On the right we see the prohibition of drugs, for catholic reasons.
On the left we see the will to legalize hallucinogens, for freedom and peace.
The center tries to find a viable compromise.
On the left we have the advocates of a strong control of the economic sector,
also for climate protection and to promote ecological and sustainable behavior.
On the right we see economic freedoms and the maximization of commercial profits.
And with richness health costs are less of a concern on the right
while with poorness a strong welfare state is crucial, as the left advocates it.
On the right we see strong religious believes and submission to a dogma
while on the left the spirituality is more influenced by atheism and individual religion.
With that we see on the left more social freedoms
while the right calls for homophobia and the prohibition of abortion.
In the middle we can observe the implementation of good infrastructure,
waste management and transport.
While the right and left are both inclined to wait it out in corruption.
A leader of the right is "usually" a sociopath, a populist with few true friends.
On the left the leaders are "often" psychopaths, who refuse accountability
and in-debt the state by handing out money to their many friends.
In the middle the leaders tend to be normal and boring.
On the left is the search for free flow of goods in order to lower costs and increase choice,
while the right wants to levy duty to protect the national champions.
It's not so clear though because it's actually the liberal right,
who wants free flow of goods, international trade
and the left that wants to protect the national nature and tradition,
no wait, the traditionalists are on the right.
It's all a bit complicated because yes,
there doesn't exist just one bi-polarity in this world
between capitalist and communist world.
There is a multitude of bi-polarities
( of which the contradiction between presidential and directorial executive style one is ),
who together create a complex multipolar reality.
In such a livingly complicated world,
where the just middle rarely known is in advance,
you might be able to understand better why it can be intelligent
to have a government composed with all parties of a nation,
a directorial executive or a federal council,
rather than to be ruled under a presidential system
once by one side and once by the other side
and never get stability under the different presidents,
not to say underrepresentation of minorities and such envies
to leave the country
or indulge in violent rebellionist movements.
Indeed, in a presidential system,
the Swiss Ticinesi would have never been able to propose a president in Switzerland.
Maybe once or twice in the 17o years of modern history of our confederation.
Maybe never. Just minister positions.
In a collegial government as we know it with its seven members
there is regularly a representative from the small Italian part of Switzerland
and such - through our executive workings -
that minority councilor becomes as well
from time to time
honorable president of our confederation for a year.
Equality. Freedom. Fraternity.
...
...
23-november-2o19
