Originally posted by Melvin Tan:
Hi,
I think the both of you are writing the same point of view from different angles.
If I interprete correctly, he is of the opinion that the electorate has a choice but chose the "misinformed" choice and your statement is a continuation of his, saying that the "misinformed" choice was made for various reasons.
However, let's take the recent-infamous case of Burma or Myanmar. Despite even worse political conditions, the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi defeated the miltary-backed SPDC at the polls, which led to the latter using its might to disregard the results.
Regards
No, the distinction is clear. His argument was succinct and straightforward : the despots remain in power because the electorate have voted for them.
I was trying to drive home the point he had not considered the fact that the whole electoral process had been so obscenely manipulated that anyone with a rational mind wouldn't find it hard to see you've got a bunch of despots in power simply because they have manipulated the rules of the game to such an extent that it'd be impossibly unrealistic for them to be ousted at the polls.
The difference between this regime and the one in Burma draws little parallel - quite simply, you don't compare a thief with a robber and argue on the basis that the thief should be forgiven because the severity of his crime is negligible (viewed in relative context of the robber's crimes), do you? If that's the route to take, any regime on earth compared with North Korea would be a paradise.