an accurate map to show political systesm

Redbeard

Banned
I really think this should be kept simple - we need just three colours:

Blue: us
Red: them
Yellow: yet to be decided

If it has to be very simple, we really don't need the last.

Regards :p

Steffen Redbeard
 
Malaysia (and singapore though obviously it's not visible) shouldn't be classified as multi-party democracies but rather as limited democracies.
 
With regards to constitutional monarchies, why not just put the symbol for the monarchies (the crown) in the states which are democratic (multi-party or otherwise) or rather in the states which are not traditional monarchies? No need to keep putting in new colours.
 
As for China, though many (or just a vocal few) have argued for it not to be coloured communist red, the fact is that it is still the Chinese Communist Party which runs the show. This map is to show political systems, correct? Not necessarily economic. So putting a fascist symbol on China (which is coloured as a one-party state) tells us nothing about who is in power. Why not colour China red and put the fascist symbol on it (though I still don't see the reasoning behind labelling China as "fascist"), or colour it yellow for the one party state and place the communist yellow star symbol on it? For Laos, whilst it is true that it recently revised its constitution to omit communism, the same party that ran officially communist Laos still runs the country today, and a number "people's democratic" parties or "people's democracies" were in essence communist or communist-like. So why not just colour it yellow for the one party state, whilst putting the communist symbol on it?
 
Following Redbeard's advice. Here is the only map you'll ever need...

Blue = Us
Pink = Them

Ironicmap.gif
 
Sean Swaby said:
As for China, though many (or just a vocal few) have argued for it not to be coloured communist red, the fact is that it is still the Chinese Communist Party which runs the show. This map is to show political systems, correct?

Because calling a dog a cat doesn't make it one. :D Although China is ruled by a party that is officially named the Communist Party it is in reality not Communist at all.
 
Brilliantlight said:
Because calling a dog a cat doesn't make it one. :D Although China is ruled by a party that is officially named the Communist Party it is in reality not Communist at all.

True, but that (calling a dog a cat) is from a third person perspective, in this case it is the party calling itself so and actually (more or less) having been so in the recent past. Granted the National Socialists were more fascist than socialists, but then they were a rather exceptional case, and I believe they actually espoused fascism in word and deed (only more extreme and with lots of race-hate blended in), did they not? Here we have a party that calls itself communist, puts up communist slogans and still has communist policies in some parts of the country, but for the most part has adopted capitalism.
Besides, who are we to say a dog is a "dog"? They might refer to themselves as wolves ;)
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
I feel that the basic premise of this makes sense, but then agree with the comments that the subtleties mark the political bias of the poster rather than anything objective

The SYSTEM is what is being distingished here

You cannot have both separate colours for constitutional monarchy and for multi-party democracy. A constitutional monarchy IS a multi-party democracy, which is why its CONSTITUTIONAL

To further try to define states as conservative, or social orientated seems to be going down a different road than electorial system anyway. After all, the point of democracy is that its more or less choice of the people. The individual national histories, religions that are dominant, etc will determine much on top of that

So, in the end you come down to :-

multi-party democracy
- where there is a real chance of more than one side winning

limited democracy
- where the ruiling party usually wins, but democratic things exist

one-party state
- where there is only one party and the state is effectively a republic

traditional monarchy
- where there may be political parties but their existence is less relevant because power remains at the centre with the hereditary head of state

uncertain / none
- for states like Somalia



Thus, by this definintion

- Iran is a limited democracy
- China is a one-party state
- Saudi Arabia is a traditional monarchy
- Britain is a multi-party democracy

Grey Wolf
 
Sean Swaby said:
True, but that (calling a dog a cat) is from a third person perspective, in this case it is the party calling itself so and actually (more or less) having been so in the recent past. Granted the National Socialists were more fascist than socialists, but then they were a rather exceptional case, and I believe they actually espoused fascism in word and deed (only more extreme and with lots of race-hate blended in), did they not? Here we have a party that calls itself communist, puts up communist slogans and still has communist policies in some parts of the country, but for the most part has adopted capitalism.
Besides, who are we to say a dog is a "dog"? They might refer to themselves as wolves ;)

I tend to go defacto instead of dejure in things. For example Taiwan is dejure part of China but defacto independent, so I always consider Taiwan seperate from China.
 
Top