07-18-2003, 08:39 AM
... that strikes me as a difference between a monarch and a democratic leader. A monarch is fundamentally untouchable, a democratic leader is constantly engaged with the public. Now, the President of the USA is elected, but past that, he is closer to the former than the latter. Never does he have to seriously debate issues, never does he have to engage directly in the messy business of politics.
Prime Ministers, on the other hand, could be called truly democratic, in that they must subject their rule to public scrutiny to a much greater degree. There is a much greater sense that the leader is the employee of the public, not their ruler (elected or otherwise).
Maybe that's why the Prez of the US always makes me uncomfortable. The whole office has a whiff of superhumanity about it.
Jester
Prime Ministers, on the other hand, could be called truly democratic, in that they must subject their rule to public scrutiny to a much greater degree. There is a much greater sense that the leader is the employee of the public, not their ruler (elected or otherwise).
Maybe that's why the Prez of the US always makes me uncomfortable. The whole office has a whiff of superhumanity about it.
Jester