now to part 2 of the new kind of government.
in the first part, i talked about iraq specifically, but now i want to address the rest of the world. there is a increasingly powerful economic (and political) trend called globalization occuring in our world today. basically, this means interaction on a global level, rather than simply country level. this is impacting the way that we view nearly everything. but i want to look at one of the negative side effects of globalization that could be made positive possibly through a new kind of government.
what if governments were broken down with two houses (like house of Lords and Commons or representatives and senate, etc), and instead of basing the number of seats purely upon population size, etc, we were to base it upon ethnicity as well.
before yall bite my head off, let’s seriously think through this. if one house were to have a quota of seats for various ethnic groups within the population, then there might be some racial tension that is resolved. we might find a more open and free society as a result of this integration. and long term, i think we might find that countries were getting alone better with one another as well.
now, the reason this has to do with globalization is that with the increase of interaction comes the increase of the “clash of civilizations”. various groups that never had to work together before are suddenly thrown together. now the average american worker resents the indian who has an outsourced job. or whatever the scenario may be. but certainly resistance and hatred and “clash” happens.
if there were a quota in one of the houses, each people group would feel more secure (especially the minorities, of course). and often (if not always) it is fear that leads to this clash, not security. if someone feels secure, they dont need to push someone else down. they are sure they will be taken care of. so if a cosmopolitan country like america were to base say the senate upon a ethnic quota, there might be some incredible healing that might occur.
now, i am not stupid, this will probably never happen, and certainly not in my lifetime, but why not?
Filed under: Culture, Personal, Politics | Tagged: america, checks and balances, federalism, globalization, government, racial tension
“if there were a quota in one of the houses, each people group would feel more secure (especially the minorities, of course).”
The move would be counter-productive. Instead of leading to more security, it would lead to further Balkanization among the population. Plus, why stop at ethnicity? What about Gender? Religion? Sexuality? And much much more.
Furthermore, at what point will we tell voters who they can vote for, lest we have too many whites, blacks, or Catholic elected? I would hate to be the one who had to search out the atheist lesbian Asian candidate required to fill the quota for atheist lesbian Asian candidates. LoL
totaltrans
i think you gave a typical “conservative” response. and i dont mean to insult you, but i think you put very little true strutiny to the question at hand. have you ever been to iraq? have you ever been to a race riot? have you ever been to afghanistan? were you there when MLK spoke?
i didnt say segregate the group. that is what happened in the balkans and what happens in USA. we naturally segregate as humans and govt boundaries make things worse, often.
just as a interesting note, USA most diverse and most unified (in the past). iraq most diverse and most unified (until saddam hussein and then invasion). compared with countries like saudi arabia, no diversity, all arab and all muslim. or like north korea no diversity all korean (and only north at that). these countries are violent and proliferate violence everywhere else as well.
so to write diversity (even a forced temporary one) off may also be holding to ideologies that are no longer valid in our globalizing world.
and one final example, the military. in the military, like it or not, all members have to work with members of other ethnicities, upbringings, and religions. and compared with the rest of culture, there are more interracial and interreligious friendships in the military. also, there is no fighting or crime between various groups. there is crime, but it doesnt have anything to do with sects.
but remember the military requires force to get these people to work together, but once they work together, they find that each other arent so bad. trust me, i have seen it all the time.
in the same way, quotas used to be the bain of society in my mind, but i have seen that the ideology to which i so strictly held wasnt truly “right” and it didnt always “work”. why hold on?
peter