SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the When-in-the-course-of-human-events... dept.
Margaret Atwood's novel, The Handmaid's Tale, described the horror of the authoritarian regime of Gilead. In this theocracy, self-preservation was the best people could hope for, being powerless to kick against the system. But her sequel, The Testaments, raises the possibility that individuals, with suitable luck, bravery and cleverness, can fight back.
But can they? There are countless examples of past and present monstrous regimes in the real world. And they all raise the question of why people didn't just rise up against their rulers. Some of us are quick to judge those who conform to such regimes as evil psychopaths – or at least morally inferior to ourselves.
To answer this question, let's start by considering a now classic analysis by American organisational theorist James March and Norwegian political scientist Johan Olsen from 2004.
They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, "logics". According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. According to this, outcomes, good or bad, are often of secondary importance – we often choose what to do by asking "What is a person like me supposed to do in a situation like this"?
The idea is backed up by psychological research. Human social interactions depend on our tendency to conform to unwritten rules of appropriate behaviour. Most of us are truthful, polite, don't cheat when playing board games and follow etiquette. We are happy to let judges or football referees enforce rules. A recent study showed we even conform to arbitrary norms.
[...] A small number of us, however, would rebel – but not primarily, I suspect, based on differences in individual moral character. Rebels, too, need to harness the logic of appropriateness – they need to find different norms and ideals, shared with fellow members of the resistance, or inspired by history or literature. Breaking out of one set of norms requires that we have an available alternative.
Would you stand up to an oppressive regime or would you conform?
Do you agree with this analysis? What would you do in such situations?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @04:36AM (2 children)
How?
And that differs from parliamentary systems how? They have gridlock too - the rival political factions don't go away just because someone puts together a majority for a time.
What's supposed to be objectively better about that? It's naive to assume that a legislature that does something is better than one that doesn't. Part of the power of the US system is the conflict between legislature and executive reduces the power of a faction to cause problems or undermine democracy. It's a feature not a bug.
This genuine problem has nothing to do with the Presidential versus Parliamentary systems.
Not the only source of problems. Parliamentary systems are notorious for turning over government leadership at unpredictable times. Societies already have a considerable amount of uncertainty, particularly in capitalist economic systems and democratic political systems. One doesn't need to artificially introduce it.
With what? Let us keep in mind that these "leap-frogged" systems often don't last more than a few decades. France and Italy, for example, have gone through a number of parliamentary systems in the past couple of centuries. And the EU is starting to show the cracks that'll lead to an EU 2.0.
My take is that the few genuine problems of the US approach are things like first-past-the-post and the growing complexity of law and regulation. The first could be fixed (though one would have to get the changes past the present two party system), but the second is a universal problem of all governments. There isn't that much that can be fixed by changing the present Presidential system approach.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 28 2019, @01:55AM (1 child)
>How?
I already explained how. Read the post.
>And that differs from parliamentary systems how? They have gridlock too
No, not like ours. Again, I already explained this. Did you read the whole post? Parliamentary systems do not have gridlock that results in the whole government shutting down for a month. It's almost impossible; in those systems, they'll have new elections, which will clear the gridlock. Our gridlock is caused by the fact that our executive is separately elected, and on different cycles, plus the stupid Electoral College system (so the President can be elected by a minority, while the majority elects a different party in Congress).
>What's supposed to be objectively better about that?
You think having a government shutdown for a month is "better"? I don't know about you, but in my world, a government that isn't operating and providing the services it's supposed to is a broken system.
>It's naive to assume that a legislature that does something is better than one that doesn't.
This sounds like some kind of stupid "small government" mentality. I'm sorry, a legislature that's not actually doing the job of governing is broken; the whole reason to have a government is to govern. A government that isn't doing that is broken. I don't know how to make this any more clear, when it's entirely self-evident.
>Part of the power of the US system is the conflict between legislature and executive reduces the power of a faction to cause problems or undermine democracy. It's a feature not a bug.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If a minority faction is causing gridlock, that's not "democracy" at all, it's a "bug". A properly designed government will have proportional representation so different factions can all have votes in the legislature, proportional to the number of votes they get in the elections. But minority factions shouldn't be able to stop government because they don't like something; that's not how a functional democracy works.
>Parliamentary systems are notorious for turning over government leadership at unpredictable times.
Why is that a problem? How is it better to have government shutdowns? Healthy democracies are by nature unpredictable; they're supposed to answer to the people. If you want predictable, maybe China's system would be more to your liking. The wishes of the electorate changes as times change and as they get new information or want to do things differently. This is a feature, not a bug.
>And the EU is starting to show the cracks
And the US isn't? I don't see any armed militias forming in the EU and calling for a new civil war. I do in the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:15AM
What actually is the consequence of such a shutdown? It only lasts a month. Now compare that to the decades of problems of the PIGS of the EU.