Little Hawk,

My post was in response to comments made by two other contributers.

The first - "Who elected Alistair Campbell?"

Meaningless question - that particular individual was appointed to that position no election required, on the other hand, those who govern the UK and dictate policy and law are ALL ELECTED by democratic process. They are advised in this by the country's Civil Service - they are not elected and are in the job full-time irrespective of which government is elected.

The second post, made very much tongue-in-cheek by Guest Karl Rove, I merely pointed out the process involved in making the decision that sent British troops into Iraq.

As for giving the impression of being a "naive putz", your entire post above gives me exactly the same impression of you. For the following reasons:

"I don't call a government that ignores the obvious sentiments of its own populace (a clear majority of them, I mean) to be "democratic" in its practices...though it may have been elected under supposedly democratic auspices."

Now who exactly determines what these "obvious sentiments" are? Who provides the information upon which those sentiments are based? The media (the Press? television? radio?), various pressure groups exploiting the media? Taking into account that the populace has a hard enough time balancing their own personal economy and running their own lives. You would seem to advocate a system whereby, this populace, is expected to keep itself abreast of a myriad of extremely complex issues and then dictate to their government what policy should be - Utterly ridiculous and completely naive.

"The fact is, most parties in so-called democracies lie outrageously to the public to get elected, slander their opponents in an unscrupulous manner, engage in utterly puerile squabbling with their opponents before and after being elected, and betray most of the promises they made in order to get elected."

That little bird IS POLITICS. Worst offenders in the above set up are the opposition parties campaigning to get into power. They have the luxury of not being the party responsible for government in the run up to the election and can promise anything. Once elected they become the party responsible for government they are then hit with the reality of dealing with actual problems. That is when they realise what can be done and what can't.

"They institute policies totally against the will of their own public, because they do not serve that public....they serve special interests...such as major corporations, banks, the military, the secret police (like the CIA), and a covey of incredibly rich people."

I would like you to give me just one example of this. In my own experience I do not believe I have ever come across a situation where a democratically elected government has instituted any policy that it's electorate was totally against. I have also never come across a single issue where the entire populace was in agreement.

"That's not democracy. It is the facade of a velvet, recyclable dictatorship posing as a democracy by changing their chosen figureheads at somewhat regular intervals through bogus elections that only the rich can finance and only the rich can win. Everyone else loses...every time...including you, I figure."

Well sorry to disappoint you LH - as democracy goes - that is the best you are going to get for the time being. The odd thing about it is, that if the present systems are so biased, and that everyone else loses (i.e. everyone except the rich). How is it that standards of living continue to improve, life expectancy has improved, the amazing advances that have been made in a whole variety fields the vast majority benefiting mankind.

By all means, berate, and belittle, the efforts of others, who are actually responsible for solving the problems of the world, whether it be in terms of domestic or international politics, but please do not try and tell me that things are getting progressively worse, when every indication indicates otherwise.