Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently even the Ukrainian people think Yanukovich was a better choice than all others due to him winning the elections, even against Tymoshenko who failed miserably as prime minister.
You know it appears Mr. Yanukovich has not been very good under the circumstances in quelling this 'revolution'. Absolutely nothing seems to be working. Not sure if he has political calculations in simply letting the violence rise and then letting them all have it arguing that he must do it to save Ukraine. If he is a good politician he will recognize who and what the oppostion is and deal with it accordingly. Soemthing tells me a poltician like himself believes 'negotiation' is a weakness. And plus his Eastern neigbor is watching this all very very carefully. Mr. Y is under the microscope and I'd say feeling the pressure.
And regarding the opposition. One fellows was asked why he fights. He said he didn't want to be a 'slave'. hmmm...ws he mugging for the cameras? I don't know. He seemed genuine. I wojld imagine all have their reasons. Another saw his friend killed. Chalk up another bad memory to add to the perceived injustices. Sad to say every bullet the flies is could be a ticket to a coffin for somebody and perhaps everybody.
And if someone the protesters do not support wins, are they going to protest again and demand yet more elections? This is the issue I have with the protesters; if there were no elections then fine, topple the gov, but since there are elections, the protesters are free to field anyone they want. Issue is, who the protesters field do not win.
If the elections are fair and these mafia guys are brought to justice, the protestors will accept that. And they did suck it up for three years, the presidental elections were in 2010, the protests started in late November 2013.
And an example from my country: our government is completely paralyzed and unable to function, but everything else works as usual, the government isn't corrupt or misusing their power (actually they exercise no power), so we're just sucking it up and waiting for the 2015 elections. In Ukraine the situation is a lot different from here. If the problems were minor in Ukraine, these protests would've never happened.
Apparently you have no idea how to debate, and you seem just a shill for the protesters; you present not one single counter argument to any of my points, and reason is that my points are correct. You do not believe in a democratic process, but rather the old USSR style oppression where the minority get to choose who rules over the majority.
You don't have understanding about situation in post-soviet countries absolutelly (or trying to show yourself this way) that is why I'm trying to express you that there is no "democratic process" in Ukraine after 2010 like there is no "democratic process" in Russia, in Kazachstan, in Belarus.
Protesters are trying to return this "democratic process" back. And I'm sure it will be returned.
You don't have understanding about situation in post-soviet countries absolutelly (or trying to show yourself this way) that is why I'm trying to express you that there is no "democratic process" in Ukraine after 2010 like there is no "democratic process" in Russia, in Kazachstan, in Belarus.
Protesters are trying to return this "democratic process" back. And I'm sure it will be returned.
And again, in civilized countries, people use the election process to remove leaders; Ukrainian protesters do not want to do this, they do not want to wait for 2015 elections, they want to install their own non-elected leader into power. You state they will hold elections, but tell me, what happens if a person the protesters do not like is elected like Yanukovich was?
You make some good points being logical and all, but who told you Ukraine as it is today is a "civilized" country where disputes can be resolved by holding elections somewhere in 2015? People are afraid that until that time, once again, they will be adjusted go Russia against their will, and this is obviously not what the majority wants.
Besides, I'm not sure Yanukovich came to power because the majority of people voted for him. Seems that he and Putin had an agenda right from scratch.
Another poster mentioned Belarus for a reason, where a dictator rules the country. And, why, look who rules Russia! Now, they want to take over Ukraine. I hope, the people of Ukraine send them a big "Fu*k You!"
In Kiev, people stand in line for food. All this is very sad, is likely to be full-blown civil war.
The people of Kiev are standing in lines and waiting their turns to shop at grocery stores and markets. They're also standing in line at times in the Maidan, for donated sandwiches and other food.
They are not starving, as you imply.
Don't you mean "revolution", instead of "civil war"?
I agree that the situation is extremely sad, and it would have been avoidable, had Yanukovich listened to the will of the people and agreed to return the country to the 2004 constitution, which limited the president's powers (by creating a better balance of power) - instead of listening to Putin and his lackeys.
It's democracy. If the elected government turns out to be a corrupted and criminal one, the populace has the right to overthrow it. Radical example: Obama reinstates slavery. You're not allowed to do anything because you cast your vote earlier? Governments and presidents fall all the time. In the 30's a government didn't on average last one year in Finland, and they don't last more than that in Italy at the moment.
Slavery is against the US Constitution, tell me, what Ukrainian constitutional amendment did Yankuvich violate with his trade stance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
If the majority don't like the government or president, and so for it loses the popular support, the government must step down. A democratic government has the mandate to rule only for so long as it has popular support. Fundamental principles of representative democracy.
US Congress has an under 20% approval rating; do you think the entire Congress of the US should step down now? Obama has an under 50% approval rating; since the majority do not approve Obama, do you think Obama should step down?
You have a very strange idea of what democracy is; with your views, it will never work as the second people disagree, you think the gov should step down, your views will just cause perpetual chaos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
You can always criticize the government and every time you disagree with it doesn't allow you to overthrow it, but if the public opinion turns en masse against it, it has the right to demand new elections. An undemocratic coup is not democracy, but expressing your opinions and fighting for your ideals is. And i remind you, negotiations have been held between the opposition and government. Without the protests, that wouldn't had happened.
You did not answer my question; what if new elections vote in someone the protesters do not like? Are they still going to protest?
Negotiations are being held to stop the protest, not regarding the trade agreements, two different things. The gov is trying to negotiate to end the violence, the protesters are being rather obtuse and forcing the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
If your view of democracy is that you cast your vote once in 4 years and then you should shut up and suck it up, it's no real democracy, it's a dictatorship with a deadline.
If your view of a democracy is to overthrow the government by force every time people disagree with something, that is not a real democracy, that is perpetual chaos and the installing of a non-elected government, because the large minority will keep overthrowing the gov until a person they like gets installed.
Example, the ADA in the US is unpopular, as is Congress, as is Obama; but there is not a full blown attempt to overthrow the US gov, because IN A CIVILIZED society, there are elections, and the elections give the people a chance to remove those who they disagree with.
The people of Kiev are standing in lines and waiting their turns to shop at grocery stores and markets. They're also standing in line at times in the Maidan, for donated sandwiches and other food.
They are not starving, as you imply.
Don't you mean "revolution", instead of "civil war"?
I agree that the situation is extremely sad, and it would have been avoidable, had Yanukovich listened to the will of the people and agreed to return the country to the 2004 constitution, which limited the president's powers (by creating a better balance of power) - instead of listening to Putin and his lackeys.
Civil War because the protesters do not represent the whole of Ukraine, in case people forgot, Yanukovich was elected to his position.
It is not the "will of the people", it is the will of a minority who did not win the 2010 election. This is the equivalent of the TEA Party trying to overthrow Obama.
Yanukovich tried to change people's will in 2003. He put into the jail his main opponent Yulia Timoshenko. He changed constitution to return to president republic instead of parliamentary republic. Ukraine is very similar to Russia and Belarus. Are there not enough to understand that 2010 election was the last free election in Ukraine ? It is offten in third-world countries when in free election people elect a dictator for next fifty years. And this is not "election system in place".
I expected revolution in 2015 but Yanukovich led the country to revolution now.
No, in 2010 the Ukrainian supreme court ruled the 2004 amendments were unconstitutional, thus reversing the amendments put in place in 2004, Yanukovich did not go and do anything. Right or wrong decision? WHo knows and is a moot point because the elections are in 2015, and Ukraine is free to vote for someone else besides Yanukovich. problem is, the protesters do not have enough support for their candidate to win, so they want their candidate to become president by force.
There would have been no revolution or nothing in 2015; there would have been an election, and who ever wins, well, wins. If there are widespread issues with fraud and such, as determined by neutral monitors, then yes, i expect protests, but if not, too bad, field a better candidate next time.
If your view of a democracy is to overthrow the government by force every time people disagree with something...
In addition,
I hope you are agree that "democracy" and "democratic process" is not the election only.
Freedom of speach, freedom of information on TV is the just as importaint as the election.
After 2010 the criticism of government has disappeared from all TV channels except one that was switched off in all country on February 18 when police tried to clear maidan again. How do you think it is correspond to democratic process ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
