Fucked up election systems everywhere. If there are basically only two parties by the way the counting works, then the those two parties can do the "approval of candidates" internally.
Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists).
Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.
There is a huge difference. The US has a stated procedure on how to reform the election process. It’s outlined in the constitution and has been invoked several times in the history of the republic.
The idea that all flawed systems are equally flawed is a really weak argument and one that is used by oppressive forces to further their purposes.
right, there’s a huge difference between “difficult” in the sense of getting enough support from voters in the country to make a change in the system according to the previously agreed process, and “difficult” in the sense of the government/ system using force to prevent the change
You are right in the US you can say that. But showing how the govt is criminally scheming against the people gets you in jail just as much. Ask Assange.
> This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
I wanted to say they are similar in resisting reform. Sorry if that was not clear.
They're not though. Assange would be tried in a court with codified laws that are written by elected representatives of the people. He'd have a right to legal representation of his choice. He'd be able to call witnesses to defend him. A jury could decide that even if he's entirely guilty of the crime, that actually the law on the books is incorrect and therefore nullify it. If he gets an unfair trial, he can appeal and get another one with a different judge and different jury. If it turns out that the conviction was correct given the laws, and the juries are pretty much fine with the laws as written, he still can make an argument to the very philosophical principles of a democracy in the Supreme Court and be vindicated. All of these are imperfect, yes, but they are imperfect in dramatically different ways than an authoritarian theocratic regime is imperfect.
"There is a concept of law and punishment" is where the similarity ends. To observe that a system resists reform is the same observation as "there is a system." That is what they do. All the systems that have no resistance to reform aren't systems. They don't exist!
This is the theory. In execution, we see the same sort of railroading here as there. US makes less fuss about expression, but is wholly as devoted to curtailing what could affect fortunes of plutocrats.
Assange is far from an isolated instance, but it takes only one to prove the case. Assange is perhaps not the best choice, since he illustrates UK's failings more than US's, even if US is the one driving. We might take Manning as a local example, with their heavy use of isolation as torture.
But we have very many more than one, though it is hard to keep more than a few in the public mind.
Chelsea Manning was court-martialed. Military personnel, very reasonably, have a different set of rights and duties than a normal citizen. We can have a conversation about certain punishments or mechanisms and whether they're humane, but an even more basic feature of our system than whether X case was correct or Y punishment is just, is the fact that we can and we do have lively, 24/7 conversations about this stuff. And they do actually change! Usually for the better! We've made immense progress on many of these issues over the last 200 years.
An edge case in one system having some vague similarities to the base case in another system indicates that they are dramatically different, not similar.
This distinction all seemed pretty academic to me too until I actually went to one of these theocratic countries - one way more liberal than Iran - and asked a local for their thoughts on [local authority figure]. The reaction was absolutely chilling. They didn't go into a rant about all the horrible abuses of power and how evil this leader is, how another country has it better, etc. They instead clammed up, looked around, and ended the conversation immediately.
No, "convicted leaker of state secrets got treated poorly" does not in any way substantiate "we see the same sort of railroading."
Have you been to Iran? I have, many times. I will tell you a little secret: in that part of the world, Iran is considered Germany (stable, rules-based, strong-govt).
Compared to Canada, the US is like India: huge difference between poor and rich, gated communities everywhere...
Yes compared to actual failed states Iran is pretty stable (though may be changing). Compared to some of the wealthiest places on earth (all wealth built under the US security umbrella), the U.S. has some problems.
Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists).
Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.