Large explosion in Beirut - hundreds reported injured

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The BBC are saying that the Lebanese government are shortly to announce they are resigning.

That was easy.

Lebanese people: Government out!

Government: https://youtu.be/4KIL7qd9vj4

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The BBC are saying that the Lebanese government are shortly to announce they are resigning.

Good, so they don't have to be responsible for this incident.And then after a while, when people forget about it, they can come back to power

[Rusozak]

The BBC are saying that the Lebanese government are shortly to announce they are resigning.

Good, so they don't have to be responsible for this incident.And then after a while, when people forget about it, they can come back to power

They probably won't forget. I predict the officials will live in comfortable exile while a power vacuum tears apart Lebanon.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

OK, but everyone understands parliamentary systems I hope. The Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet are all members of Parliament. Meaning that them resigning does not lose their party (or in this case, coalition) any votes to maintain a majority.

The PM is relegated to an ordinary MP, but unless there's another shoe to drop, he remains a member of his party (Future Movement) and the ruling coalition. In a sense the same coalition is in power, though that isn't formalized until they pick a new Prime Minister.

I expect, knowing the risk of a power vacuum and the parliament not being able to function without at least a Prime Minister ... that a new PM will be elected within a few days. They (most likely he) will gradually appoint ministers. But this could take weeks, in fact all the way to the next election, considering how many parties are part of the ruling coalition.

The PM and "government" last resigned at the end of October last year. People have mentioned that Hezbollah are in the government, and they are, but Minister of Youth and Sports and State Minister for Parliamentary Affairs are not very important Cabinet positions. I'd be very surprised if the new PM is from Hezbollah.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Good, so they don't have to be responsible for this incident.And then after a while, when people forget about it, they can come back to power

They probably won't forget. I predict the officials will live in comfortable exile while a power vacuum tears apart Lebanon.

Forget about the officials.You will only remember who the prime minister and the president are. Maybe you also can remember some ministers.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

They probably won't forget. I predict the officials will live in comfortable exile while a power vacuum tears apart Lebanon.

Forget about the officials.You will only remember who the prime minister and the president are. Maybe you also can remember some ministers.

It's possible that after the election, and a rearrangement of factions to form a new majority, that Saad Hariri gets elected PM again!

It's one of the quirks of a Parliamentary system that the PM can be anyone who got elected to the Parliament. It wouldn't be a smart move to resign in disgrace and then put himself forward to be PM again, the voters would be very angry, but if he's the one all the factions trust it can happen.

[Rusozak]

Forget about the officials.You will only remember who the prime minister and the president are. Maybe you also can remember some ministers.

It's possible that after the election, and a rearrangement of factions to form a new majority, that Saad Hariri gets elected PM again!

It's one of the quirks of a Parliamentary system that the PM can be anyone who got elected to the Parliament. It wouldn't be a smart move to resign in disgrace and then put himself forward to be PM again, the voters would be very angry, but if he's the one all the factions trust it can happen.

But can it happen without a full blown revolution or civil war?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It's possible that after the election, and a rearrangement of factions to form a new majority, that Saad Hariri gets elected PM again!

It's one of the quirks of a Parliamentary system that the PM can be anyone who got elected to the Parliament. It wouldn't be a smart move to resign in disgrace and then put himself forward to be PM again, the voters would be very angry, but if he's the one all the factions trust it can happen.

But can it happen without a full blown revolution or civil war?

I'm not sure. The people being angry about something is just business as usual I think ...

Still it would be a dumb move by Hariri. And who knows, maybe he doesn't plan to run at all?

[Phoenicaea]

^ i don t know lebanese politics and institutions, yet count in resembling states much often you do not need a fresh ministery.

the vaccum usually gets filled by the continuity ‘ordinary’ ruling of deposed ministery, where it manages the daily adminstration, without decisions.

that is possible in the frame of parliamentary regimes, and it has been frequent in italy, sharing the societal and political habits.

when you see at these countries, often practices and laws which are common in english past colonies mismatch.

even majority-opposition scheme is different here.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Maybe they should have sent the aid to some country that doesn't actually need aid. Great thinking LUNA.

Perhaps you're working on the idea that bad government should get no help, increasing the misery of the people and hastening that regime change. Another revolution in Lebanon, is that your bag?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Isn't it being sent to organizations in Lebanon and not the government?

[Dogmeat]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Why would we send relief to countries that don't need it?

[Greed and Death]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Why would we send relief to countries that don't need it?

I could use it to build a brew shed near my house.

Canada send me aid.

[Dogmeat]

Why would we send relief to countries that don't need it?

I could use it to build a brew shed near my house.

Canada send me aid.

Don't get me wrong. I eagerly await my EU care package of cheese and tiny sausages.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Why would we send relief to countries that don't need it?

I could use it to build a brew shed near my house.

Canada send me aid.

It's sad but America may actually count as a country that truly needs foreign aid from Canada.

[Novus America]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Maybe they should have sent the aid to some country that doesn't actually need aid. Great thinking LUNA.

Perhaps you're working on the idea that bad government should get no help, increasing the misery of the people and hastening that regime change. Another revolution in Lebanon, is that your bag?

The problem here is subsidizing bad government on begets more bad government.
It is merely a temporarily relief for some symptoms, not a cure.

And if relief of the symptoms makes you less likely to want to cure the underlying disease it can be counterproductive.

Also if you give aid to corrupt governments that steal it, sell it, then ship the money off to foreign bank accounts you did not help anyone.

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime and all that.

[Novus America]

That was easy.

Lebanese people: Government out!

Government: https://youtu.be/4KIL7qd9vj4

Unfortunately it is more difficult than that because even though they “resigned” the still remain in power as a “caretaker government” until a new government is formed.

So they actually stay in power after resigning, weird as that sounds. The only way to actually get a real change is for a majority of MPs to really quit, as this would leave the parliament with no quorum, making it collapse, and mandating a new one be formed.

[Aeritai]

So apparently Canada sent foreign aid. Wouldn't this money be better spent on countries that actually have their shit together too well for something like this to happen?

Considering civilians are suffering from the explosion I say the money is being well spent, so good job Canada!

[Novus America]

You all talk like you lived here, if it wasn't for Hezbollah we wouldn't have the few social services we have.

Hezbollah is not a simple militia, it's a resistance force, without it Lebanon would be already occupied.

I'm done with this conversation anyways, we do have some large cultural gap.

The cultural gap is painful, I agree. What I wish for Lebanon is nothing more than an orderly election and a shakeup of government. Getting rid of corruption should be the primary focus, with less attention on grand plans to fix Lebanon or make it great. No plan can be implemented when its spending is syphoned off to cronies, everyone avoids paying tax because they expect the money to be wasted, and even as moral leader the government is despised and not taken seriously ... because of corruption.

Anyone who says they can fix the country in 3 or 4 years is basically promising a rate of economic growth that hasn't happened anywhere in history. Like 30% per annum or so. It would be a false promise, and you should never trust that candidate. You should favor the candidate who promises only modest improvement in living standards and puts more weight on fighting corruption.

Armchair revolutionaries from across an ocean do NOT have your interests at heart. They don't even seem to know what your interest are (and I admit I'm not sure). If their advice carries a risk of another civil war, then they're probably motivated by hatred of brown people and particularly Muslims, and their real agenda is to see them killing each other from a safe distance.

Just ignore anyone who doesn't know basic stuff about your country and its history. And you know, ignore me too if I fit that description!

And how will merely shifting a few parties around in the same corrupt system fix the corruption?
When corruption has reached such a critical mass that even the bodies meant to check corruption are completely corrupt, change from within the system is all but impossible.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The cultural gap is painful, I agree. What I wish for Lebanon is nothing more than an orderly election and a shakeup of government. Getting rid of corruption should be the primary focus, with less attention on grand plans to fix Lebanon or make it great. No plan can be implemented when its spending is syphoned off to cronies, everyone avoids paying tax because they expect the money to be wasted, and even as moral leader the government is despised and not taken seriously ... because of corruption.

Anyone who says they can fix the country in 3 or 4 years is basically promising a rate of economic growth that hasn't happened anywhere in history. Like 30% per annum or so. It would be a false promise, and you should never trust that candidate. You should favor the candidate who promises only modest improvement in living standards and puts more weight on fighting corruption.

Armchair revolutionaries from across an ocean do NOT have your interests at heart. They don't even seem to know what your interest are (and I admit I'm not sure). If their advice carries a risk of another civil war, then they're probably motivated by hatred of brown people and particularly Muslims, and their real agenda is to see them killing each other from a safe distance.

Just ignore anyone who doesn't know basic stuff about your country and its history. And you know, ignore me too if I fit that description!

And how will merely shifting a few parties around in the same corrupt system fix the corruption?
When corruption has reached such a critical mass that even the bodies meant to check corruption are completely corrupt, change from within the system is all but impossible.

Just use the law to legalize corruption. Because it's legal, there's no corruption,and they will be praised for their incorruptible.

[Phoenicaea]

how to address systemic corruption, well for these sort of states, rewrite the ‘electoral law’.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

how to address systemic corruption, well for these sort of states, rewrite the ‘electoral law’.

No. Really. Corruption is easier to fight in a multi-party system. Voters pick off the most corrupt one by one.

It may take a while. But imagine we change the electoral system to favor only two parties. Vote one out for corruption, the other is guaranteed to win. You don't think they'll do the same?

Corruption is apolitical. Corruption is an over-lying power structure which does not care about any party, unless that party is determined to fight it, and get back up every time it loses, and fight and fight to the death. Such a party (when it wins) will earn the allegiance of the people whatever its ideology.

The anti-corruption party, the party holding that policy above all others, is quite unlikely to be one of Two Parties. It is more likely to rise, and inspire other parties with the same primary policy, in a multi-party system.

*cough* How exactly would you re-write the electoral law of Lebanon?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The cultural gap is painful, I agree. What I wish for Lebanon is nothing more than an orderly election and a shakeup of government. Getting rid of corruption should be the primary focus, with less attention on grand plans to fix Lebanon or make it great. No plan can be implemented when its spending is syphoned off to cronies, everyone avoids paying tax because they expect the money to be wasted, and even as moral leader the government is despised and not taken seriously ... because of corruption.

Anyone who says they can fix the country in 3 or 4 years is basically promising a rate of economic growth that hasn't happened anywhere in history. Like 30% per annum or so. It would be a false promise, and you should never trust that candidate. You should favor the candidate who promises only modest improvement in living standards and puts more weight on fighting corruption.

Armchair revolutionaries from across an ocean do NOT have your interests at heart. They don't even seem to know what your interest are (and I admit I'm not sure). If their advice carries a risk of another civil war, then they're probably motivated by hatred of brown people and particularly Muslims, and their real agenda is to see them killing each other from a safe distance.

Just ignore anyone who doesn't know basic stuff about your country and its history. And you know, ignore me too if I fit that description!

And how will merely shifting a few parties around in the same corrupt system fix the corruption?
When corruption has reached such a critical mass that even the bodies meant to check corruption are completely corrupt, change from within the system is all but impossible.

Ask yourself what you could do in America, if both the major parties were intractably corrupt. Resist the urge to say "they are" because that would miss the point. Suppose most of the tax money was disappearing into private hands, it simply couldn't be traced. Serious corruption can't even be diagnosed, it looks to the people as though money just disappears. 10 million is budgeted to build a new bridge near your place. A fence is put up and bulldozers work for a few days. Some reinforcing steel is delivered to site. Then nothing happens for two years. Local criminals steal the reo steel. The fence falls down. And nobody knows what happened to 9.8 million dollars. What are you going to do about that? Are you going to elect the candidate who promises to fix the social security system and put an end to corruption? Or are you going to vote for the candidate who promises to cut taxes and put an end to corruption?

You need a third party. You need a candidate who promises to put an end to corruption full fucking stop. One whose reason for standing is to do that, and one prepared to be voted right back out if they don't.

With the relatively mild form of corruption the US has: where representatives are biased towards the interests that payed for their campaigns (or will give them lucrative board positions when they retire), the public demand for less corruption is not enough to raise up any third party to displace one of the Big Two. Your vote against corruption is quite futile, when representatives of both major party are beneficiaries of the corruption.

In my opinion, a proportional system is much better at rooting out corruption when it already exists. All it takes is 15 or 20% of the people voting specifically against corruption, and their party will have a choice of bigger parties to form coalition with. They won't root out corruption in one term, that's an unreasonable expectation if only a minority support them. That party will have to strike deals, they will have to tolerate some corruption in their senior partner, but when it comes to time to pass a major part of the senior partner's platform the anti-corruption party gets its quid pro quo.

Corruption is a hard problem. There are huge incentives to individuals, to be corrupt. And it spreads: an individual who becomes aware of it but does nothing, becomes corrupt themselves. They're going down if they're discovered, why not get their snout in the trough too?

A party which is specifically opposed to corruption will suffer, they'll be ganged up on (visited a prostitute? Guess what the prostitute was in the gang. Bought a cheap block of land? Hey, turns out the previous owner was a gangster). Noneless, starting small and getting bigger is the best way to power, for an anti-corruption party.

Multi-party is, for an end to corruption as in many other ways, better than Two Party.

[Purpelia]

Plus it's harder for many parties that share power to pull off major theft simply because its harder for them to come together for long enough to do major theft. If you have two parties, one is always going to hold the supermajority in government and that means controlling all the government offices and positions right down to the office clerks which are required to perform grand-theft-bridge. If it's 10 parties instead than that number is going to be closer to 5 and at worse 9. By the time you are done bribing, convincing, oppressing and generally making sure everyone is on board you stealing the bridge money it's just not worth it any more. So you tend to steal the small stuff you can get away with without all that effort.