VV's farm: Science says “one-party government” works

While he has reviled all opponents of Vetevendosje, he has claimed that deep reforms can only be carried out when the government takes over a political party. He has not mentioned at all the dangers of authoritarianism, and “the capture of the state” that usually occur in monist government.

In a scripture that contains no word for democracy, neither does Vetevendosje's much-mentioned toll “The capture of the state” which was the sentence that was usually reproved through The PDK, Periscope follows.

Vetevendosje now and how long it claims it will win 50 percent of the vote, which also provides the majority in the Parliament and the opportunity to take over the country's key institutions.

Full status:

Vote change!

The comparison of policies, compared political science, finds:

1. Governance in the coalition creates with a lot of stability, that is, preserves the existing state;

2. A party government can make deep reforms;

If voters want the deep change in Kosovo, one-party government should vote.

If they want to preserve the current state of office, they must distribute the vote to different parties, which have created and preserved this situation.

I.

So far voters have maintained its situation and stability in Kosovo, and the mind has used it for how it can drive itself out of Kosovo.

Wisdom, voter rationality is in mind: how to drive out the current state and its maintenance, while standing in a Kosovo where it is well lived.

The change in Kosovo's plight costs each one of them just one vote for the VV = one vote for change.

2 / 1

The concept of a one-party government has nothing to do with the concept of one-party systems:

The first is used for the study of governments, the second for party research.

The one-party government is an American characteristic, a prominent Stalinist and Nazi party system.

The equaling of one-party governance with the one-party system is as false as the US's draw to the USSR.

The claim that one-party governance leads to the one-party system is as false as the claim that the American government model necessarily leads to party monoism.

The claim that one-party governance is or leads to dictatorship is as false as the claim that U.S. or Sweden's government is or necessarily leading to dictatorship.

They're fake because they don't apply logic to each other, nor are they based on political experience.

However, we can hear from opposers. For them I cannot say “God, they don't know what they're saying, because they know why they say it.

Because they're coauthors and beneficiaries of the upstate, so they don't want the change.

3 / 1

Among other things in coalition governance:

Tension develops between form and democratic reality: formally, the government is the winning party, actually not the winner.

It weakens responsibility because it spreads. The winning party complains it is not allowed by the party in the coalition to make deep reforms. The non-win party complains that the government is making mistakes because it does not ask for anything.

6 / 1

Voter cognitive security does not differ from empirical science: without absolute certainty, to date recognition lies in the future. Since the law of gravity has so far acted, we are more legitimate in believing than not trusting that it will do the same tomorrow.

From due recognition, we are legitimised to believe that a government of the parties that ruled so far will rule the same way tomorrow if it is voted, that is, according to “the” progress of corruption.

From VV knowledge and Albin Kurti's duet recognition, we are legitimized to believe that the government is different from all others - political principles, rights, and economic and social development.

Any other prediction is non - scientific, false, and misleading as far as the epistemic legitimacy of individual beliefs is concerned.

V.

VV's opponents mean that a real party government can carry out deep reforms, but for both harm and good. The poor example is Edi Rama's one-party government in Albania.

Such reasoning is false because Edi Rama has made no difference. Edi Rama has only followed the Neliberal road ahead of him to the end of it: oligarchic rule.

I'm legitimised to wait on me that, like Rama, the ruling parties in Kosovo will continue to the end the neoliberal route that has traveled so far.

I am legitimised to believe that both VV and Albin Kurti will continue the course that has gone on down to this day: to ensure the sovereignty of the state, (the opposition, the people), especially in front of Serbia, to the rule of law and development, towards social equality and the fight against corruption.

From the state of awareness, epistemic, today we are not legitimized to believe otherwise about tomorrow decided by our vote.

That's all empirical science and its philosophy can teach us.

(published earlier on: Press Street)