services for children, and if there would be the active military reserve, would they be interested in military funding for armed forces. Those examples are very far away from together, and that's why I put them here.


They are the perfect thing for compilation, what kind of permissions must politician give in the career. And that shows, how difficult is to be the politician. Without permission is no votes, and if the permissions go for wrong persons, who don't live in the voting area, would that cause the catastrophe. That means the end of the political career if the person is the first time in the election campaign. And if the result is the flop, would the supporters go to find another politician, whose campaign they want to sponsor.

Sources:

http://vaalit.fi/fi/rekisteroidyt-puolueet

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/kansanedustajat/eduskuntaryhmat/eduskuntaryhmarekisteri/Sivut/default.aspx


Picture I

https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/c4/bc/58/shutterstock-150288245.jpg

What is the problem with democracy?

(Picture I)

Kimmo Huosionmaa


The problem with democracy is that the most popular person would be selected to the head of the state. And that's why Hungarian prime minister can work against rest of European Union. The most problematic thing is that if we want to use censorship against those persons, we might make them more popular than without censorship. And the thing, what makes them so popular is, that they have straight principles, how to handle things and make their nation proud. And why people would not be allowed to be proud of their nation and history? Every nation has right to be proud, but that would be very devastating, because of the nationalism have sometimes turned to militarism and totalitarianism. There have been writings that left-wing persons are working against democracy, and this is not very far away from the truth.


When we are thinking about socialistic, or "realistic socialistic" governments, they are always worked against democracy and destroyed the opposition with massive police actions. And this has been raised the hardcore militarism in the visible sign of the politics of Eastern side nations during the communist era. The problem of the relationship with those nationalist politicians, who are grown in communistic states is, that if rest of the EU would kick them off, that would give more water to their wheels because they would claim, that EU and the elite of EU would kick them of this community.


This is what some of those populists want. If the EU would tolerate and accept their behavior, that would cause the situation, that those politicians must divorce from EU by them self. They must make the first movement in this question, and of course, that would be quite embarrassing for the populists. When we are talking about the way of making decisions in EU, there would always be mentioned the word "elite", what is used in the negative or positive way, depending on the writer's relationship with power. If the writer has the positive relationship with the way to make decisions in the EU, would this person use this world as the positive way, and claim that every person, who sits in the parliament of EU, is some kind of specialist.


If the relationship with the EU is not good, the term "elite" would be used about the isolated financial groups, what are ruling the economy in this area. But when we are thinking about the way, where police would be used against the people, who protest against EU, would we face the situation, where we act like some Soviet Union, when the ally doesn't please it. And if we would use force against the persons, who protest, we would become similar than some NKVD chief, who murdered millions of people, because comrade Stalin was thought, that they were against the communistic way to think, that proletarian dictatorship was the only right way to make world socialistic paradise.


And sometimes I would think, that would we be proud if we keep EU existed with using power. This is the very tricky question because many man and woman want to be "big boss in the small country", and of course, Russia what have very much nuclear weapons is very good "police" for some nations domestic politics. And somebody, who are defending democracy have opinions, that the only right opinion about every question. And the people, who are protecting the freedom of speech have sometimes become the worst limiters of freedom of speech and publishing.

Sources:

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/kommentti-orban-on-eu-n-mutapainissa-niskan-paalla/6931134#gs.nbco7Ro

Picture I

http://www.turituri.com/wp-content/uploads/budapest-parliamentwith-reflection-in-danube-image-id-176965334-1424439725-KDcO.jpg

luonnonihmeitakaikillamausteilla.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/what-is-the-problem-with-democracy/

President Trump and his congratulations for Putin

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When the president of the United States of America will send the congratulations for the president of Russia after the election, and he acts against the advice of national security, we must say that this person acts always against somebody’s opinion. Presidents would never do right things, what pleases everybody, and if Trump would follow that advice, somebody would say, that this man was under control of his advisory. The reaction of the action to not say congratulations for Putin would be that this would make deeper the conflict between those superpowers.


Actions what Trump has made in the case to transfer embassy of the United States to Jerusalem is of course not pleasant for the international community. But if Trump would follow the line of the international community, the voters in the United States would say that this kind of actions is made for collecting popularity from other states. And when we are talking about the position of Jerusalem, that is same what other states do, if Israel says that their capital is Jerusalem.


The position of the president of the United States is not easy. And the international politics is not the easy field to operate. There are no right decisions for make. When we are looking about the nuclear weapons outbreak would be also the good thing for the persons in the United States military. Nuclear weapons are the good excuse for not to use the force against some other states. This is what makes the situation of the United States so difficult. During the Cold War, it collected many allies for supporting its own nuclear arsenal.


Those allies are needed for military bases for B-52 bombers and airborne refueling aircraft for those planes. This meant that those allies wanted military and political support from the United States. And that is the reason, why the Soviet Union have been supported the communist revolutionaries like Viet Cong and North Vietnamese government. And the loss of Vietnam war was meant that the United States most important military base in the Asian operations area. And undemocratic allies are the very big problem for the United States. That statement itself is quite democratic, but the allies are not even playing that thing. The corruption is good meter how working democracy really is.


But when we are looking the things like corruption, we must say that there are two ways to handle that thing. Another is that corruption would be justified, and the authorities also control their members.The covered democracy is the bigger problem in the world than open dictatorship.  In undemocratic states, corruption is that every grumble of authorities work would be put in garbage cans and then this state would play democracy.


Also, the news, where is mentioned, that authorities work is partial, would be censored by the media houses. The laws of those states are very good, but they are not enforced. And the newspapers and media houses are of course free, but they are all owned by the party, what is in control in that state. If somebody else wants to transmit media broadcasts to that state, those frequencies are always reserved. And there is the big list of problems in that kind of broadcasts.


The banks would not open the bank accounts for those media corporations. Electricity is always cut, and there are many more troubles for those reporters. Their car windows would be broken. Or the persons, who criticized the government would be kicked off their workplaces. This is one way to control the information, what is given by some governments in the world.

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/president-trump-and-his-congratulations.html