Democratic example too?
In just over a month’s time, Ecuador holds its General Election. It, by all accounts, is rich in democracy with no less than 15 candidates running for the presidency. The country can also expect high turnout as it is law to vote; something which has been suggested in the USA and the UK. Ecuadorians, incedently, cannot believe that anyone would not vote out of choice or apathy.
You also don’t need a great deal of money to run the campaign. Cherie Blair spent 8000 GBP on her hair alone during the 2005 UK General election. In Ecuador, you would be able to launch a successful campaign with that sum.
The figure needed is just $10,000 (5,700 GBP), so anyone who has worked hard for 10 years or so could in fact run for office. A friend of mine here earns that in half a year, but any talk of presidency doen't intrest.
Despite this positive outlook on the electoral process and discovering that you don’t need to have won the lottery to run, it’s rather confusing to hear that people are turned off by the whole process.
Ecuador is corrupt from the political powers downwards, I was told by a resident here. “Candidates take money from large companies or rich donors in return for a position in government.”
I subsequently explained that this is what all politicians do when they seek power and referred to Tony Blair’s “cash for peerages” scandal that has only just been released in the last few months.
Money, however, goes further here than it does in developed western cultures. Your purse of $10,000 can afford you large spaces to put your name, or now more popular is your image. Candidates give free spades with their faces on the head, and put up posters in schools the size of walls with their picture on it too.
This is perhaps a little step too far; school is a place for children who obviously can’t vote. Giving spades to workers is one thing, but with a caption is mere propaganda and comparable to the Nazi and Stalinist regimes where same techniques were used.
Having said that, there is a ‘myth’ amongst westerners that their system is better, less corrupt and cleaner in general. When you closely analyse the methods to pull voters in and compare them to the UK and other democracies, there are glaring similarities. The truth is here, democracy is thriving more than in the US (with more people being interested in politics) , who preach democracy to the world. There are more candidates, less money is needed to run and, albeit forced, everybody votes.
You also don’t need a great deal of money to run the campaign. Cherie Blair spent 8000 GBP on her hair alone during the 2005 UK General election. In Ecuador, you would be able to launch a successful campaign with that sum.
The figure needed is just $10,000 (5,700 GBP), so anyone who has worked hard for 10 years or so could in fact run for office. A friend of mine here earns that in half a year, but any talk of presidency doen't intrest.
Despite this positive outlook on the electoral process and discovering that you don’t need to have won the lottery to run, it’s rather confusing to hear that people are turned off by the whole process.
Ecuador is corrupt from the political powers downwards, I was told by a resident here. “Candidates take money from large companies or rich donors in return for a position in government.”
I subsequently explained that this is what all politicians do when they seek power and referred to Tony Blair’s “cash for peerages” scandal that has only just been released in the last few months.
Money, however, goes further here than it does in developed western cultures. Your purse of $10,000 can afford you large spaces to put your name, or now more popular is your image. Candidates give free spades with their faces on the head, and put up posters in schools the size of walls with their picture on it too.
This is perhaps a little step too far; school is a place for children who obviously can’t vote. Giving spades to workers is one thing, but with a caption is mere propaganda and comparable to the Nazi and Stalinist regimes where same techniques were used.
Having said that, there is a ‘myth’ amongst westerners that their system is better, less corrupt and cleaner in general. When you closely analyse the methods to pull voters in and compare them to the UK and other democracies, there are glaring similarities. The truth is here, democracy is thriving more than in the US (with more people being interested in politics) , who preach democracy to the world. There are more candidates, less money is needed to run and, albeit forced, everybody votes.
posted by Tom Nicolson at 1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home