@Fido,
Hi,
I'm a newcomer to this forum eager to learn and, of course, to add my two bits worth.
The first thing I did after getting registered was to go to the Politics branch, my favorite subject. I scanned down the discussions and was attracted by the title: "Politics without negation." It sure looked like an oxymoron, but what if someone had found out how to make politics peaceful? I wouldn't have to listen to any more campaign debates? Full of hope, I read what diamantis and the other folks had to say.
Right off, I ran into trouble. I couldn't agree with diamantis that politics had been invented to serve the common good. If I were religious I would have to counter that claim by referring to Nimrod, the biblical figure also known as "The First Politician" and "The First Tyrant". Secularly, I would refer to the kings and religious leaders ruling in early times. The former always, and the latter almost always, served only their own selfish ends.
The next trouble spot was the claim that, because political parties are prone to negativity, they (the political parties?) are based on dogmas as a shield against their opponents. That seems to me to misidentify cause and effect. I think that political parties are (naturally) prone to negativity because of, rather than as a result of, the other parties' different beliefs (not necessarily "dogmas").
Talk about negation! That's all you have gotten from me so far. Here's a little affirmation. I share diamantis' concern about political dissention. My concern is just aimed a little bit different than his. I want the dissention to be arguments as a way to reconcile differences and make decisions. I regard argument as an essential tool for cooperative human advancement. (Where would we philosophers be without it?) We would probably agree pretty much (and I don't know a thing about the state of politics in his country) that we both are fed up to the gills with the rancor, irrationality, and indecisiveness that have degraded our politics.