Saturday, January 10, 2009

VETO VS DEMOCRACY

In this post I only quotes the things associated with the two words above. Please use your sense and read carefully to find and feel the fundamental differences from it.

== VETO ==
According to Wikipedia: "A veto, Latin for "I FORBID" is used to denote that a certain party has the right to stop unilaterally a certain piece of legislation. In practice, the veto can be ABSOLUTE (as in the U.N. Security Council, whose permanent members can block any resolution). In the United Nations Security Council, the five permanent members (the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, France and the United Kingdom) have veto power in substantive matters, though NOT in procedural ones. If any of these countries votes against a proposal, it is REJECTED, even if all of the other member countries vote in FAVOUR."

According to Global Policy Forum: "The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) ENJOY the privilege of veto power. This power has been intensely controversial since the drafting of the UN Charter in 1945. The United States and Russia would probably NOT ACCEPTED the creation of the United Nations WITHOUT the veto privilege. Fifty years later, the debate on the existence and use of the veto continues, reinvigorated by many cases of veto-threat as well as actual veto use."

== DEMOCRACY ==
According to Democracy Building, the key elements of democracy are:
  • Guarantee of basic HUMAN RIGHTS to EVERY INDIVIDUAL person vis-à-vis the state and its authorities as well as vis-à-vis any social groups (especially religious institutions) and vis-à-vis other persons
  • Separation of Powers between the institutions of the state
  • Freedom of opinion, speech, press and massmedia
  • Religious liberty
  • General and EQUAL RIGHT to vote (one person, one vote)
  • Good Governance (focus on public interest and absence of corruption)
U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Could you find the basic differences between the two words above? Whether the veto right still relevance in present era and future? Whatever your answer, yes or no, please give your opinion with the polite words. Personally I will answer "no", how with you?

= Postscript =
You may also see the answer from my friend D'Ellis in his post entitled "In a Brother's Keeping".

84 comments:

  1. Interesting question, Tikno. I don't want to pre-empt later discussion, I am very interested to find what your readers think, so will keep this initial comment short.

    The present arrangements are certainly not democratic and represent history. On the surface, there are a number of not necessarily exlusive options.

    One option is to start moving towards some form of global democracy. How might we do this?

    A second option, and this is the normal focus, is to accept for the present that nation states of one form or another are the norm, and that global government therefore depends upon finding some way of better managing relations between states.

    So far as the security council is concerned, present discussion focuses on the addition of new permanent (veto wielding) members.

    What other options are there? Widen council membership and give all members - permanent and elected - a veto?

    Do away with the veto?

    Just a start.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know anything about politic..


    I'm so confuse about Israel and Palestina..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wah mas, terus terang saya awam masalah politik.

    Mau koment, nanti malah gak relevan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. posting nya masalh politik..... manusia biasa ga ngerti bos.... yang taunya masalah komputer doank......


    wkwkwkwkwkwkw

    tapi bahasanya inggrisnya keren juga nih....

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think veto is not relevant to be implemented now. It has the opposite meaning with democrazy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I go for Global Democracy, though we all know that it is not that easy to make this happen.
    Let there be peace in Gaza.

    ReplyDelete
  7. i've been carefully reading your post, i think u try to say on democratization process within UN body. So far, pure democracy is terminological game, a mere theories with several pre-conditions to be practiced.
    Since the addition member in UNSC (United Nation Security Council)into several countries, in which recently Indonesia was among them, those Big 5 has to thinks twice to pass any veto, in order to maintain prestige in global politics.
    "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
    this really not applicable to all nations, thus, the application of democracy in the failed state for example, will leads into bloodshed and various atrocities from the regime. But i think, democracy is about ongoing process within all components of state..that include, people, strong civil society institution, check and balance, free media..so forth..
    nice post..
    regard

    ReplyDelete
  8. Both "Veto policy" in UN and democracy is part of history, Everthing changes ... may be at the future both will not exist anymore, it will depend on the world situation ahead .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Jim Belshaw,
    First, I agree with what you said that the veto right is represent history. The question is whether still relevant with current century and future, where the issue of equality in gender, human rights, and justice always buzzed globally. I think no, because NO acceptance from the acceptable majority voices is violates democracy spirit. The Constitution of Indonesia (UUD 1945) has been amended (revised) in order to adjust to the present conditions.

    Maybe, it's better to ask the veto holder, whether they will veto a draft that will be proposed. If yes, oh... you already get the final outcome. Stop the process because only a waste of many people time, energy, and cost.

    My option is, give the equal right to all member to vote and let see the figures on the board which it represent the voice of the world.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear The Fachia, I also think like you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Erik, you welcome.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Manusia Biasa, thanks.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Seno, you are true.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Grace, maybe you follows the first option from Jim Belshaw. But he still left the question: "How might we do this?"
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Mama Hilda,
    Bloody events of the implementation of democracy is not because democracy itself, but I think because of the rejection of the democratic system. There are many forms of democracy that can be selected. The most important is not eliminate its spirit.

    Btw, are you agree with veto?
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Seezqo, your comment very general and complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dear tikno, bloody event following the implementation of democracy usually occurred in the new state, i want to say that democracy is not something gifted, but it is serious process that come out of society.
    have u ever read about state and society in the middle east, where in that particular system of society, to talk about democracy is impossible. winston churchil himself once said, that democracy is not the best form of government.
    my opinion on veto power..i'm not agree on that...

    ReplyDelete
  11. i agree that veto right among permanent members of UNSC has to be abolished. this right doesn't fit to the current international issues, which is more complex

    the veto right of these privilege countries often disrupt the peace making process that is supposedly being controlled by the UN as a peace making body

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting but what is the qaulification to vote? Are all nations equal? Should a nation ruled by a despot have the same rights to vote as a viable democracy? How could Indonesia support a communist nation have a vote when it outlaws communists parties at home?

    Essentially Global democracy as such is unworkable, nice dream but not reality..perhaps time for a real league of Democracies that demand certain obligations before joining rather than the mish mash of nations, tyrants and fools that make up the current UN.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Veto, as like as wearing underwear in our head: Not relevant and embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi! Care to x-link? I have added you already in my list. Have a nice day! http://carlos-ideas.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my opinion, VETO simply means you are powerful and you dont need anybody telling you what to do, so when you have the power to veto,to me then democracy is not working in that particular scenario at all.

    If you have democracy,you dont need veto,am i right?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mas Tikno, would you please explain why your answer is no? It's clear for me that those two words has an opposite meaning. Veto is the legitimation for those 5 countries to rule the world. Obviously this is not a democracy practice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I choose democracy, bro
    Because, I think it's better option that to be proven during the time

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tikno...

    Are you suggesting that a veto power is undemocratic and therefore not appropriate for the 21st Century?

    Since the Indonesian Constitution was amended to explicitly remove any veto power from the president, it is fair to say that there is a considerable imbalance between the powers of the government, the executive, and the judiciary.

    My personal opinion is that the Indonesian President needs a veto power and it must be reinstated. Further checks and balances can be put in place that ensuring that the veto power is not absolute. For example, a veto can be overridden where the DPR gets 2/3 of the members to do so.

    The issue of the UNSC and the absolute veto powers of the permanent members is an interesting issue but it is ultimately restricted to the UNSC.

    Let's face it, in a perfectly cynical way the idea of abolishing the veto power is likely to be vetoed ;) In the sense that I cannot see the idea gaining any legs through the UNGA as the permanent members will bring much pressure to bare on those who advocate for such change (they are not permanent members for no reason).

    It is also a reflection of international relations at the time and the understanding of state sovereignty.

    For those that talk about democracy and desire to see it, then the question is point out the perfect democracy.

    Unfortunately, democracy is an imperfect animal and the idea of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" reflects the ideal of elected representative government, which is not always democratic in the sense that Lincoln envisaged.

    Nevertheless, getting back to your question. The USA is generally considered to be a functioning democracy and the president retains a veto power.

    However, my answer depends on whether your question refers to democratically elected government or whether it refers to only the UNSC.

    I believe that the veto power is an important and integral one. You can decide which question that answers :D

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Mama Hilda,
    In the Middle East, where a country using monarchy system and which supreme power is lodged in an individual, tend to keep the "status quo". This is a sensitive issue about decentralizing of power, which it is the spirit of democracy.
    Indeed not the best form of government, but could you find other form better than democracy that could regulate public affairs? The need of their heart.
    Thank you for the vote "not agree"
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Nita,
    From your comments, I can conclude "not agree".
    Perhaps you like to share a sample of the use of veto that disrupt the peace making process. Thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Icymar, thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Oigal,
    Interesting question!
    I think, a nation ruled by a despot should not have the rights to vote as a viable democracy on UN, because the voice from a despot could be categorized as personal voice. But I think if UN approves their membership, then he should have the right to vote. Just like presidential election and see the final statistic. Perhaps membership qualification should be considered, like your question above.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Kopdang, thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Carlos, thank you very much. Have a nice day.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Eugene, you are right.
    Psst... I'm glad to see you again.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Prihandoko, you may read my replies to Jim. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Baka Kelana, thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Anthony Harman, thanks for sharing of your comment.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Rob Baiton,
    First, thanks you have shared your opinion here. I like your mind about the veto right of a President which it not absolute.

    I'm very thank you to let me choose for your answers.
    Okay, my question refers to the UNSC. I am very interests of your opinion, because as I know you have the law background. Your answer will increase my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tikno, I question the very need for the UN. Why is it necessary now?

    Assuming that it is necessary for providing employment for a lot of bureaucrats from many countries and to offer opportunities for some leaders to hold forth, the veto power is as meaningless as the UN itself.

    The UN has done nothing, I repeat nothing in the last few decades that can justify its existence. I will be very happy to be proved wrong. The purpose of its creation has never once been achieved.

    Democracy as thought by you is another pipe dream, which at least in my life time, I do not visualize coming true.

    This is however a very interesting debate and I hope that Jim will respond to my negativism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Rummuser.
    You seem utterly ignoring all action from the United Nations.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The EU - originally consisting of six well founded democracies - has been struggling for over half a century now to become a real democratic entity - and failed till now (for instance: each member state had/has a veto right on several issues).

    On a global scale it is even much more complicated and difficult. Actually democracy in the the context of the UN is quite utopian. Most of the member states aren't even democratically organized themselves.

    The Veto right is only one of the flaws of that UN system - an institution that is necessary an of which I hope it will last and improve of course.

    ReplyDelete
  23. in the demcracy we have to separate between institution and the state, and freedom for the pople. But the using of VEto in UN, is also means absolute. The state which have a veto rights can blog many of resolution and make a decision. Veto also can limited the freedom of other country to expand its role in UN. the existence of UN also decided by the states who have a veto rights.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Ramana,
    Okay, you may say another pipe dream, but directly presidential elections in various countries, including the voting, at least already the spirit of democracy.
    You are very pessimist, my friend.

    Btw, I also hope that Jim Belshaw will respond to your comment.
    Generally, seem no one have an interest to his options above. Maybe Jim would like to give the reason why he offers the options above.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Colson,
    Like you said that there is only one of the flaw. Maybe you are true, but uncomfortable for many. If you know it why not think for improvement. Although difficult but still have the hope.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Niar,
    Could you give more explanation to how Veto also can limited the freedom of other country to expand its role in UN.
    Are you agree with veto right?
    -----------------------------------

    *** NOTE ***
    However, this discussion only represent a personal thoughts and using the freedom of speak principle. DO NOT using any impolite words!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Some people believe that war only results from the failure of diplomacy.

    When it comes to democracy, theory differs from practice. International law is an example where the idea can look different on paper that it is executed in practice. Self-interest largely runs the political world in modern times. The time may come when that will change.

    The historic veto powers have also been economic forces to reckon with. As the global economy has been changing, people have hypothesized countries like China, India and/or Brazil deserve veto power. They have growing populations and growing economic, military and scientific expertise. And yet, perhaps the reason for the veto is changing and may oneday no longer be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that UN Security Council must be reformed. New emerging countries must be involved in making decision. Veto mechanism often used to defend most powerful country's interests.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello truth is that you have an excellent blog, but above all extremely interesting issues, believe that you visit often to read what you publish

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am not one who follow politic too close. I do know that I believe in Democracy. And the meaning of the word VETO to me it just means not right now!

    Giovanna Garcia

    ReplyDelete
  29. interesting discussion here, tikno. i'm learning a lot from you and your readers. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Liara Covert,
    I also hope like you, that is one day no longer be necessary.
    Perhaps, considering to economic power will result injustice feeling to the third countries. The question is, should "superior" have more than "inferior".
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Dedy W. Sanusi,
    Generally I agree with you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Zalra,
    Thank you very much and welcome.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Giovanna Garcia,
    It's nice that you believe in Democracy, but I could not understand of what you mean for "not right now!"
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Acey,
    I believe my reader has read your comment, and their comments have many value for me to learn and perhaps also to all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  31. english smua, ga' mudeng awak

    ReplyDelete
  32. Great, very nice discussion. U have a good idea bro Tikno.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I mean there are many participant here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. veto untuk demokrasi adalah baik, tapi menyangkut masalah keamanan dan kemanusiaan saya pikir harus berangkat dengan kerangka berpikir yang sama, demi kebaikan dan kemaslahatan kemanusiaan, saya kira yang memveto untuk hak hidup dan aman, adalah penjahat itu sendiri.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you believe US have right to veto because the country is fully democracy, how about when they install dictator like Shah in Iran?

    How about China and pre-Gorbachev USSR? They were not democracy and yet they had veto rights.

    The answer was because Those big five was winner of second world war. Unfortunately, most of today UN member wasn't exist when it was formed. Dutch acknowledge Indonesia sovereignity in 1949 while Israel declare its independence in 1948.

    There was also a sad history of League of Nations found by US President's idea. Unfortunately, the same US president, Woodrow Wilson failed to assure the congress how League of Nations were important.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Veto vs democracy? that sounds in contrast to what people thought about the government once the president in charge exercise his veto power. But in any circumstances, I know that the leader who exercise this power have his own reason for the benefit of it's people. Whatever that reasons are, being subject to our rulers, it is our job to sustain them as long as it is for the righteous cause.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Democracy is governance for and by the people of a free country. The electorate (or citizens who are qualified to vote) elect their leaders who will take the reigns of government. Inherent in this principle of democracy is the doctrine of check and balances. The executive (either the President or the Prime Minister) can veto an act of legislature (Congress) but Congress has the right to overthrow the veto by a majority vote (what the majority is, is dependent on the definition of the constitution of the country). The veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council smack of powerplay and total disregard for the sentiments of the majority. It is an offspring of the Cold War era and must be abolished, otherwise the Security Council will just be a paper tiger as it is now. Thanks for your post. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  38. i'd come to know about veto when learned about UN in 6th grade. never agree with "veto" which exists in a huge world organization such as UN.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Budi Tarihoran, welcome to you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Seno, thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Suryaden,
    I do not think if Veto is a form of crime. That is legal. The problem is, if still relevant in the 21st century.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Kunderemp,
    as I know that France had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany in WW II. Are you see the relevance of Veto in the 21th century.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear White Shadow,
    Perhaps I agree with you, as long as for the righteous cause, but who can give a guarantee?
    Would you like to share one or two examples of the Veto benefit? Whether democracy system is not enough to cover it?
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Mel Avila Alarilla,
    Maybe the idea of no absolute Veto is a better choice. God bless.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Yendoel, I agree with your thought.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am not very good with politics but I gues global democracy is good.

    ReplyDelete
  41. i think a little bit of bith is fine

    ReplyDelete
  42. Submit your Blog to our Newest PR 3 Web Directory for Bloggers. Visit KeywordDir.info

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nice politics....
    Visit mine....

    http://www.generalpartin.org/

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nice blog....
    Visit mine....

    http://www.collectibleguild.org/

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm interest with U.S. president Abraham Lincolndefined democracy as: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
    And I think Veto is not relevant with democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear Chubskulit, thank for sharing your opinion.
    -------------------------------------
    Dear Joops, maybe. Thank you.
    -------------------------------------
    Dear Keyword,
    Thank you very much for the invitation. I will try.
    -------------------------------------
    Dear My Blog, thank you and sure will visit your blog.
    -------------------------------------
    Dear Yopan Prihadi, I also thinking like you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. kalo soal politik saya gak ngerti hehe... mau koment ntar malah salah...

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't think that democracy is a perfect system, if I can not say it useless system.
    Veto and Vote sound identical to me.
    democracy is a product to sell
    and veto is one of their marketing tool.
    I think I don't like the seller.
    So I won't Buy it!
    :P

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear Lyla, welcome to you.
    ------------------

    Dear Bhart,
    If so, what kind of system that you think?

    ReplyDelete
  50. i've always been against this veto system, it might be relevant in post-WW II though. we've been witnessing how those countries use their veto power to block any kind of resolution which against their interest. for instance, china might be against any kind of decision to sanction zimbabwe since it's selling gun there.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That was an interesting,informative post.

    Have a good weekend :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hello!
    It is interested very much.
    Please link to this site.
    http://love-marriage-lover-couple.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi Tikno,

    I believe 'veto' is still relevant nowadays, since the privilege holders are the top 5 most powerful countries of the world either in economy, politics or social culture.

    Anyway is there any specific event you want to refer to? I don't understand why some commenters refer this post to Israel-Palestine War?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dear Bung Tobing, that's one of the ugliness of Veto.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Sameera, thank you.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Misa, thank you. You also have an interesting blog about love and marriage.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Devi,
    Are you using the jungle law? Where the strong is the King.
    Have you read comment from Bung Tobing? There is interests in it.
    In general, have you feels that Veto violates democracy spirit?

    ReplyDelete
  55. betul mas..i follow your though aja deh..politic is out of my expertise..kunjungan balik

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's an interesting question, although I find the comparison between a power set up (UN) and a representative Democracy (US) to be disingenuous.

    A veto in the UN has a very different meaning than a veto in the US democratic system (Here, a veto can be overturned in our system of checks and balances).

    I would prefer to see the UN operate in a more democratic way, offering votes, and not vetos.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This is very thought provoking and I will come back tomorrow with a more detailed reply as it is very late here but I wanted to say I admire your mode of thinking in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi there... want to change your favicon? find out how.. Have a nice tuesday!

    ReplyDelete
  59. I agree with both veto and democracy as a political views point, at the opposite I really disagree with all of conclusion arise from both that irrational and destroying humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dear Anok,
    Although between them have a different meaning, but the most important is "Veto" (absolute) could be said has violates the spirit of democracy (majority / togetherness spirit).

    According to the comment from Jim Belshaw above, the present arrangements are certainly not democratic and represent history.

    I agree with you "offering votes, and not vetos." Thank you, Anok.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Jenai,
    Thank you. I am also want to know about the "detail" from your mind, and perhaps all readers here.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Hapi, thanks.
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Munawar,
    I also dislike all the the things that irrational and destroying humanity. Could you more detail?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I have no Idea about this Issue.. Thanks for coming bro

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think vetos are still necessary in this day and age. The romans invested tribunes with the power of veto to protect the interests of the plebians angainst that of the patricians. The veto if used wisely provides for protection against the dictatorship of the majority and mitigates radical change. Now, if there was a single world government and without regional disparities you may have a point but until that day...

    ReplyDelete
  64. Veto ‡ Democracy, Veto = just to show, who's the strong and weak.

    Kunjungan balik nih, thanks for coming to http://www.sapta.web.id

    ReplyDelete
  65. Kalo di Indonesia rasanya lebih cocok yang demokrasi ya?

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dear Latqueire, thanks for coming.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Pj,
    I am very interested to your worries about "protection against the dictatorship of the majority and mitigates radical change".
    Very good thinking.

    About the single world government as like you said above, if also having "Veto", I think will brings the opportunity of the greatly dictator. I think using law (constitution) to prevent majority superior.
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Erwin Sapta,
    Thank you for your comment.
    --------------------------
    Dear Edi Psw, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I would pray that the UN will abolish the using of veto powers entirely, which means that each nation has equal voice and decisions are then made based on majority voices. I think that is the only way to create peace in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Check out my blog. I got you tagged...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dear Dilasari Hidayat,
    I also hope like that, thank you for your comment.
    -------------------------------------
    Dear WhiteShadow,
    I have see it and will keep it in my heart forever. Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Pada dasarnya "the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, France and the United Kingdom", adalah negara adi kuasa karena memang mereka mewarisi itu turun temurun sejak pemimpin mereka yang terdahulu. Sehingga ini merupakan tradisi yang menguntungkan bagi pihak mereka.

    Sedangkan Demokrasi berlaku bagi negara-negara yang sedang berkembang dan negara maju. Sehingga hukum rimba tetap berlanjut walau di zaman modern ini.

    Walaupun demikian apapun yang terjadi di dunia nyata baik "Veto atau Demokrasi", kita semua sudah kalah dengan suatu dunia besar yang tak berbatas wilayahnya, yaitu INTERNET (Dunia Maya) yang punya power super luar biasa. Tanpa ada pihak-pihak yang mampu membendung kekuasaannya.

    Sehingga apa artinya suatu kekaisaran jika tidak seutuhnya benar-benar mengusai dunia!!!
    I thing live is like a game.

    Saya percaya setiap orang punya wilayah kemerdekaan masing-masing, walaupun itu hanya merdeka di dalam hati/bathin.
    Salam merdeka buat semua..

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dear Abdul Wahab Kiak,
    Maybe you right.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think, American always thought that they were right, maybe a half god. It make them often confronted by the other country. They have no tolerate to the other world opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  75. AnonymousMay 27, 2010

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hi democracy is the answer cause anarchy only bring destruction ,so i prefer democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I happened to stop by here through browsing. It seems a very thought-provoking post. Well, as the democracy wave has been widespread nowaday no doubt I say the right of veto is something that is already outdated aka old fashioned. Moreover the veto right was often misused aka subjective. As I see on the image above one can beat majority votes. It's utterly against the democracy spirit which it often preached by the big 5 even the UN.

    Amir

    ReplyDelete
  78. Veto Vs Democracy = Menang jadi abu, kalah jadi arang.

    Saya pikir nilai/ harga dari Veto / Democracy bukanlah pada ego masing-masing kelompok, melainkan bagaimana peran masing-masing pihak untuk memberikan manfaat positif bagi semua warga bumi.

    Salam damai.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @ Anonymous,
    Yes I also think that is an old fashioned thing in present century.

    Usaha Mesin,
    Itu baik asalkan bisa diterapkan berdasarkan motivasi yang tulus. Namun dunia politik tetap kejam.

    ReplyDelete

Comment policy : Spam comments or sounds like advertisement will be deleted without notice. Do not hesitate to write the dissent or critical comments.