in assuming an alternative way of running things would be worse -scargill, berlsconi etc you seem to be advocating sticking with the status quo. there is no reason why-especially if all of us take a more active role in the democratic process -that things could not be improved. for example, following the mess of the reforms to our NHS -we could have doctors standing for election against that bill's main architects in our next election. often, people seem to assume that say a presidential system would inevitably lead to some finished politician like prescott, scargill or bliar in post -but it doesn't have to be that way. given a choice between that lot and say steven fry, jo brand or joanna lumley -who would get your vote?
there are many things wrong with the current system - the left will always seek to change them, the right to maintain -conserve- the system. even when it is 'conservatives' -(here and the usa) who are engaged in radical change -selling up and discarding all the things generations have fought for to make life a little better for ourselves.
i'd guess you relate to scargill in a similar way to my response to thatcher - but in reality, now, we should ignore them and deal with the damage that is currently being done against the wishes of up to 99% of the world's population. i am still waiting for anyone outside the 1% to say why they continue to support the system that works against their own interests.