Reaper, very well said. But the former East Germans can do something about their current system of government, that they couldn't before. They can simply leave and go somewhere more to their liking.
That's a big difference.
I had promised myself that I would refrain from a rebuttal, but here we are.
I would like to touch on two points, the quote above and a comment from Harke The Boeotarch. I'll start with the non-quoted one.
Harke, you said that when democracy goes astray it is relatively easy to get things running again by making changes. I would suggest that this isn't always the case. Not to belabour a point, but does 1932 Germany ring any bells? Democracy is just as corruptible a system as communism, as shown by example.
Granted, most people would say a modern democracy would not be complancent with the facist style of racist government implimented under a democratically elected regime, as they were when a certain man was elected leader, but look at some conditions:
Facist Germans often blamed their problems on foreigners and those who were different from them; they also faced major economic problems at the time that was accompanied by hyperinflation.
Now look at today: The economy is always on a day-by-day basis, and there are some people in a number of countries with the same answer: Illegal immigrants are behind this, or this group of people or that group of people; and there are those who believe these claims.
I'm not saying we're seeing a rise of facism in Nazi style in Western Democracies, but what I am saying is that under the right circumstances it becomes impossible to fix ANY government system, regardless of it being a democracy or a dictatorship.
Furthermore, democracies are inherently harder to fix. During World War II, Canada suspended elections in regards ro the event happening around the world. When the war was over, the government allowed elections to take place again, but there was always the possibility that they could not have.
Democracies allow for loopholes and advantageous politicians, regardless of belief, will always find ways to exploit these loopholes. As such, no political system is easly fixed as the power structure will always allow the government to find ways to keep the people as isolated from power as they can be without losing their grip on power.
I think I've addressed that point well enough to move on to the next one, the one I've quoted.
jackoroe, I have to say, it was your comment that convinced me to reply to this thread again.
I'm not sure what world view your statement comes from, but it is one that is incomprehensible to me. The idea that if someone doesn't like the system and state they're in, they should simply leave and find a place more suitable.
The fact of the matter is, to use your own point against you, is that if these people have the right to move to another state, then they also have the right to say things were better in the past. Just because a person disagrees with the system now, doesn't mean they should have to flee their country to a place that already has those ideals.
Its their right as a citizen to attempt to make those changes within their country provided it follows along a legal course.
Of course, I'm also an advocate of the idea that any changes to a nation should reflect the best interest of all citizens. Most would argue a return to communism would not be in this interest, some would.
But I do think it is perhaps a tad, and excuse the word, arrogant to say that if they don't like it, they can get out. If you're going to advocate the benefits of democracy, you need to advocate them all and not just pick and choose.
