Neither did I. It was one of the reasons why it is just as problematic accepting Bush as an undemocratically elected leader of any other country.
Show me a better example from Europe of a truly democratically elected head of state (or prime minister) that really functions as head of state (France?). In parliamentary systems *nobody* except the Parliament gets to vote to for the Prime Minister; the people simply vote for representatives, based on educated guesses as to who will be the Prime Minister depending on which party wins the most seats. When no party wins a majority of the seats, coalitions are formed in which the people play *no part at all.* In the United States the people really do have a meaningful opportunity to vote for President in addition to voting for their Congressmen.
The point is that it's ridiculous to claim that Bush, as opposed to European leaders, and certainly as opposed to tyrants in other places, wasn't "democratically elected." He was just as "democratically elected" as any world leader I can think of.
- 15/01/2003 03:08:35 PM
1 Views
*NM*
- 15/01/2003 06:50:05 PM
1 Views
*NM*
- 16/01/2003 01:54:32 AM
1 Views