Like for any country with a “cordon sanitaire” as we call it in Belgium, this coalition now needs to address the fundamental reason motivating people to vote for the far right. If they fail to do so, the far right will gain points elections after elections until they reach the outright majority.
People keep saying this but never provide a solution. Restricting immigration does not work. Adopting far right policies does not work. The far right gets stronger because of misinformation, social media and the ongoing economic downturn in western nations. This is not something that can be fixed by one government alone.
You pivot left. You give in to the left. You become leftist. Liberalism cannot cope with fascism.
People lay blame on immigrants but the issues they talk about are very much real. The reason coalitions like this fail is because the center and conservative parts of them block any change that would actually address the root causes.
Not a policymaker but I’d guess the cause of the far right appeal is linked to
- Growing inequalities, enrichment of the richest, and trickle up
- Unchecked power of big tech and media companies like GAFAM, X, and traditional media being centralized in ownership.
Both can be tackled by regulations at the EU level.
Edit: actually, centralization/monopolization seems on the rise, no? Be it tech, media, food, transportation…
It’s a bit sad that most of the wins we can celebrate recently are basically “narrowly avoiding a far-right triumph” but hey, I’ll take it. Happy for Austria. Hope the new government can show competent leadership.
I’m afraid those centrist governments are just kicking can down the road and we’ll be getting less lucky as time goes on.
Yep. Case in point: America.
learn from us. enforce consequences on the political corruption of nazis
The issue is not that there are no people who know what the right thing to do would be. It’s that those people don’t end up in powerful-enough positions.
That’s clearly by design, too 😐 who could possibly give up all the time and money and has the amount of influence and power to get there in the first place? All the real money is centralized in the wrong hands at this point, and they will gladly gatekeep
How powerful of a position do you need to posses in order to start a riot?
I was referring to people who, from their position would be able to take formal action.
But that would mean that the not-quite-fascist conservative establishment would also face consequences for corruption, and we can’t have that because the not-quite-fascist conservative establishment are the good guys that protect you from evil communists, you know?
(/s, just in case)
i find it frustrating how unaware the centrists are that they’re absolutely going up against the wall, just like the rest of us. but they’d rather have cushy jobs than not get executed
In Germany, the resurgence of Die Linke (a hard-left party who reject the prevailing wisdom that there is organic demand for far-right policies and the way to beat the fash is by stealing their policies and presenting them in a more acceptable form) at a time when the Social Democrats (who did exactly that) lost votes may be a beacon of hope.
Sobs in Netherlands. Thanks Yesilgöz
Removed by mod
This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a proper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population? That sounds like it’d be a very counter-productive system.
Removed by mod
collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate
Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?
Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the “winning” party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?
Also, consider the hypotherical case where the Kill All Kittens party wins the most votes, but at 30%, thankfully, it doesn’t have a majority. Understandably, none of the other parties want to form a coalition with this party. Should they be forced to? Should we start killing kittens, even though a majority didn’t vote for that?
They had an opportunity to form a government, they failed. What should have happened in your opinion?
Leaving aside the argument about “legitimacy”, how the fuck would that even work when they’re unable to form a coalition with other parties? Should other parties somehow be forced to work with them and adopt their positions? Hardly democratic. Should they form a government alone? They’d never be functional as they couldn’t pass any laws.
If a coalition represents 78% of the vote they should have run together in the first place. Problem solved.
So you actually want a shitty two-party system like in the US, where to only option to prevent the fascists is voting the “lesser evil”?
And that worked out really well…
They “won” with under 30% of votes … I would argue it’d be a greater failure of democracy if that minority gets to to run the country for 5 years when no one wants to work with them.
Removed by mod
Every government was gonna rule over unreasonable psychopaths, mindless rapists, ruthless murderers. Every government rules over people they fundamentally can’t work with… That’s not the weird part.
The options were either: the other parties align with them — which wasn’t going to happen, as nobody wants to work with them due to their extreme positions — or the other parties create a majority coalition within themselves. What happened was that the majority of the votes are in leadership. That’s democracy.
if those people are fascists, then yes
Well, no. 71.3% of people voted not to want this party in power. That’s the power of coalitions.
Removed by mod
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Keep in mind that literally every other party announced beforehand that they would NOT enter into a coalition with this particular party under its leadership. That means any people who voted for another party must’ve accepted this.
I assume you’re not familiar with election systems outside the US? For most countries it goes like this:
There are dozens of parties you could vote for, but usually only a few end up getting enough votes to become part of the government.
Let’s assume we’ve got 5 parties in, they’ve got 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10% respectively. Now, they start building a coalition to achieve at least 50% overall. (There are exceptions.)
Being the biggest party doesn’t have to mean anything. Since there are many parties, one could say 30% is the largest single party and therefore what the majority wants. However, it could be the only conservative party while 25%, 20% and 15% could all be socialists with different hats. Meaning, the majority of all voters are actually socialists. Why would the government include the conservative party?
Because modern governments are built on compromise and finding a solution that covers different viewpoints. The idea is to raise the everyone, not just some.
The world is too complex for easy solutions, whoever sells you a “just do x” will probably scam you.
On the other hand, you’re from .ml and would “support a king”, so its probably no use to talk with you.
its probably no use to talk with you
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It’s a sort of trap that people fall into. It’s very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it’s difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don’t resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there’s something in it for you to learn.
I would agree, but I have little to no tolerance to trolls. We used to slap them, block them and not feed them. I’m happy to explain and discuss honestly, but I have no need for people arguing for teh lulz.
It doesn’t seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don’t seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
Imo, the posts were clearly in bad faith. “We need to allow the fascists to govern because they got 29% of the votes” is a shit argument, not just because 29% is not a majority but also because allowing fascists to govern is a very good way to join the club of authoritarian, fascist states.
That’s why I gave an honest answer.
The party shouldn’t be allowed to exist in a democracy. That’s the only failure here.
Your posts in this thread show you have no understanding of the concept of democracy.
Have you considered sueing your school?
Why should the party with a relative majority automatically get into power if an absolute majority of people voted against them?
thread starter is intentionally not understanding parliamentary voting systems because they are far right and will say anything at all that lends credence to their ideology. it’s quite simple really: the right does not discuss politics in good faith
