is one of those things that we repeat here often, but nothing is free. Or in economics (who ask the American taxpayer, who takes all this fall saving banks in crisis), or politics. As is customary in France, the Socialist Party has spent the past smacks two weeks, enjoying the wonderful and pleasant primary election system.
's late, I have dreams and it seems that Citigroup is about to kick the bucket (talking about spending American taxpayer money, I have to checkout again), so I will refer to an old article about selection of party leaders political starting point. Basically, the PSF is attempting to implement a system that seems right in theory but is very awkward in practice when applied in a European match.
The primary work-in fact, indispensable-in games basically very little structured as American parties. The parties here are more of an ideological umbrella that an organized group in the European style, simplifying a bit, are a coalition of individuals with individual ambitions with political ideas vaguely similar. Depending on the region and sub-area will see more structured and organized parties (in the cities, the parties are bureaucracies that would make Pepe Blanco mourn for joy), but at national level are a confederation of ambitions. The U.S. primaries are not solving a dispute between organized groups, these basically do not exist.
French political parties are, in what may be the closest thing individualistic disorder we see in America we can find in Europe. Are relatively weak and personalistic organizations with a membership not too large (even compared to Spain). Still, political parties are relatively sorted live under appalling electoral law, have a structure, organization, militants and factions, and are an added richer and deeper than the atomized American parties. A current trend or a French party is usually a bar on the worship leader of that faction, yes, but is also a group of people who support the organization, not just vote him when he plays. What
I mean by this? A direct primary system in which the winner takes all is not necessarily a good idea. It is the political equivalent of that after a general election all who have voted for the losing party had to give all his property to the winners, the losing faction has a real power base (they are respected mayors, deputies with experience, presidents and autonomous hard-working group and council secretaries who know their district and gain support), and is basically absurd to think that they will be silent and obey without question forever.
The RFP, without going any further, Esperanza Aguirre can not fail to be president and stop applying regional the program that led to his position, if it contradicts Rajoy brings to heave. Their heads are the voters, not the party leadership. If the game had been primary and had defeated Rajoy Aguirre, the president can no longer do their work in the community, and this may contradict Rajoy. Likewise if Borrell after winning the primaries was working and saying things that contradicted or made impossible the work of the regional unit (less decentralization, goat PSC, transfers, goat for Aragon) is not expected that the militants and leaders from the rest of lobotomicen party to please.
Is the primary system in parties organized an impossibility? Not at all but has very serious problems. If not used more often is largely because it gives a strong competitive advantage to the party at the polls, not too many European matches to take the risk of divisions involved.
Of course, the PSF being what it is, nor are they expected to emerge contradictions and conflicts to begin to become involved in post-primary cakes. Royal, he enters his courts. The French political class is, as usual, autism, stubborn, dull, spoiled and charming.
0 comments:
Post a Comment