at some point democracy becomes implausible for large nations, as it effectively facilitates the growth of reactionaries especially if the country it is implemented in is splintered on racial, religious, class lines etc.
Democracy in socialism/communism would be the fruit of afew centuries of stability under a global socialist/communist world order. By then most reactionaries would have been either ridiculed to irrelevance or eliminated.
Know about the fash in Italy but not really up to date on Greece. What's happening there?
golden dawn is still a threat, and if the greek government cannot deliver a recovery it will turn into a battle between them and antifa.
but i'd say italy is the most recent major one.
Classic (as in what we use today) democracy becomes implausable because it is about voting for policies or people, rather than overal trends. So what you get is people voting for whoever is the flashiest or with whom they identify the most with, or policies that pander to them or against people they do not like.
Democracy that would be viable is a more bottom up approach, with a federalistic system of representatives and constraints to ensure you do not get blatant majoriti-ism, while allowing all of the population to vote on broad lines. Such a system could be designed like
Thats just some ideas. Of course classic "vote once for a country-wide government" is not going to work in a big diverse country. Hell, it doesn't even work all too well in my small country, with the, ehm, non-megalopians accusing the government of only serving the needs of the people living in the megalopolis. Popularly elected people are often read never a good fit for roles of making policy on healthcare, culture, education, infrastructure. They are career politicians, people out for power or prestige, out to fullfill a political goal. The best way to run things like education is to have the educational system to regulate itself, with intervention from wider society if necessary, the same goes for pretty much everything.
Another idea I had (that does feel a bit wrong or weird, new world orderish) is to try to create more of a pan-[whatever] identity. This could be done by having mandatory conscription, stationing people randomly in places and forcing them to work and build connections with people from elsewhere in the country. The hope here would be that they would either identify or relate to these people after living there, maybe even staying there, or even better, finding spouses from other parts of the country and creating a new generation with ties to the wider country, rather than a specific ethnic group. You could also promote widespread movement of higher education students to universities in other places in the country, which has the same effect. These things can create a sense of unity among the peoples and break or at the very least impede reactionary separatist movements.
Right now, almost all the internal violence troubles plaguing both Europe and the US are a result of not integrating society better. Arab ghettos in europe breed terrorism inside them and reactionaries as a response outside them, while white-black-latino segregation creates and perpetuates racialist groups and violence in america. Every country in europe has other examples, such as mollukkers and surinamese in the netherlands and gypsies in southern europe. Reactionairy movements along ethnic lines caused the fall of Yugoslavia (with some help from the CIA) and created tension within the SU (which was enforced by economic inequality among the areas). I am not saying "do what china does" and colonize tibet with people from the majority ethnicity, but just mix it up at a faster pace than is happenening right now, and do not allow ethnicly homogenous sub-communities to form, be they yiddish, arab, african, polish, roma, armenian or whatever other ethnicity it might be. I do not advocate forced relocation, apart for breaking up ghettos inside of cities, I just advocate giving the flask a good shake periodically (conscripts, students, holidays) and letting it settle how it wants to. If only a few percentage of the population has cultural ties to multiple parts in the union, it will be less likely to break up or turn on each other.
the policies you advocate would never be democratically decided upon globally, and would require a strong government to enforce, which is my point about how only through this period of strongmanship can democracy comfortably form after.
Shit son how fucking fast do you read.
you want to resettle people, and living in Singapore i can tell you our government isn't exactly democratic, do you think such forced resettlement would go down easily in say america?
As I said, I don't want to resettle people. Basically I want to give people a tour trough the whole country for a few years together with other people from all over the country, in the hope that they either find spouses from other areas or ethnicities or at least form an understanding and appreciation for the other cultures and peoplegroups, to form a bond that will prevent them from turning into ethno-nationalists.
Also there isn't too much relocation to be done within singapore is there? Its a small city.
Apart from the few actual ghettos that exist, as in neighbourhoods within cities that developed their own culture and are economically starkly contrasted from the rest of it.
both me, it was an addition,.