Party charismatic? No Thanks! And they're watching Until today I tried again to be born and raised in a secular, democratic society, in which sovereignty, as stated in our Constitution, belongs to the people who exercise in the manner and limits established by law.
In a representative democracy, the exercise of popular sovereignty is reduced substantially by the election of parliamentarians, who, at election time, have a real project or a policy direction, for which voters elect a representative rather than another. This happens more informed if the applicant is a citizen who is rooted in the land and therefore has direct relations with citizens.
time ago, when it is said, was the First Republic, were the parties to draw up lists of those who were to be elected. These were the expression, however, land and the people elect those who believed more consistent with their own interests or political ideals.
in Parliament is not always the majority party that was found could carry out its program, because they often had to reach an agreement with other parties. This was not seen as a betrayal, but realism was considered an effective political work, as long as the MPs elected to remain within the limits of the program and principles with which they were presented to the voters, who were with the reasons, as often happened.
Over time the number of parties multiplied by making it difficult to form coalitions that would form the Government, which is rightly considered to put a minimum of votes for a party came into Parliament, a serious sacrifice the democratic, partly justified by the efficiency of Parliament.
At the same time, however, removed the preference vote, in practice the voters can choose a project policy among those offered (two or three?) can not choose who should evaluate the implementation of such plan or its effect.
Because today is establishing a new conception of politics, the party's charismatic, or more precisely, the charismatic leader.
The concept of "charismatic leader" I am concerned for the maintenance of democracy. Me back to back centuries when the kings and princes were elected by God to lead his flock (charisma divine gift =).
Even if I wanted to take the term charisma in the more secular meaning of the term "capacity to have a strong influence on others" I feel relieved my concern. Of course, in groups There are people who emerge capacity of knowledge, organization, administration, and often become leaders of the groups, but among the many who will emerge at the national level?
Who will get in all the lists? Who will have the means of mass communication? Who will include the party symbol in its name? Or who actually, as a leader, will make available to state your skills?
modestly and democratically I think it should be left to voters to choose their own leaders, representatives of their interests and their ideals. This may not be raising mystically through the media a charismatic leader, but through the free popular election of regional representatives to Parliament.
