|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A democracy is more than just a voting sytem. It is an entire system underpinned by a respect for human rights and manifold freedoms. Authoritarian governments which claim they are democratic to retain legitamacy but do not to adhere to those principles are not democratic; no matter how much the claim they are in order to retain power.
On January 19 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired? Also none of this makes sense.
1) No one in UK who voted in the in the nonbinding referendum to either leave or stay in the EU is against democracy.
2) UK does not have an electoral college system.
3) What is overruling the popular vote of what? What are you even talking about and how does that make any sense?
3) What are these results which are desired and undesired and why do you desire or undesire them?
|
On January 19 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:
So, what makes a democracy a democracy in the sense of "worst government until all others are tried" in this context? The fact that it's currently fashionable to have the appearance of democracy no matter how your government actually works? The fact that most of the world's most stable governments call themselves democratic despite being widely different in their style of government?
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired?
I suggest you start by reading Montesquieu and his thoughts on the Trias Politica. That is the basis of the modern democracy. I am not just making shit up as I go along.
The Brexit vote was legit. I think the outcome was stupid, but agree with the means for reaching the decision. The EC is simply a bad way of reaching a decision, regardless of its outcome.
|
On January 19 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:
So, what makes a democracy a democracy in the sense of "worst government until all others are tried" in this context? The fact that it's currently fashionable to have the appearance of democracy no matter how your government actually works? The fact that most of the world's most stable governments call themselves democratic despite being widely different in their style of government?
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired? I suggest you start by reading Montesquieu and his thoughts on the Trias Politica. That is the basis of the modern democracy. I am not just making shit up as I go along. The Brexit vote was legit. I think the outcome was stupid, but agree with the means for reaching the decision. The EC is simply a bad way of reaching a decision, regardless of its outcome.
That you have to say "read this book to get a definition" should help you see that while we may have a general idea of what "democracy" in its modern iteration is, no one can really give a definition as to what is or isn't a democracy. Where is the demarcation line between "democracy" and "something else" here?
There are plenty of people who say that Brexit is not legit - that we need an "are you sure" referendum, that we need a supermajority, that we need fuck knows what else to make sure that the result is anything other than what it was.
In a way, though, the EC system did do one of the things it was meant to do - to give the less populated regions a higher-than-proportional voice.
|
On January 19 2017 23:37 LegalLord wrote:There are plenty of people who say that Brexit is not legit Who says that? Who are these people? You've been in the UK politics thread claiming that brexit is not legitimate as well. How have you defined brexit and how can it be illegal in relation to that?
[B]On January 19 2017 23:37 LegalLord wrote:[/B that we need an "are you sure" referendum, that we need a supermajority, that we need fuck knows what else to make sure that the result is anything other than what it was. Who are "we"? You said in the UK politics thread that you aren't British and have never lived in the UK. You also seem to lack any understanding of the UK political systems.
____________
Also I beleive that it was never intended that the electoral system to be a winner takes all sytem within individual states, nor that elections will be decided solely by the same 10 swing vote states, some of which are amongst the most populous states.
|
On January 19 2017 23:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:On January 19 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:
So, what makes a democracy a democracy in the sense of "worst government until all others are tried" in this context? The fact that it's currently fashionable to have the appearance of democracy no matter how your government actually works? The fact that most of the world's most stable governments call themselves democratic despite being widely different in their style of government?
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired? I suggest you start by reading Montesquieu and his thoughts on the Trias Politica. That is the basis of the modern democracy. I am not just making shit up as I go along. The Brexit vote was legit. I think the outcome was stupid, but agree with the means for reaching the decision. The EC is simply a bad way of reaching a decision, regardless of its outcome. That you have to say "read this book to get a definition" should help you see that while we may have a general idea of what "democracy" in its modern iteration is, no one can really give a definition as to what is or isn't a democracy. Where is the demarcation line between "democracy" and "something else" here? There are plenty of people who say that Brexit is not legit - that we need an "are you sure" referendum, that we need a supermajority, that we need fuck knows what else to make sure that the result is anything other than what it was. In a way, though, the EC system did do one of the things it was meant to do - to give the less populated regions a higher-than-proportional voice.
You sound like xDaunt. You're trying to make this vague and abstract when it really isn't.
To be fair, if Civics was taught halfway decently at US high school, you wouldn't need to read that book, because you already learned it in school (including reading parts of that book, duly translated, paraphrased and simplified so children can read an 18th century French book).
There is nothing controversial about referring to separation of three powers, each acting independently of one another, as the basis for modern democracy. And there are umpteen ways of doing it. Moreover, the separation of powers necessarily goes hand in hand with a democratic system for electing those in the different branches. Because otherwise the separation of powers will erode (it sometimes does anyway, even in a democracy).
I'm sure there are more modern books explaining the trias politica in modern terms. Political science has progressed (a bit) since the 18th century. But separation of powers is (by far) the best form of stabilizing government, and it requires an underlying democratic system to make the separation of powers itself stable (or at least, I cannot think of a single government with a separation of powers that is not also democratic).
|
This one potentially implicates my own job, I'm afraid. I'm not worried about finding work in the private sector myself, but this might not help Trump's unemployment stats.
Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.
Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday's presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.
The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.
Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump's team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.
The Hill
|
On January 19 2017 23:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 23:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:On January 19 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:
So, what makes a democracy a democracy in the sense of "worst government until all others are tried" in this context? The fact that it's currently fashionable to have the appearance of democracy no matter how your government actually works? The fact that most of the world's most stable governments call themselves democratic despite being widely different in their style of government?
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired? I suggest you start by reading Montesquieu and his thoughts on the Trias Politica. That is the basis of the modern democracy. I am not just making shit up as I go along. The Brexit vote was legit. I think the outcome was stupid, but agree with the means for reaching the decision. The EC is simply a bad way of reaching a decision, regardless of its outcome. That you have to say "read this book to get a definition" should help you see that while we may have a general idea of what "democracy" in its modern iteration is, no one can really give a definition as to what is or isn't a democracy. Where is the demarcation line between "democracy" and "something else" here? There are plenty of people who say that Brexit is not legit - that we need an "are you sure" referendum, that we need a supermajority, that we need fuck knows what else to make sure that the result is anything other than what it was. In a way, though, the EC system did do one of the things it was meant to do - to give the less populated regions a higher-than-proportional voice. You sound like xDaunt. You're trying to make this vague and abstract when it really isn't. To be fair, if Civics was taught halfway decently at US high school, you wouldn't need to read that book, because you already learned it in school (including reading parts of that book, duly translated, paraphrased and simplified so children can read an 18th century French book). There is nothing controversial about referring to separation of three powers, each acting independently of one another, as the basis for modern democracy. And there are umpteen ways of doing it. Moreover, the separation of powers necessarily goes hand in hand with a democratic system for electing those in the different branches. Because otherwise the separation of powers will erode (it sometimes does anyway, even in a democracy). I'm sure there are more modern books explaining the trias politica in modern terms. Political science has progressed (a bit) since the 18th century. But separation of powers is (by far) the best form of stabilizing government, and it requires an underlying democratic system to make the separation of powers itself stable (or at least, I cannot think of a single government with a separation of powers that is not also democratic).
You're trying to make a very broad statement about a very nebulously defined concept (in practice, rather than in theory) in order to validate a cliche. And you complain when I say that you need to be more specific about what a "democracy" is and isn't and try to deflect it off as a problem of "yoo just dont get it cuz your so bad at civics omg."
Put up or shut up, dude. Which systems are "democratic" according to your absurdly simplistic cliche, and which aren't? Where is the demarcation?
|
On January 19 2017 21:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 16:31 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 15:32 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace  I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent? The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering? Alright. Well, non-college & college educated Republicans (that's just all Republicans isn't it?) aren't anywhere near 60%+ of the country. Ignoring that, I don't know who your description would best describe if anyone here from "the left", zlefin included. I mean I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the direct "democracy" aspects of your argument, and even I accept some sort of democratic republic as our best option at the moment, but my goal isn't far off from the libertarians who want self-governance. As for self-destructive behavior, I don't think that includes everyone in the Republican party, but it's not a unique phenomena, nor does it necessarily reflect on it's subject's intelligence. There's a lot of reasons people do all sorts of things contrary to their or their family's long term benefit, being stupid is just one of many. Perhaps my grammar is not entirely clear. My first sentence was meant to single out all non-college educated peoples and then add college educated Republicans. If zlefin views someone who has their BS, but got mostly C's as a moron, my only interpretation of that is that non-college educated people are even less intelligent. You add non-college educated people (roughly 40%+ (even more if you count only AA and above)), and then college-educated Republicans, and it's bordering on 60%+ of the country. On a wider generalized point would you deny that those who self-identify "left" "progressive", etc. are more ardent supporters than the general person of democracy? Most of the ones I've come into contact with in person and online rabidly defend "democracy". So you can see how I find it funny coming from people of their ranks to call more than a majority of their own country idiots and morons, but defend a system that gives these same people massive power. I guess I'm channeling my inner Socrates here and trying to get people to see how many inner contradictions they have, so maybe they can have some introspection and perhaps, maybe, just a smidge get people to start to move away from this intrinsic value that is placed on democracy. Self-governance would be grand. We disagree on a lot, but if you want to work together on stuff, cool. I figure I'll see all the johnny come lately's come back to being anti-war now that a GOP is in charge lol. As much as I love to tease the hyper-partisanship and blind obedience of both sides, the smugness of the "left" generally irritates me, but hey, if you guys wanna come back on board the train, here's my hand. To paraphrase a really old and overused quote: Democracy sucks. It just sucks less than all other government forms we have tried so far. I'm more in favor of trying to find improvements to democratic systems (most recently, it seems an inherent vulnerability to populist arguments) than to do away with the whole idea and install some form of autocracy or oligarchy.
One serious alternative to/form of democracy I have heard about is the idea of legislation through jury.
Basically, when any legislation is proposed, you collect groups of randomly selected people throughout the country and they get paid to spend a chunk of time studying and deciding whether or not to approve that legislation. (probably with outside parties presenting their for+against cases)
(there is still the very significant issue of executing the laws and how they are proposed...but if the main laws themselves were by jury... it would be by people who Could take the time to examine it and wouldn't be selected due to special interests)
|
Having worked on draft legislation personally, I don't think that'd work. Writing "good" laws is really hard to do, particularly if attempted by someone with no professional experience relative to the legal system's administration.
|
On January 20 2017 00:29 farvacola wrote:
Having worked on draft legislation personally, I don't think that'd work. Writing "good" laws is really hard to do, particularly if attempted by someone with no professional experience relative to the legal system's administration.
Well that's why such a system would probably have to have some other party involved in drafting the legislation.. and then it would get approved by jury hearing arguments from for or against.*
There are a bunch of issues with it... basically the same issues as with the current justice system since it uses a similar model. (but it would be much more extreme.... you would need to pay these "jurors" a lot more since they probably would need more time to commit to the task, legislation would need to be simpler, and you would need some serious measures to ensure secrecy...ie like in a mob case, because everyone has an interest in the decision...unlike a normal jury action where only one person is directly affected.... you would also need to make sure that pro and con sides for the legislation both had plenty of 'representation'...you would probably want supermajority, but not unanimity... and possibly multiple juries across the country for a given piece of legislation)
Back to legallords argument of what is "democratic"
at a minimum it means that any action/any decision maker gets their authority from the bulk of the population
meaning:
any decision can be legally reversed/made if a sufficient proportion of the population agrees.
(see Norway and the execution of Quisling)
and
no one can make any decisions unless they are installed by someone who is installed by someone who is installed by ... etc. the population.
.....there is an important distinction to be made between
authoritarian democracy (where the elected rulers gain significant detailed power..enough to significantly affect the votes ie control of media, threatening dissenters, etc)
and
"liberal" democracy (where it is more difficult for elected rulers to affect future votes...or do anything.."liberal" because it does not have to do with the US liberal v conservative)
*so this would only be a partial replacement for democracy... just like the judicial branch is not wholly democratic (due to juries being involved, even though judges are elected or appointed by elected officials)..this would make the legislative function less democratic... but in an ultimate way.
|
So is it democratic if there is a number of important officials whose titles are hereditary, e.g. any country with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs have symbolic, yet still rather important, positions?
Is it a democracy if it's elected, but the candidate with a minority of the votes wins, e.g. US electoral college?
Is it a democracy if turnout is suppressed systematically for a certain segment of the population? Say, part of the country is under military occupation, or black people aren't given a fair chance to vote?
Is it a democracy if there is a "higher power" which dictates rules (say, a suzerain or an international union) which forces certain decisions upon that nation in an undemocratic manner?
Is it a democracy if there is "separation of powers" but one branch is very clearly the dominant one, that is able to impose what it wants on the other branches in a way that is difficult to impossible to counter?
Is it a democracy if an unelected leader governs by the consensus of the people, e.g. the "mandate" of a leader (e.g. "Mandate of Heaven" for Chinese emperors)?
|
On January 20 2017 00:09 Doodsmack wrote:This one potentially implicates my own job, I'm afraid. I'm not worried about finding work in the private sector myself, but this might not help Trump's unemployment stats. Show nested quote +Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.
Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday's presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.
The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.
Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump's team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years. The Hill
It's okay we won't hear about U6 till the next Democratic president anyways.
|
The first thing a Trump state department will have to face head on won't be in the Middle East or Europe, but Africa:
Yahya Jammeh, the Gambia’s longtime president, was holding out in the capital, Banjul, on Thursday after last-ditch diplomatic efforts to persuade him to stand down appear to have failed.
The country has been in a state of political uncertainty since Jammeh refused to cede power to the winner of last month’s presidential election, using the courts and parliament to try to extend his 22-year rule.
His mandate ended at midnight but he has steadfastly refused to hand over to Adama Barrow, prompting west African states to ramp up pressure on the president. A contingent of Senegalese-led troops is positioned on the border.
The Mauritanian president, Mohamed Abdul Aziz, flew into the country for last-minute negotiations on Wednesday, but left without the Gambian president on board.
Source
|
On January 20 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:
So is it democratic if there is a number of important officials whose titles are hereditary, e.g. any country with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs have symbolic, yet still rather important, positions?
Is it a democracy if it's elected, but the candidate with a minority of the votes wins, e.g. US electoral college?
Is it a democracy if turnout is suppressed systematically for a certain segment of the population? Say, part of the country is under military occupation, or black people aren't given a fair chance to vote?
Is it a democracy if there is a "higher power" which dictates rules (say, a suzerain or an international union) which forces certain decisions upon that nation in an undemocratic manner?
Is it a democracy if there is "separation of powers" but one branch is very clearly the dominant one, that is able to impose what it wants on the other branches in a way that is difficult to impossible to counter?
Is it a democracy if an unelected leader governs by the consensus of the people, e.g. the "mandate" of a leader (e.g. "Mandate of Heaven" for Chinese emperors)?
It's a gradient. You might as well ask when it is warm or cold. While there are certain conditions in which everyone agrees, others are grey areas. There are many more factors than the ones you include, such as accountability, but one of the differences between liberal and non-liberal democracies is where the emphasis of the democratic process lies. Is it empowering the minority to get a comparatively broad spectrum of opinions in power? Is it to strengthen and maintain the power and privileges of the current majority populace? Nationalistic referendum-based direct democracy comes with it's own pitfalls.
|
Ah, a fun discussion on democracy, but I don't see a good point to interject on, or a particular question to answer.
Well, it's quite good to see and fun to read at any rate.
Happy to answer any particular question of course.
I don't get why wegandi kept citing me, when I'd said I wasn't a defender of democracy, and when it doesn't make sense given my posting history.
|
On January 20 2017 01:46 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:
So is it democratic if there is a number of important officials whose titles are hereditary, e.g. any country with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs have symbolic, yet still rather important, positions?
Is it a democracy if it's elected, but the candidate with a minority of the votes wins, e.g. US electoral college?
Is it a democracy if turnout is suppressed systematically for a certain segment of the population? Say, part of the country is under military occupation, or black people aren't given a fair chance to vote?
Is it a democracy if there is a "higher power" which dictates rules (say, a suzerain or an international union) which forces certain decisions upon that nation in an undemocratic manner?
Is it a democracy if there is "separation of powers" but one branch is very clearly the dominant one, that is able to impose what it wants on the other branches in a way that is difficult to impossible to counter?
Is it a democracy if an unelected leader governs by the consensus of the people, e.g. the "mandate" of a leader (e.g. "Mandate of Heaven" for Chinese emperors)? It's a gradient. You might as well ask when it is warm or cold. While there are certain conditions in which everyone agrees, others are grey areas. There are many more factors than the ones you include, such as accountability, but one of the differences between liberal and non-liberal democracies is where the emphasis of the democratic process lies. Is it empowering the minority to get a comparatively broad spectrum of opinions in power? Is it to strengthen and maintain the power and privileges of the current majority populace? Nationalistic referendum-based direct democracy comes with it's own pitfalls.
Yes, it's a gradient - and not one where more democracy is always better. In fact, in some cases a system which is at its core democratic is fully unsuitable.
Point being, the cliche in question has no validity.
|
On January 20 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:
So is it democratic if there is a number of important officials whose titles are hereditary, e.g. any country with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs have symbolic, yet still rather important, positions?
Generally speaking, yes. If you're talking about European monarchies, then yes (with the possible exception of Liechtenstein that I do not know enough about, but just enough to know they're weird). Thailand, probably (don't know enough about it). Morocco, no.
Is it a democracy if it's elected, but the candidate with a minority of the votes wins, e.g. US electoral college?
Depends on the system. But the US is a democracy.
Is it a democracy if turnout is suppressed systematically for a certain segment of the population? Say, part of the country is under military occupation, or black people aren't given a fair chance to vote?
This is a tough question. It'd be case to case. I'd say the number of people repressed plays a big role. E.g. convicted criminals having sat out their time not having the right to vote does not invalidate the democratic nature of a government (but it's still shitty), whereas Apartheid South Africa was an oligarchy and not a democracy. There is also the possibilty of being a democracy, but an incredibly shitty one (Indonesia springs to mind).
Is it a democracy if there is a "higher power" which dictates rules (say, a suzerain or an international union) which forces certain decisions upon that nation in an undemocratic manner?
No. Unless the international union is itself democratic, and membership thereof is voluntary (e.g. EU, WTO, UN, NATO). Clearly not for being a "protectorate" of the British, or a vassal state of the USSR.
Is it a democracy if there is "separation of powers" but one branch is very clearly the dominant one, that is able to impose what it wants on the other branches in a way that is difficult to impossible to counter?
Then there is no practical separation of power (e.g. Morocco, which I already mentioned above as not being a democracy).
Is it a democracy if an unelected leader governs by the consensus of the people, e.g. the "mandate" of a leader (e.g. "Mandate of Heaven" for Chinese emperors)?
Possibly. But probably not. In the case of Chinese emperors definitely not. Just as Napoleonic France was not a democracy.
My problem is that you seem to be trying to point out that there are shitty democracies. There are. Democracy does not mean a great government. There are also benevolent dictators who performed fantastically. The point is that as a form of government, dictatorships suck, because if you happen to be stuck with a dictator who is no longer benevolent (or no longer has the mandate of the people, as you eloquently put it in your last case), then you have no way of getting rid of him except through (usually violent) revolution and all the implied instability, whereas democracy has those safeguards built in.
|
On January 20 2017 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The first thing a Trump state department will have to face head on won't be in the Middle East or Europe, but Africa: Show nested quote +Yahya Jammeh, the Gambia’s longtime president, was holding out in the capital, Banjul, on Thursday after last-ditch diplomatic efforts to persuade him to stand down appear to have failed.
The country has been in a state of political uncertainty since Jammeh refused to cede power to the winner of last month’s presidential election, using the courts and parliament to try to extend his 22-year rule.
His mandate ended at midnight but he has steadfastly refused to hand over to Adama Barrow, prompting west African states to ramp up pressure on the president. A contingent of Senegalese-led troops is positioned on the border.
The Mauritanian president, Mohamed Abdul Aziz, flew into the country for last-minute negotiations on Wednesday, but left without the Gambian president on board. Source
Honestly, the US can just ignore that. Everybody has been ignoring Africa for decades.
|
On January 20 2017 02:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 01:46 mustaju wrote:On January 20 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:
So is it democratic if there is a number of important officials whose titles are hereditary, e.g. any country with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs have symbolic, yet still rather important, positions?
Is it a democracy if it's elected, but the candidate with a minority of the votes wins, e.g. US electoral college?
Is it a democracy if turnout is suppressed systematically for a certain segment of the population? Say, part of the country is under military occupation, or black people aren't given a fair chance to vote?
Is it a democracy if there is a "higher power" which dictates rules (say, a suzerain or an international union) which forces certain decisions upon that nation in an undemocratic manner?
Is it a democracy if there is "separation of powers" but one branch is very clearly the dominant one, that is able to impose what it wants on the other branches in a way that is difficult to impossible to counter?
Is it a democracy if an unelected leader governs by the consensus of the people, e.g. the "mandate" of a leader (e.g. "Mandate of Heaven" for Chinese emperors)? It's a gradient. You might as well ask when it is warm or cold. While there are certain conditions in which everyone agrees, others are grey areas. There are many more factors than the ones you include, such as accountability, but one of the differences between liberal and non-liberal democracies is where the emphasis of the democratic process lies. Is it empowering the minority to get a comparatively broad spectrum of opinions in power? Is it to strengthen and maintain the power and privileges of the current majority populace? Nationalistic referendum-based direct democracy comes with it's own pitfalls. Yes, it's a gradient - and not one where more democracy is always better. In fact, in some cases a system which is at its core democratic is fully unsuitable. Point being, the cliche in question has no validity.
That conclusion is flawed, especially given the context in which this discussion takes place.
|
My point is that your cliche - "democracy is the worst until everything else is tried" - is altogether an ineffective description of the reality of what effective government looks like. You agree that democracy can take many forms - some don't look like democracies by definition but de facto it would be tough to argue that they are not. And the reverse is true, that there are nominal democracies that aren't democratic.
Nor is it necessarily true that more democracy is always better - sometimes it runs into situations where it really isn't effective. Really, its biggest and most important advantage is that, in a government which is stable, it allows nonviolent succession. If stability doesn't exist, nonviolent succession isn't a possibility anyways, so an undemocratic system may be best.
This is, perhaps, the problem with "nation building" in Iraq - an attempt to overthrow a flawed but stable system with a democracy just made things worse because democracy wasn't appropriate for that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
