In my country there are several political parties. Some of them have skilled people who will probably be able to handle the aftermath of the economical crisis well. But I think that many of them are hypocrites and also think that they make laws in favor of their special clientele. Their politics is biased in favor of lobby groups and as far as I can tell, they are making laws that delimit civil rights using dangers that don't exist as a subterfuge.
There is another political party which is pacifist, very social and ethically/morally integer to my perspective. But they
re a chaotic pile of idealists and they have no experience in governing. And I think they'll totally fail to make any working laws that will help the economy to recover. (OK, just my opinion. I may be pessimistic about both sides. But that's not the subject of this question)
The Question is: Which party should I vote for in the next election? The one I believe to be most competent about boosting the economy? Or the one that matches my views of ethics?
Your question shows the importance of recognizing that democracy is not just about voting. What are you doing between elections to join with others who share your concerns and make your collective voice part of the political discourse?
Sounds to me like what you really want (and so would I, in your place) is for the party that represents an ethical social vision more or less like yours to learn how to do its job better. You don't have to wait until election time to join that party (or an organization connected with it) and work for the changes you think it needs to make, or to write letters to newspapers and magazines and blogs on websites that members of that party read. As far as voting, it's always best to vote according to your conscience, your highest and most hopeful vision, rather than your fears.
For one thing, the more people are politically motivated by our fears, the more the political situation degrades. The more we encourage each other to remain hopeful about what can be accomplished, the more possible it becomes. Who among the so-called realists thought it was possible for the peoples of North Africa to overthrow their corrupt, brutal, autocratic, Western-bolstered, dynastic dictators?
And for another thing, having a chance - or five chances - to govern and fail and learn and grow from failure might be the only way for any ethically principled party to develop the necessary competence.
The governing party is making laws to promote low-payment jobs. They are opposing general minimum wages and they make laws to cut welfare on people who do not apply for these jobs. So a lot of people will be working but poor, while companies will make maximum bargain. The stock markets are fine, we're doing a lot of export out of Germany. But wealth just doesn't "trickle down". Prices for food, clothes and rental flats increase but wages don't.
On the other hand, the more chaotic leftist demands higher wages for everyone, free lunch for poor kids at schools and everything. But then, this party might totally crash our economy by scaring away investors.
>The one I believe to be most competent about boosting the economy?
In what way, and for what percentage of the population? If more people get jobs, don't lose their homes (as is happening in the USA) then I'd go with that one...to me, politics isn't about ethics, it's about impact on the voting populace.
I think you're right. Moving my as* and doing it myself (or, at least the part of it that I can do) is the only alternative that will really work. *sigh* I should have found that out by myself. But whining and bitching on my sofa is so much more comfortable. It just won't get me anywhere... or will it? :-/
What if you can't have both in one party? Should I try forming my own party? *sigh* That's going to be a helluva lot of work. And I don't want to govern my country. :-(
Keep your sofa. You might still need it when you've gotten more involved. ;)
I meant both -- competence and ethnics -- are important.
Hm. But I have only one vote. I can't vote for two parties.