[Reftsheette]

If the elections were fair, the media not government controlled, and the lack of a credible opposition was not the result of government interference or intimidation, then there is no reason to believe that such a situation was harmful to democracy.

[Swidemaiskikemu]

In federal level, that sounds like USA 1868 - 1931. Not literally every election though, ruling party had it's splits once in a while.

[JohnMaltczevitch]

Do you think democracy could survive in a country if . . . . . .

Yes

[genna]

As for on topic, ditto Gepap.


Long term consequences would probably be greater voter apathy.

[Jifyicyfuhpop]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
* Aivo½so senses that aneeshm is aiming for a blow against Social Democracy in Sweden /me says Aivo½so senses wrong

[seperalem]

This poll in invalid.

[codespokerbonus]

IN latin american countries, in which you often have at least 3 different political parties with radically different ideas ideas who can win ( + new political parties ), the newspapers say that that is bad, because whoever wins does the complete opposite of what the previous president did, and in that way the country can never progress.

They say a system like in first world countries, with only 2 political parties with little difference and big consensus is better.

I think stability is better than having a revolution every 10 years

[hotelhyatt]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Silly Aivo½so, Sweden isn't muslim....yet Said by Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government
We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us

[bixlewlyimila]

Originally posted by Sandman


Got a source that isn't one of your lot's blogs? No. I don't read Swedish.

So, I sent an email to the guy's office. I'll let you know how it turns out.

[amelveEnromma]

Look at Mexico, where one party won forever, but not in the last two elections. Once people sensed that reelecting that party no longer benefited them as much as it hurt, the alternatives were there.

[mymnduccete]

Originally posted by Lonestar


No. I don't read Swedish.

So, I sent an email to the guy's office. I'll let you know how it turns out. Got a response:

Dear Mr. Bucher

Thank you for your e-mail. On behalf of Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality, I will give you the following information.

The utterance in question has to be seen in its proper context. What the minister said must not be understood in a literal sense but from a principle point of view. For the Swedish Government, the task of strengthening human rights and respect for them has high priority and Mr. Orback pointed out that you should drive the question of human rights in the way you wished it should be driven if you yourself were in a minority.

Yours sincerely

Jan Persson

Managment Support and Administration Division
Ministry of Justice
E-mail: registrator@justice.ministry.se So, to answer the question, yes he did.

[AOE6q4bu]

One party ruled mexico from 192?-2000.

[Malinguenem]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
IN latin american countries, in which you often have at least 3 different political parties with radically different ideas ideas who can win ( + new political parties ), the newspapers say that that is bad, because whoever wins does the complete opposite of what the previous president did, and in that way the country can never progress. There is something to this. Investors and companies like to have order and consistancy because if you are going to invest hundreds of millions into a new car factory or similiar type of business then you want radical changes. Especially since it may take 30 years for them to make a net profit off of their intial investment. If you invest and 5 years later a looney like Morales or Chavez comes in then everything can get screwed up by the radical new laws. Even if there aren't radical changes to the law then many investors still avoid the whole region due to the fear that it might happen.

That sucks for the countries like Chile and Uruguay who are doing everything right but who still get tarred as being high risk countries due to being in Latin America.

[Antelpebabe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

He did put his foot in the mouth.

He didn't mean that Muslims would become a majority in Sweden in the forseeable future. like most of the e-mail reply, this is bs spin

We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us WHEN, not IF. It's not hypothetical.

[Piediahef]

Originally posted by Lonestar
So, to answer the question, yes he did. Golly. Although it could be construed as a misphrased hypothetical, it's still stupid.