Originally posted by amannion
It's hard to blame them really, with the drawn out process you have for choosing your political candidates. They've got to talk about something I guess ...
Much easier to use a process like ours. The party decides their candidates however they damn well like. The people vote for them in the general election - only once. Saves a lot of hassle - and a lot of money.
I have seen many different political systems, and what I have come to learn is that although the vote is focused on and widely praised as the pillar of democracy, it is not. Most elections in most countries are little more than a choice between two rather undesirable candidates that were picked out by a relatively small group of people for reasons other than good leadership ability in the candidates.
What really marks a good democracy is what comes after the election. In most parts of Africa, it is typical for a president to say "I have the mandate of the people to do what I want".
In Africa, we elect our leaders 'into power'. In more democratic nations they elect their leaders 'into office.'
A typical African leader rules the country - he doesn't simply do a job that he is employed to do.
The key difference is the amount of control people have over a leaders actions once he is elected.
I get the feeling that the British prime minister has less power in his country than the US president does in his. In my opinion that makes Britain more democratic.