Should political dynasties be banned?
City Hall
should or should not
Should political dynasties be banned?
should or should not
- YE! THEY SHOULD BAN IT!
- 6 votes
- No. It's matter of the people's choice to vote dynasties
- 5 votes
Only members can vote.
page 1 of 1
page 1 of 1
Only members can post replies, please register.
Political dynasty, is defined as succession of rulers who belong to the same family for genation.
Dynasties are very much rampant, as this arises a problem (or should i say problems).
Political dynasties should be banned, for many of our politicians of today monopolize the politics on their respective regions or provinces, though it doesn't mean that they could automatically inherit a certain position from their politician relative. Eminence, Influence, Familiarity, and even Nepotism (meaning, favoring relatives because of their relationship rather than their capabilities as a government official) may greatly contribute to having political dynasty. On the other hand, Political dynasty need not to be banned for some reason/s. Dynasties built up in order to finish a certain project or continue a certain goal left by a politician relative, cause they believe that only of their own blood could continue their vision for tomorrow. Another thing, banning Political dynasty may step on human rights to vote or a politician to run for a certain position.
truly it is stated that "political dynasty is already prohibited under the 1987 constitution" but "has to be defined by the Congress", which until now, is not yet defined...
now, there are no exact rules that it is prohibited to have Political dynasties.
so (...)
Should political dynasties be banned? or Shouldn't be?
in an arguement, there's always two sides
I what to hear your opinion about it
Banned....
Inherit a position from a politicians
relative...
Thats kind unfair...
In the United States, we call them 'parties'. Each party represents a specific political network. ...And well... ...Political networks are always there in politics. At least with a network/party, you know what (on average) they are likely to stand for. ...When it comes to individuals, it's a greater unknown.
...And of course, weith parties, individuals can be themselves too.
...Just to keep elected officials future actions a little more anticipatable, I think parties are a good thing.
...Silly divisions on partisian lines... Horrible. ...And really, it's a mess. ...But I don't think that banning them will necessarily stop that either.
You need to use better names for your threads. Thread titles need to actually give an indication of the topic.
merged: 02-21-2007 ~ 02:00pm
Title edited
first off i think the title of the thread whase very good and second i hate dynastys in any form i say ban tham all
Political dynasty... We've had enough of that!
Well, here, in Indonesia, Soeharto, who had ruled over this country for 32 years, is known for having his relatives take command of many vital national businesses. Whether they were qualified to take the responsibilities or not, was never questioned. Questioning (or protesting) it, and prison awaited you.
Fortunately, that era has been a (dark) history for us.
Look at him now, an old, hopeless man, spending the rest of his life on a wheel chair... Heh. One of his son even spent his time in jail, accused for corruption.
Now, how shall I resume it? Eheh, the answer is: YES, IT SHOULD BE BANNED.
like i said earlier, "though it doesn't mean that they could automatically inherit a certain position from their politician relative"
you won't inherit them...
and THANKS! for pointing that out! that was very helpful than commenting in the thread discussion itself
I can't vote for this one...
Of course Political Dynasties are kinda bad since it'll not give any chances for other people to serve but in some way, if these what you call "Political Dynasties" are really dedicated to serve their people, then let them be.
But if you see that these people'll not do anything good for the people, of course it MUST be stopped.
True that they wont automaticaly
inherit the position...
But with position their in..
its almost good as it is inherited..
With the favors/connection
given by the politician and all that...
when was politics about fairness?
while its true that they wouldn't inherit the position automatically, but compared to a person of equal qualifications, the one with the political realitive would have a far better chance of inheriting the position.
while Political Dynasties are bad in some ways, it would not be possible to ban them for the act of trying to do so would probably be deemed as anarchism by the government and the person( the one that tries to ban it) would land in jail and his family and friends would be blacklisted.
on the other hand, Political Dynasties allow the ruling party to carry out long term plans, it also allow party to instead of coming up with plans to rally more support from the people, plan projects to bring prosperity to the country...
I think we should have an ISO rule to government. Then, there will be no problem if the people was or not from any given family. They must obey the rules and the norms and then if they didnt comply we can send all to jail. Please try to understand my english :-)
You do realise this is how promenent families have always consolidated power, you can't ban a concept like political dynasty. Then leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt wouldn't have had a shot at the presidency, its unfair to ban someone from office because of their families as it is to favour family once your in power.
The only time this is really a problem is when a goverment a bent and totalitarian(maybe the first Qin emperor), or the majority electorate is too stupid(bush) and dead ass to care where their country is going.
I don't know if it should be banned or not but I'm sure about one thing, I don't like politcians. Because I don't understand politic stuffs and I don't want to understand it. And politicians usually mess around with the minds of weaker people. Those political stuffs are too much for me.
What is political dynasty anyway?
yep!
I would say it should be restricted but not banned outright.
Kinda of a loose interpretation of the word. Seeing as how so many groups could be included (although this is a major reason why religion (not morals although politicians are already pretty loos with those) should stay out of politics).
From a strictly dynastic standpoint nepotism should be closely watched as a "Good" poltician is not necessarily followed by another "good" politician (normally quite the opposite is true due to corruption). Inheritance of power should always be discouraged. One should gain power (and the responsibility that goes with it although thats something else politicians tend to shy away from) through exhibition of abilities to run things effectively. I agree that someone who has been brought up in such an environment may have a better chance but it does not always follow that they are the better choice.