Which representatives would you vote for?

 

 We are once again in the time of resounding, glorious elections, when the people chose their representatives. Of course, the selection of people's representatives is always based on how well the candidates presented their programs to the wider masses. Of course, the selection of representatives is also based on what suits the broad masses of voters in these programs.

Crowds of voters tend to like hearing stories and promises of their success, prosperity and peace. They are less willing to hear about other people's problems. This was also evident in this year's elections in the USA. A lot of people want to have their own interests and well-being in the first place in their country. Only after their needs are met would they deal with other problems and the well-being of others.

Of course, this election story is also conditioned by the existing situation in the country.

When a country lives in peace with other countries, it may think about ensuring peace for others as well. Of course, if she doesn't endanger herself or put herself in danger. And this despite the fact that they may not have an agreement with this country on mutual security.

If the citizens of that country live in general prosperity, there is a greater chance that they will also donate something to some poor countries. To take away from your own hungry mouths and give to the poor is still considered foolishness.

In short, if the popular opinion holds that foreigners get more than their own citizens from the country into which they pay, such representatives usually lose the next election. Likewise, in the case when their state representatives deal more with foreign problems than with the problems of their own citizens. At that time, people no longer feel a sense of belonging to such a country, and especially not to such representatives, and the principle "we are the first in line, then the second" is increasingly asserted. The greater the economic or security crisis in the country, the more this principle is enforced.

In fact, such so-called egocentric expectations of the popular masses from their representatives and, of course, from their country are not at all unusual and appear throughout the history of mankind. It is the principle of democratic societies and also in kingdoms that the ruler should first feed his people and ensure their security, and only then should he feed others and ensure their security.

Komentarji

Objavite komentar

Priljubljene objave iz tega spletnega dnevnika

Is BRICKS a threat to the West?

   The artificially created BRICKS currency has been around since 2006. Its function is designed and defined as an attempt to establish a universal currency for international business, which will help BRICKS members to be more secure against the so-called influence of the West. The first group of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa was joined by the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia in all these years until October 2024. Saudi Arabia is also mentioned. The purpose of this year's meeting of BRICS members was also to increase the number of members, as more than 30 countries were expected to attend the meeting, and they tried to inspire them to accept BRICS in international trade by showing the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) or a measure of economic activity, or one of the indicators of the country's economic development. According to the BRICKS alliance, the G7 (USA, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany) are facing tough times. T...
Preberite več

Politika in draginja

Obeti ali napovedi za letošnje leto spet niso najboljši kot se večkrat pokaže v vsakdanjem življenju. Politični  vrhovi posameznih tako imenovanih razvitih držav so več kot očitno pozabili, da je eden od pogojev za uspešno poslovanje, ki se odraža tudi v naši vsakodnevni košarici za preživetje, pravzaprav obdobje miru, ne pa vojne. Vojno stanje ali vojna nevarnost prinaša namreč dodatne obremenitve državljanov v obrambne namene. Samo vojno stanje pomeni uničevanje, ne samo življenj, ampak tudi premoženja in seveda tudi onemogočeno poslovanje. In seveda tudi manj pritoka denarja v državni proračun in večje državne izdatke. Tako se rušilna in uničevalna narava vojnega stanja projicira v rušilno in uničevalno moč gospodarstva in s tem tudi našega vsakdana. Vojna pomeni pomanjkanje dobrin in s tem tudi draginjo že osnovnih življenjskih potrebščin zaradi uničenja tovarn in polj. Vojna pomeni draga bivališča, saj jih je veliko ali celo večina poškodovanih ali uničenih. Vojna pomeni tudi ...
Preberite več