- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- world@lemmy.world
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- world@lemmy.world
- europe@feddit.de
The most likely government to emerge - most analysts predict - will be a coalition including a hard-right nationalist party for the first time in Spain since the death of fascist dictator Francisco Franco in 1975.
More left-leaning Spaniards are frantically texting contacts, urging them to make sure to vote - despite the heat and it being holiday time for many - to “stop the fascists” in their tracks.
The rhetoric this election season has been toxic, with voters becoming increasingly polarised.
It’s a fight over values, traditions and about what being Spanish should mean in 2023.
This kind of heated identity debate isn’t peculiar to Spain. Think of Italy, France, Brazil or the post-Trumpian debate in the US.
100% agreed. To me personally, it shakes the foundation of democracy as we know it. Especially, since voter(s) appear to be so easily manipulated. These processes are hollowing out the meaning of " democratically installed Gvements ".
From another point of view, one could argue that this is exactly how democracy works, and this is what people want. But I wonder how come propagandist rhetoric haven’t been condemned in elections? Not sure I understand all that though.
Added, a recent example; Just consider the Brexit elections and how most UK constituents were duped by politicians to opt out. Now, in 2023 they talk about Regrexit, as a majority would now cast a different vote. The consequences of decisions where people are somehow “mislead”, often prove costly and severe.
I think this is essentially because the social media and political theatre optimises for and favours popularity rather than truthfulness and scientific evidence seeking. Democracy decides by what people vote - and people don’t vote scientifically. If we look at things like prediction markets for instance, we get much better answers for complex issues, because people have skin in the game and loose their money if they’re wrong. In current politics, it’s ironically more risky and damaging to say an unpopular, uncomfortable but necessary true statement than to simply say a soothing, popular and unnecessary and unproductive lie. After all, lying doesn’t cost anything, because society memory of you isn’t perfectly logical and unbiquitous.
How does one bring market prediction like incentives into politics, I wonder. How to cure populism?