The dilemma to support the change inside the current politics or better to protest against?

support or change

The dilemma to support the change inside the current politics or better to protest against?

Elections could be valuable to a wider range of leaders in a related model where they have the opportunity to utilize the information generated by elections as well as the citizens. For example, the incumbent could grant concessions to citizens upon observing poor results to ameliorate the revolutionary pressure. Further, the incumbent could take advantage of good results to consolidate their power. This mechanism would seem to make good results even better and bad results less damaging, making elections overall more valuable.

The results regarding fraud[1] and election monitoring are more straightforward and transparently consistent with the motivating empirical facts. The favorable behavior induced by a convincing election result gives an incentive to commit fraud independent of winning the election by the official tally. The strong incentive to invite election monitoring to reduce expectations about how much fraud will occur is consistent with incumbents voluntarily inviting monitors and still cheating in front of them.

The normative implications of the results about election monitoring largely favor the practice. While monitoring does not increase the chances of deposing unpopular incumbents, it does lower the amount of fraud committed in equilibrium, consistent with the empirical findings in Hyde (2007).

Many actions associated with fraud such as intimidating opposition voters are costly to more than just the incumbent, so we can loosely say that monitoring may leave all actors better off. Further, increasing the level of monitoring available to incumbents increases the set of parameters under which elections are possible. The results demonstrate the value of treating elections as generating public information as opposed to assuming they change the nature of the political interaction between incumbent leaders and other actors. The information provided by elections does not only affect incumbent behavior, but also all political actors from elites to citizens.

It is notable that when the political scandals are presented through media tools across all the country voters and everybody can see the cheating in a neighbor country, analysts and members of the public opinion immediately drew parallels with politics, where there is plenty of “cheating” with the truth. All this has severe effect immediately in the party support and the battle between political wings is to hide from the public the truth and essence of scandal. In this moment, a corrupted media could be the worst public approach for the mass voters.

Voters would like to see some acknowledgement from time to time that the other side has had a good idea and more co-operations on worthy projects. This would not at all diminish robust partisanship on core differences, and would improve the chances of achieving desirable reforms.

Politicians could alter the tone, and they could better organize their workloads, and those of their offices.

Do for example the ministers have to make as many media appearances as they do, especially when often they are repeating the same “lines” that have been issued to them, or answering questions on someone else’s portfolio about which they have no personal knowledge?

Is it necessary in non-election times to run around the country quite so much?

Excepting the positions of prime minister and finance minister, the job of most ministers is not bigger than that of a CEO of one of the big companies.

Given the fact that in recent years, due to the reforms that are initiated by any government, it is necessary to face and address the challenges of legal, regulatory and operational nature for all governances, and based on the multi-year tradition of launching intensive accountability campaigns on voters, there is a need for a new approach by launching intense non-promising communication processes, but as a human communication to see and directly feel the need for a change in the hierarchy of communication between central and local institutions, where free participation by citizens is a link that links them with direct monitoring processes of a group of policy directives.

The good of this communication process is related to ease the burden of work and the time of politicians who govern, giving the time needed to involve in the accountability process not just certain levels of officials, but the entire public sector and the people associated with them.

When we consider how political parties should change to improve our democratic system, the answers run into vested interests, as well as the nature of modern society. People want to join the major parties, because they want to improve their personal life. But this could be changed, because it’s not just that they are discouraged by factionalism and the powerlessness of the citizenship. In fact, they do not have many other calls on their time, and organizations such as political parties are right now the best work to be the very important person in the political and social life. When they want to be politically engaged, people nowadays tend to be more interested in specific issues, and limited activism or gestures, than in committing to what is often the core duty of a member of political party: to serve the interest of the ordinary people and the country interest instead of the family and their clan.

Nonetheless, the admiration of the major parties has dangers. Two directions are important in this point. The first direction contributes to narrowing the sources from which parliamentary candidates are drawn. And with the exclusivity of the choice from party leader, a reduced base which is down to the hard core of that party could tilt the vote towards a candidate who has limited appeal to the broad electorate. In this occasion these parties will never be what they once were.

The second direction is about how the major party leaders should try harder than they have for improvement of democracy inside the party. But, also to not interfere in every startup of newly political forces, controlling their leadership, or using them as their hidden allies.

Meanwhile, there are other visible areas related to these directions that need change with a view to improving the confidence in politics and democracy, as well as the electoral process, for example, providing more accountable, transparent and timely information on policy funding. This attention to such simple but practical issues should not be particularly difficult to become a reality for the time we live. Much of what we have mentioned so far is linked to an analysis of the reasons for the decline in the percentage of the mainstream votes and the rise of new initiatives, mainly represented by young people.

Regardless of whether they arise as anti-establishment initiatives, or other names, they are essentially a means of inter-generational protests, but also between the need for change and adaptation to life and society that goes unhearsed and often find the way to ‘ were obviously in need of a name, which of course should take the form of a “brand or patent” to break the political market.

The fall in votes for key parties reflects the “decolorization” of politics. People do not “inherit” the vote from their parents, as has happened in many cases that have returned to parts of the ODIHR mission reports.

While large parties are shrinking in form and substance, we must remember that they are still big organisms, but with many “viruses”. The massive voter still strongly supports them in the three most recent administrative elections in WB6 countries, the outcomes were major parties. For some voters, their decision it was a choice between a desire for stability versus the urge to express their disenchantment (through a startup party).

For the good fortune of new initiatives, there is no cure for healing for the infection of old-fashioned parties (although they have plenty of young’s) that follow only the policy of confrontation, violence, and the status quo of the mentality that was forcibly rejected in the 1990s by young people of that time. Although voters are increasingly lacking in trust in politics, it has not yet become a major problem for democracy and it’s not yet an attack on its core. This current voter’s behavior reflects not only the political behavior induced by the big parties, but also the general cynicism of the times when we live and a lack of Russo “Civil Contract’s” based on mutual contractual relationship between the government and society, but this “Civil Contract“ not implemented by governments is already seen as a bad thing that needs to be changed.

We, civil society, currently see ourselves like a community that serves as a grim frame of the model we are living and this is perceived to be a worse time than previous historical periods. The democratic life of today’s voters’ contrasts with that of the early 1990s when voters turned to the hope that followed the progressists and the liberals and were optimistic that a democratic government would affect important changes for them and society.

But if the election process needs to become credible, the former (right and left) parties of the 1990s should free up space for new social and political organizations, as they are now in unfavorable positions to win the upcoming administrative election, regardless of whether this will happen in these elections or in those after them.  The new political leadership that is being formatted naturally can be an antidote to cynicism, though in contemporary politics this may be part-time.  But an example of what’s going to happen in WB6 countries is the case of SYRIZA in Greece, which was raised as a serious electoral force when the country risked the bankruptcy. People liked it and tied the trust with this organization, and the same was on the other side, SYRIZA tied her fate with them.

Voters want a politically framed and agreed political framework within which political arguments are developed and, where possible, consensus towards some of the opportunities that they look forward to.


[1] Magaloni Beatriz – Stanford University – The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule

Share this post

Leave a Reply