@CowperKettle Well, that doesn't necessarily mean it's ademocratic.
If the people vote for your continued tenure, would it not be ademocratic to ignore the people?
I think what you might be saying is that a long tenure, while not anti-democratic in the short term, may lead to problems threatening democracy in the long term.
In a country with a strong democratic tradition, however, and concerning a function without power greatly exceeding that of a minister, I'm not sure whether this risk is at all realistic.
@Cerberus yeah it's a correlation thing, not a . . . deduction?
@CowperKettle Anyway I think the number of people is not that important. If you have a vocal fringe group in a party that call other members "party member in name only" and if the leader is always going to be chosen from among the members of the group and said leader will always have the interests of the group in mind ahead of everything else, including personal whims, then you have an oligarchy in your hands, which is probably worse than any sort of autocracy, because a group is always smarter
and more malicious.
I'm not referring to any real life examples of course. Not at all.
So anyway I'm saying that's always been scarier for me. A group is going to be more controlling and more evil than a single person
The actor who played in the movie Kes! I recall watching with subtitles on, because it was impossible to make out the heavily accented speech of Northern Britain.
Interesting. It was previously thought that children pass this threshold at age 4.
I failed to understand why the child will pick the wrong box in the author's second experiment, where the mother does not change the location of the chocolate bar.
OK, this one I don't get. I like women as much as the next person, but when I go to listen to music I don't decide beforehand that there should be a specific gender involved.
Besides, it's kind of sexist to choose music that way, innit?