- Here’s the continuation of my critique of a parliamentary dum-dum’s ignorant, baseless, non-factual claims.
A politically clueless founder (or dear fuhrer) of an absurd pseudo-political group that has been advocating parliamentarism posted the following on Facebook:
Hilarious! Perhaps he’s talking about his own “UNICORN” country. Obviously he’s off his meds again.
Mr. Dumdum naively, stupidly rejects what he calls “presidentialism” because it is gridlock-prone? Well, Dumd-Dumb simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about because “political gridlock” also happens in parliamentary countries, like India,Italy, United Kingdom, to name a few. In fact, this Wikipedia entry would have informed him “gridlock” and government shutdown also affect the Westminster systems:
In parliamentary systems based on the Westminster system, parliamentary deadlocks may arise when an election results in neither or none of the major political parties having the numbers in the lower house (the house where the government is formed) to form a government, or when the the votes in a lower house of parliament are so close that a government cannot be sure of getting its legislation passed through the house, or when another party (usually referred to as the opposition party) controls a majority of votes in the upper house.
Dumdum also said that under his parliamentary system there would be “NO PORK” or “no pork barrel”. What a clueless parliamentary twit. His Facebook status indeed proves he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that he’s more interested in spreading his own propaganda joke disguised as “intelligent” political commentary.
The truth is, pork barrel exists in parliamentary countries. Perhaps Mr. Dumdum dogmatically, naively believes it only exists in what he calls ‘presidential’ countries. This makes me think Dumdum is too politically clueless and ignorant to know how the term “pork barrel” is used in politics.
- Pork barrel system in Australia. This post states: “The importance of the parliamentary system in promoting party-based pork barrel politics is most evident when one compares the patterns of Australian local grant distribution with those of a non-parliamentary system, such as the USA.” In Australia, pork barrel system and distribution “promotes the importance of party-oriented votes”. The result, according to the article, “is a powerful incentive for the ministerial elite to use their discretionary powers over local grants or programs to place the lion’s share of such funds into electoral districts controlled by their own party.”
- Pork barrel practice in Italy. Here’s an abstract of this study that explains pork barrel expenditures in Italy:
“We provide new evidence on the link between electoral rules and public finance outcomes. In particular, using a panel which includes the expenditure proposals sponsored by each member of the Italian Senate from 1993 to 2012, as well as other individual and district characteristics, we show that, in line with the theory, legislators elected with a majoritarian system have a higher propensity to sponsor pork barrel bills than those elected with a proportional system. Furthermore, this relationship is more pronounced in areas where civicness is low. The latter result holds even if we control for legislature and district fixed effects.”
- Here’s another study: Ministerial drift, parliamentary conflict or pork barrel politics?
- This study states: “The House system was the most heavily oriented to the more “pork-barrel” policy issues, those concerned with the delivery of services to local communities.”
- From this article:
“[T]he parliamentary system institutionalizes ‘pork barrel’ politics. The aforementioned fusion of executive and legislative power in a parliamentary system effectively makes the entire national budget (except of course for debt servicing and certain fixed expenditures) one big ‘pork barrel’. There is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the Judicial system, but that assumes that irregularities or kickbacks can be documented (which is never easy to do). Thus, if we are now disturbed by the way many politicos are presently wielding restricted powers, what do we imagine will happen after we’ve given them unrestricted powers?”
- Pork barrel in India. Here’s an abstract of this study titled Core or Swing? The Role of Electoral Context in Shaping Pork Barrel:”We ﬁnd that the ruling party targets schools in “swing” constituencies when there area disproportionately large number of close races in the state. Thus, while ruling party politicians might prefer to reward their most ardent supporters, they are constrained by electoral realities. The theoretical framework and methodological tools highlighted in this paper have signiﬁcant implications for the study of distributive politics.”
- From a book titled Do Institutions Matter?: Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad:
- From a book titled Patterns of Parliamentary Behavior: Passage of Legislation Across Western Europe:
- From another book titled Reform Options for the EU Own Resources System:
Sorry, folks, especially Mr. Dumdum (the most shameless parliamentary propagandist I’ve ever seen and encountered online), but pork barrel also exists, or is even rampant, in parliamentary countries.
Those who believe that a shift to parliamentarism is the only answer to our “pork barrel” crisis are either lying or politically naive. The only practical solution to this pork issue is: ABOLISH PORK BARREL and totally remove the power or capacity of our lawmakers or any politicians to abuse, misappropriate public money.
Mr. Dumdum’s Facebook post is actually what stupid, ignorant people do when they don’t have facts. They resort to propaganda and lying.