Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Storm Track Infiltration: The Danger of Parliamentary Democracy

From The Gathering Storm

“The greater the danger, the more a parliamentary democracy is inclined to pull back, but the more a true leadership personality faces it.” - Goebbels' 1938 Speech on Hitler's 49th Birthday

You may think that a parliamentary form of government can not be an infiltration device, but it can. Over the last year or so, ever since the Palestinian, Lebanese and Iranian people held true democratic elections in their countries, the pinhead analysts and politicians have been scratching their head and saying how democracy can’t work in the middle-East because these countries elect totalitarian or terrorist parties to office.

I say it’s not that democracy has failed in these countries. It’s because one form of democratic government has failed. And that form is a parliamentary democracy which history has proven to be an inherently dangerous form of government. When the pinheads and anti-American movement in this country predict that the US will vote itself a dictatorship, they miss the mark. Our form republican form of democracy is far less vulnerable to the ‘man on a white horse’ coming to save us from danger than to a parliamentary form of government.

Let’s take recent history for an example. And by recent, I mean Germany in the 1930s. We all know that the Nazi party, or National Socialist Party as it was formally called, grabbed power legitimately and within a few years, with the promise of re-building Germany anew, Hitler was voted into power. How? Because Germany had a parliamentary form of democracy which allows any and all political party into the government if they receive a minimum number of votes.

Faced with internal problems where the parliament must come to a consensus on how to solve them, in Germany, little or no consensus could be arrived at – or at least, the more democratic parties were incapable of defining the German people’s problem and arrive at a solution. Hitler, unfortunately saw the problem which he reduced down to simple easy to understand internal and external threats - the Jew and the Treaty of Versailles. It has been said that if Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in German history as one of their greatest statesman because of his political accomplishments thus far.

But he lived and the German people bought his explanation of their problems and his ‘solutions’ – which eventually lead to the Holocaust and World War II.

Today we have the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s radical political party either in charge of a government or having a hefty part in those governments. And like Germany in the 1930s, these Islamic led parties have been legally voted into office. And like the Nazis, in the case of Hezbollah, they have done great things for their people. Opening hospitals and schools and giving money to the needy in their country.

But that doesn’t excuse the fact that like the National Socialist Party of the Nazis, they will pursue their most undemocratic agenda using the parliamentary form of government to influence then control Lebanon.

Europe and many other free democracies in the world today are parliamentary forms of government and open to manipulation and a lawful power grab by an insidious party bent of advancing the Islamic agenda.

Proof? How about this.

The TimesOnline reported that the lives of young women might be ruined by the Government’s failure to make forced marriages illegal. Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police said that a decision by ministers last month to drop proposed legislation had been greeted by some ethnic minorities as a signal that forced marriage was acceptable.

And where were the parliamentary members who should be defending the rights of women in their country? Stymied and by their own inaction.

“Last September the Home Office launched a consultation paper on creating a specific criminal offence of forcing someone into wedlock. Although the proposal was welcomed by many victims’ groups, some organisations complained that it would increase racial segregation. The Muslim Council of Britain gave a warning that such a law might become “another way to stigmatise our communities”.

There’s that ‘c’ words again – communities. Multiculturalism rears it’s ugly head again dividing instead of bringing the British together.

“Mr Allen, who tackles honour-related violence and advises the Association of Chief Police Officers on the issue, told The Times: “There is a school of thought which suggests that a specific piece of legislation may have the impact of driving the practice further underground.”

Yes. Let’s not pass laws against robbery, murder, rape, extortion and other crimes because it would only drive them underground. But at least one Brit sees the problem clearly.

Jasvinder Sanghera, of the Nirvana Asian Women’s Project, which helps victims, said: “Political correctness is not an excuse for moral blindness.”

Some day, Muslims will be large enough and organized enough to form their own political party like the Nazis did and weave their way into office. At that point, with the dhimmi attitude in Europe that already exists, they should have little problem with advancing the Islamist agenda and turning Europe into an Islamic State using the parliamentry democratic form of government to do it.

Shades of 1930 Germany.

6 comments:

truepeers said...

You may be right in your prediction for Europe. But it's not clear to me why you think the US system is more immune to being undermined. Just because we can't point to a historical example like Nazi Germany, yet?

While there is the need to get support for policies in both the White House and Congress, which provids some resistance to change, on the other hand it seems to me that there is generally a lot more horse trading going on in the US congress (where party discipline is less strong) than in parliamentary governments where the Prime Minister can be all-powerful. So, on the one hand, the system of party discipline can be corrupted by objectionable political deals made at the top; but on the other, US hand, objectionable political deals can be forged across party lines in the Congress.

And since the Democratic party, and perhaps also the Republican, has already shown its willingess to accomodate large numbers of illegal immigrants who often show little inclination to assimilate, in order to win votes, why is the European (or Canadian, Australian) parliamentary ssytem more immune to demographic/cultural transformations?

truepeers said...

That last sentence should read "less immune".

Anonymous said...

truepeers

Good points, but like you said, "we can't point to a historical example like Nazi Germany." The 'yet' is yet to be seem and is speculation. The reality is that there are examples of parliamentary governments that devolve to dictatorships. The risks are much greater there.

Ontario Emperor said...

I'm not sure that the presence of absence of a parliamentary democracy system is the answer to stability. (Similarly, I don't think that "Christianity" necessarily leads to stability.)

It can be argued that the United Kingdom government has been stable since 1689, and it can be argued that the United States government has been stable since 1865. Meanwhile, governments in France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, Mexico, Spain, and elsewhere have been overthrown.

In the case of the US and UK, one is a parliamentary democracy and one is not. I don't think that's the magical solution.

I agree with truepeers that the US is not necessarily protected from the pressures you cite. The state of California has a government in which the governor and legislature are elected separately, and Los Angeles has a government in which the mayor and city council are elected separately. Despite this separation of powers, there's a ton of accommodation going on.

truepeers said...

WC, I think you may be right that there is more risk of dictatorship out of a parlimentary system, because it centralizes power in the Prime Minister, especially if he has a majority government. In my country, Canada, the Prime Minister has looked like a dictator at times; however, the system also pinpoints responsibility much more clearly than do the US checks and balances, and our governments have always be open to account at election time when they can be voted out.

The fact that the Prime Minister is not the head of state is also important, for it separates political and symbolic power. One goes to war for Queen and country, not for Prime MInister X, our dear leader - if the system is working properly.

So, I think the key to stability is deeply-rooted respect for the constitution, and for the culture that has given rise to said consitution, liberty and democracy. The greatness of both America and the British system lie not simply in the constitutions as written on paper, or left unwritten, but the peoples' respect for and williness to defend them, such that no politician gets too vain and grandiose in his ideas.

ON this last point, I would argue that Christianity can be an important stabilizing factor in keeping at bay the Gnostic heresy that Hitler exemplified, keeping in mind there have always been many "Christian" Gnostics. But in any case, maintaining respect for one's culture strikes me as key.

Mr. Spog said...

While the American system is relatively resistant to the rise of a dictator, its cumbersome division of powers also makes it more likely that it would be incapable of mustering any kind of coherent response to some looming catastrophe. Then one might well see the collapse of the constitution.

(It's also fairly clear that there is less knowledge of and allegiance to the Constitution in America nowadays than there was 50 or 100 years ago. This is true even at the highest levels of government. Without such allegiance, the Constitution ultimately becomes nothing more than a scrap of paper.)