title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority.... | |
The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Th... | |
It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consi... | |
The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid. A terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid.... | |
The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pre... | |
Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region... | |
The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine. Palestine is very dependent on foreign aid, the PNA is dependent on aid for 50% of its budget and per head the Palestinians are the biggest recipients of aid in the world. [1] The loss of funding would therefore destabilise both the Palestinian National A... | |
Western donors should support fair government The west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective w... | |
Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. There is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the... | |
Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes. Cutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saud... | |
This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had ... | |
Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lac... | |
Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. I... | |
No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was ... | |
Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could h... | |
Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding... | |
Negotiation saves lives Almost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In ... | |
In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while ne... | |
Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When t... | |
There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for t... | |
Negotiation encourages moderation In every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of ... | |
Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the ... | |
It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secu... | |
A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will... | |
Negotiation encourages more terrorism There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as... | |
Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place Terrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This i... | |
Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them Any group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be... | |
Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists Negotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next c... | |
The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the b... | |
Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened Governments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citiz... | |
Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the s... | |
There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thu... | |
There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money go... | |
Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 m... | |
What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are... | |
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set ... | |
Abolishing earmarks will save money Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can... | |
Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, an... | |
All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. I... | |
Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a repres... | |
Earmarks erode trust in the government The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in ord... | |
Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for... | |
Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending prop... | |
The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1] [1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’ | |
Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well... | |
Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voi... | |
Earmarks help to create congressional stability In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media at... | |
Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are pl... | |
A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1] [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010 | |
Earmarks are part of the power of the purse Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriatio... | |
Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as a... | |
Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contrib... | |
Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Be... | |
Coalition government is a good thing. Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which ar... | |
There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What ... | |
PR produces fairer results First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general el... | |
As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for th... | |
If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s sa... | |
PR increases political engagement which benefits society. PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused ... | |
Safe seats will be reduced. All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote... | |
On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the ele... | |
A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK us... | |
PR creates an unfair balance of power. Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parl... | |
Extremist parties will rise under PR. A democracy means that everybody’s view should be valued equally. However much some people might dislike one party, other people still have the right to vote for them. If extremist parties do gain seats, then it shows the government needs to do more to address concerns. Moreover t... | |
The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important. Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representa... | |
PR decreases political engagement. PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their mani... | |
PR leads to weaker government. Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments... | |
A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’).... | |
Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner ... | |
In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars. 1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have... | |
A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have rec... | |
A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democr... | |
Necessary to restore peace to the country The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democra... | |
In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is... | |
The argument that the military is restoring democracy from a democracy makes no sense. Only once a democracy has been turned into an autocracy can it be said to be restoring democracy. So long as the system is still democratic then there should be constitutional ways to replace an increasingly authoritarian government;... | |
A neutral party Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nati... | |
Restoring democracy A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure de... | |
Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in powe... | |
Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining maj... | |
A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy Military intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may j... | |
The army is not the best institution to run a country If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other c... | |
The response must be democratic It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the elect... | |
Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup ... | |
I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this num... | |
Hold politicians to account For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are you... | |
The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly. | |
Have your say Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference... | |
Civic duty Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it ... | |
Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’... | |
The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system whe... | |
The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very l... | |
No right to complain We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education po... | |
We don’t just vote for ourselves You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States ... | |
Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in ... | |
This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elect... | |
Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure t... | |
Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote In both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore... | |
Politicians will simply ignore how we vote Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had n... | |
My vote does not count In safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at ... | |
We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.