The end of democracy?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Recent examples of removal of democratic rights:
- Governmental eavesdropping of all Internet traffic, telephone conversations, etc. etc.
- The police has right to shoot first then ask questions
- "Terrorists", according to the leader's definitions, whichever they happen to be, can be interrogated and sentenced without public court procedures. That includes SENTENCING THEM TO DEATH!
- UN and others have now agreed that agitation in favor of "terrorism" is to be considered a crime and should be punished. The definition of "terrorism" is getting closer and closer to "enemy of the current sitting government", and the definition of "agitation" seems to get closer and closer to "protesting against the current government".
- Books and CDs of authors and musicians critical to the regime have been burned in the USA on various occasions. Not by officials, but the lack of punishment for the guilty of the deeds cleary says something
- Almost impossible to start new political parties. The USA, for example, can never hope to get anything else than Democrats or Republicans as presidents.
- After Bush's speeches about a terrorism threat that is less than ten times as big as the threat of committing suicide because of tristesse and pain caused by society, and almost a hundred times smaller than the risk of being shot by a patriotic, friendly American, several countries who were formerly known as democracies have followed the example of Bush and are removing the people's rights in several areas, including what you say, what you print and what you think.
- The Berlusconi disguised dictatorship regime of Italy controls both Mass media, much of the economical market of Italy, AND the political power. Similar systems are actually existing also in the USA (Bush has close contacts to various oil companies etc.), and might soon start to exist in other countries as well.
- The false propaganda of calling it a war on terrorism or fighting of foreign dictators is quite transparent, if the way this is done is by making your own countries dictatorship regimes. This is in the same class as the communist and nazi propaganda of ww2. However, the modern skills in propaganda are more advanced. Now both sides, also the dissenters, get to say what they think in mass media, but through insinuation and small hints they are ridiculed and presented as cruel.

After all, the "democracy" of ancient Greece, which is said to be the starting point behind the modern democracy, ended pretty quickly when the oppressed/poor were no longer as much needed by the rich/the oppressors, and it degraded into a standard dictatorship regime. Is the same thing happening with the western world too?

This will certainly in the long term put the western countries at a disadvantage compared to other countries, especially the rising economical powers of southeast Asia. Furthermore, the countries struck by the colonialism and imperialism will probably use this weakening to strike the western world, which will harm the innocent countries too. Strictly speaking, all who live today are innocent of the crimes committed back then, but formerly oppressed nations never look at it that way. In fact, it's very likely this removal of democracy in western world will result in the most extremistic muslim groups, such as Al quaeda, will end up ruling western world as well. This is not desirable. It's best for both Muslims and Christians if Christians leave Muslims alone and have their own territory to live by their own laws, while Muslims leave Christians alone and have their own territoriy to live by their own laws. However, this move caused by naive Christian leaders fearing Islamic faith and having a fascistic view on it, may cause exactly what they fear most - muslim control over Europe and the USA. This will of course result in Israel losing it's important ally the USA, and it's likely it'll end up being conquered.

So the possible results of this removal of democracy in the western world will result in 1. foreign military threats that weren't threats before will grow into real threats, 2. economy of the western world will decline, 3. Judeo-Christian-atheistic culture, law and lifestyle might be replaced by sharia and muslim lifestyle. I personally don't mind the Islamic lifestyle or religion, and like several aspects of Islam more than Judeo-Christian-atheistic values, but I personally dislike the Islamic law, which, as I've understood it, is in favor of harsh punishments. Christian extremist leaders who don't tolerate that muslims live their way in their home countries are no better than Muslim terrorists (Al qaeda) who don't tolerate Christian lifestyle in Christian home countries.

Of course, removing democracy in order to "fight terrorism" is exactly what the terrorists want, and the more democratic rights that are removed, the more the terrorists will keep bombing and killing, because removal of democracy serves their purposes. Not the purposes of the entire muslim world, which is a lot more cultivated than the few actual terrorists, but the purposes of the less than one percent extremists.

Finally, will George Bush end up in the history books as "the man who took the initiative towards destruction of democracy?" After all, his speeches as actions is what has caused several other western governments to abandon democracy in several fields.

[BDC]

We gained democracy peacefully, we won't lose it easily, here at least. Can't speak for the rest of the world though.

[Lazul]

well we never really had democracy as it should be... but yes, democracy is in decline in the world.

... uhg, enough this is making me depressed.

[Zharakov]

Democracy is being replaced by the opressive Scocialistic and Communisitc views that manny Europeans and Asians *And some of my contry men*hold...

Sometimes I am ashamed to be European... And also Asian... Ahh crap Im screwed... :embarassed:

[AntiochusIII]

Democracy is being replaced by the opressive Scocialistic and Communisitc views that manny Europeans and Asians *And some of my contry men*hold...

Sometimes I am ashamed to be European... And also Asian... Ahh crap Im screwed... :embarassed:Err.............................

Oppressive? You have a gripe against Marxism/Stalinism, and that I understand. But socialistic = evil?

:dizzy2:

[Adrian II]

Democracy is being replaced by the opressive Scocialistic and Communisitc views that manny Europeans and Asians *And some of my contry men*hold...I hear your country is presently replacing democracy by something entirely different.
Sometimes I am ashamed to be European... And also Asian... Ahh crap Im screwed... :embarassed:No problem, it means you qualify as a European. ~D

[Adrian II]

I've been saying it all along that the Bush Administration is Fascist.Wanna talk about it, Gelatinous Cube?
:mellow:

[Soulforged]

Governmental eavesdropping of all Internet traffic, telephone conversations, etc. etc. Ha yes, this is happening here too, but it's mostly because of the lack of regulation. Though i think that the information in all it's ways should be not regulated, unless it's regulated in a permisive way.
- The police has right to shoot first then ask questions Well, luckily, this is not happening here, though it's irrational, this is a problem of executive power, the representers of formal democracy are really on the legislative power, wich are not responsable for this, well i think that the case of Britain is different though. In any case is a syntom that has to be removed of society (paranoia) but the modern government doesn't know how to fight effectively against this phenomenum, thus it gives space to the executive power to do whatever they believe necessary. I think that this is something happening world wide, here where the system is more similar to USA, the executive power is constantly overruling the power of the congress to create the rules.
- "Terrorists", according to the leader's definitions, whichever they happen to be, can be interrogated and sentenced without public court procedures. That includes SENTENCING THEM TO DEATH! Another consecuense of paranoia and lack of true response.
- UN and others have now agreed that agitation in favor of "terrorism" is to be considered a crime and should be punished. The definition of "terrorism" is getting closer and closer to "enemy of the current sitting government", and the definition of "agitation" seems to get closer and closer to "protesting against the current government". This is totally nuts, I didn't know about this, but this is going way to far. There're basic rights recognised by the international community one of them is the right to life and freedom, all statutes must follow this guidence.

- Books and CDs of authors and musicians critical to the regime have been burned in the USA on various occasions. Not by officials, but the lack of punishment for the guilty of the deeds cleary says something Well that's internal politics, but it's clearly in fault of the First Emendment. Sometimes the government "forgets" and also some other people (conservatives?) that this document is above all others, for instance it's in fault to the very nation formed over that constitution, this is happening with a lot of things, censure on the media, drugs, etc. all are signals of less democracy, at least less formal democracy, because there's no true democracy while there's an state anyway.
- Almost impossible to start new political parties. The USA, for example, can never hope to get anything else than Democrats or Republicans as presidents. Well that's an acceptable form of representation, many authors coincide that this is the best way to organize the elections and representation in itself. I disagree, hopefully we here have multipartidist system, though it really doesn't do much. But i disagree with you this has nothing to do with democracy, it's the same formality to have two parties (and a third with less possibilities) as to have a thousand.
- After Bush's speeches about a terrorism threat that is less than ten times as big as the threat of committing suicide because of tristesse and pain caused by society, and almost a hundred times smaller than the risk of being shot by a patriotic, friendly American, several countries who were formerly known as democracies have followed the example of Bush and are removing the people's rights in several areas, including what you say, what you print and what you think. I never followed Bush speeches (hell i don't have to) but seems like he's more stupid or more manipulator than he seemed. But wich nations followed that example? ~:confused:

- The Berlusconi disguised dictatorship regime of Italy controls both Mass media, much of the economical market of Italy, AND the political power. Similar systems are actually existing also in the USA (Bush has close contacts to various oil companies etc.), and might soon start to exist in other countries as well. Money has much power as it's the direct control of regulation and budget, this is a direct problem of the state, and even if you recover all the others this will continue to happen.
- The false propaganda of calling it a war on terrorism or fighting of foreign dictators is quite transparent, if the way this is done is by making your own countries dictatorship regimes. This is in the same class as the communist and nazi propaganda of ww2. However, the modern skills in propaganda are more advanced. Now both sides, also the dissenters, get to say what they think in mass media, but through insinuation and small hints they are ridiculed and presented as cruel. Well the propaganda cannot be considered on detriment of democracy, it's the same right to free speech. The truth is that also true information should be running along with the false to have a balance, but i agree if the state is the one launching this propaganda projects it should be considered anti-democratic, the state has at least in a formal democracy, the duty to inform their citizens.

After all, the "democracy" of ancient Greece, which is said to be the starting point behind the modern democracy, ended pretty quickly when the oppressed/poor were no longer as much needed by the rich/the oppressors, and it degraded into a standard dictatorship regime. Is the same thing happening with the western world too? Honestly, to me democracy and all the idea of sociable man and society ended with the conquests of Rome. From then on never a true democracy has been experienced. Greece was the first and the last, even considering that certain people didn't have the right to citicenship. On the other hand Rome brought better and rational law, but this doesn't say nothing about democracy anyway.


This will certainly in the long term put the western countries at a disadvantage compared to other countries, especially the rising economical powers of southeast Asia. Furthermore, the countries struck by the colonialism and imperialism will probably use this weakening to strike the western world, which will harm the innocent countries too. Strictly speaking, all who live today are innocent of the crimes committed back then, but formerly oppressed nations never look at it that way. In fact, it's very likely this removal of democracy in western world will result in the most extremistic muslim groups, such as Al quaeda, will end up ruling western world as well. This is not desirable. It's best for both Muslims and Christians if Christians leave Muslims alone and have their own territory to live by their own laws, while Muslims leave Christians alone and have their own territoriy to live by their own laws. However, this move caused by naive Christian leaders fearing Islamic faith and having a fascistic view on it, may cause exactly what they fear most - muslim control over Europe and the USA. This will of course result in Israel losing it's important ally the USA, and it's likely it'll end up being conquered. I disagree to me the leaders are all but naive. The states of the western culture will never fall by this, because this just makes them more strong, what will fall if this continues is the idea of society and the respect for the rights of the individual, gained through much too blood to let i go so easily. The case of Israel begun far before of todays facts, they should never ask for help to exercise the force over a territory that legitimally belonged to the Palestinians.

So the possible results of this removal of democracy in the western world will result in 1. foreign military threats that weren't threats before will grow into real threats, Not so sure about this.
2. economy of the western world will decline I disagree, in fact it will become more strong in this matter, because the strong state will favour the capitalists wich will keep functioning the system at a low cost, oppressing the masses even more than before.
3. Judeo-Christian-atheistic culture, law and lifestyle might be replaced by sharia and muslim lifestyle. I personally don't mind the Islamic lifestyle or religion, and like several aspects of Islam more than Judeo-Christian-atheistic values, but I personally dislike the Islamic law, which, as I've understood it, is in favor of harsh punishments. Well though i don't know all the legislative system of the Islam, USA still allows death penalty.
Christian extremist leaders who don't tolerate that muslims live their way in their home countries are no better than Muslim terrorists (Al qaeda) who don't tolerate Christian lifestyle in Christian home countries. I agree, and I also think that Christianity in any case has much more power and capacity of response that anyother religion in it's institutions.

Of course, removing democracy in order to "fight terrorism" is exactly what the terrorists want, and the more democratic rights that are removed, the more the terrorists will keep bombing and killing, because removal of democracy serves their purposes. Not the purposes of the entire muslim world, which is a lot more cultivated than the few actual terrorists, but the purposes of the less than one percent extremists. Maybe, i don't believe that the extremists leaders have that purpose, i think that they only do it with the objective of plain and simple fear.

Finally, will George Bush end up in the history books as "the man who took the initiative towards destruction of democracy?" After all, his speeches as actions is what has caused several other western governments to abandon democracy in several fields. No i don't think so, but it will have a bad quote in USA books at least.

[bmolsson]

Democracy is and have always been an illusion for the masses.....

[Adrian II]

Democracy is and have always been an illusion for the masses.....Elitism is and has always been the refuge of the mediocre.

[bmolsson]

Elitism is and has always been the refuge of the mediocre.


Agreed.

[KafirChobee]

Democracy is and have always been an illusion for the masses.....

The opiet of the poor actually, is what you meant to say. As in, all men being equal or all men having the same advantage. Unless of course one was able to be sent to all the best schools and still end up mediocre - but, despite his ignorance was able to become (a governor ) a president - despite being mentally limited in understanding that others had different ideas than his own. Or, that they might be right, he might be wrong.

Democracry was an illusion, created by business and slave interests to convince those that couldn't vote (only land owners could initially vote - you know?) to conceed to the correctness of the philosophy. Today, it is a misdirection of fact to convince the ignorant to vote against them selves.

Easy. Convince the poor that Unions are a bad thing - they take away jobs, and cost more to the poor corporations.

Democracy, is not dead. The people that support it are silent, that's all.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Americans bled for their freedom, and they will bleed to keep it.

But in the end, do we have enough blood? I think that is the true question. Can we win a fight against the tyrannical dictators which threaten our nation? Can we defeat such people as Kofi Anan, Jaques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder?

The answer, my friends, is no. We are destined to fail. But we will not give up the fight till the last American draws his parting breath from the world.

[Ice]

Well... here in the USA we never had a real democracy. We live in a "Democratic Republic", we elect people to decide for us. Do I think our system will change anytime soon? Absolutely not.

[Strike For The South]

Democracy is the best form of goverment period communism marxsism socialism monarchys despots come and go because at the end of the day democracy is the only thing that works

[JimBob]

But in the end, do we have enough blood? I think that is the true question. Can we win a fight against the tyrannical dictators which threaten our nation? Can we defeat such people as Kofi Anan, Jaques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder?
You're worried about Kofi Anan and Chirac? Damn man there's crazies with bombs threatening to blow us up and you're afraid of a few modern socialists ?


You left out the elements within our own government, my friend. They are far more dangerous to our democracy than some Europeans and Africans.
What he said.


Democracy is the best form of goverment period communism marxsism socialism monarchys despots come and go because at the end of the day democracy is the only thing that works
Best we have, there could very well be a viable system that is better we just can't make it work yet. But right now democracy is about the best we can do.

[Meneldil]

You're worried about Kofi Anan and Chirac? Damn man there's crazies with bombs threatening to blow us up and you're afraid of a few modern socialists ?



Chirac is certainly not a socialist :dizzy2:

[Duke of Gloucester]

I would like to comment on Legio's examples individually:


- Governmental eavesdropping of all Internet traffic, telephone conversations, etc. etc.

I am not sure what country you are referring to, but telephone intercepts are only legal with judicial authority, so refering to all is overstating your case. Government eavesdropping is not necessarily a threat to democracy, but it does have the potential to be abused. Until you can show me evidence that I might suffer for exhorting people to vote against Blair on the telephone or internet, I am going to be relaxed about the state listening on my behalf for words like "bomb" and "attack" in order to protect me.


- The police has right to shoot first then ask questions

I can't ask a police officer to risk his or her life by pausing when he or she has a well-founded fear of being attacked. In fact we all have this right, that of self-defence. Which is the country where the police do not have to justify their actions after a fatal shooting? Not the one I live in.


- "Terrorists", according to the leader's definitions, whichever they happen to be, can be interrogated and sentenced without public court procedures. That includes SENTENCING THEM TO DEATH!

Which country is this?


- UN and others have now agreed that agitation in favor of "terrorism" is to be considered a crime and should be punished. The definition of "terrorism" is getting closer and closer to "enemy of the current sitting government", and the definition of "agitation" seems to get closer and closer to "protesting against the current government".

I am quite happy that agitating others to plant bombs in London (or anywhere else) should be a crime. What evidence is there that the definition of terrorism is getting closer and closer to "protesting against the current government"?


- Books and CDs of authors and musicians critical to the regime have been burned in the USA on various occasions. Not by officials, but the lack of punishment for the guilty of the deeds cleary says something

Surely punishing people for burning books and or CD's would be a threat to democracy. If I buy a book or CD, then I can do with it what I like. Now, if the state were taking these books or CD's, stopping me from buying them and burning them, that would be different.


- Almost impossible to start new political parties. The USA, for example, can never hope to get anything else than Democrats or Republicans as presidents.

This is because people will not choose to vote for a new party.


- After Bush's speeches about a terrorism threat that is less than ten times as big as the threat of committing suicide because of tristesse and pain caused by society, and almost a hundred times smaller than the risk of being shot by a patriotic, friendly American, several countries who were formerly known as democracies have followed the example of Bush and are removing the people's rights in several areas, including what you say, what you print and what you think.

Examples please. (The risk from terrorism is nicely put in to context in this post, though)


- The Berlusconi disguised dictatorship regime of Italy controls both Mass media, much of the economical market of Italy, AND the political power. Similar systems are actually existing also in the USA (Bush has close contacts to various oil companies etc.), and might soon start to exist in other countries as well.

The trouble with democracy is that you give people the choice to make bad decisions if you want to. Almost every Italian knows that he controls the media, but they still choose to buy his papers and vote for him. All Americans know that their politicians are funded by interest groups, but they choose not to vote for candidates without financial clout.


- The false propaganda of calling it a war on terrorism or fighting of foreign dictators is quite transparent, if the way this is done is by making your own countries dictatorship regimes. This is in the same class as the communist and nazi propaganda of ww2. However, the modern skills in propaganda are more advanced. Now both sides, also the dissenters, get to say what they think in mass media, but through insinuation and small hints they are ridiculed and presented as cruel.

Again, people are free to make bad choices. They choose not to listen to those who challenge the idea of a "war on terrorism". You are not complaining about a lack of democracy, but bad judgement of electors.


After all, the "democracy" of ancient Greece, which is said to be the starting point behind the modern democracy, ended pretty quickly when the oppressed/poor were no longer as much needed by the rich/the oppressors, and it degraded into a standard dictatorship regime. Is the same thing happening with the western world too?

Well there is an element of truth here, but I believe an analysis of modern prosperity shows that democracy (of sorts) is protected. A vibrant modern ecconomy requires an educated and prosperous populace. These people will rest power from the elite if they do not feel that they have some political power. Hence the new elites do not claim they derive power from land, money or heriditary right; they claim that they have a democratic mandate. They are still an elite, but their justification for the exercise or power is different. They willing embrace limits on this power, becuase it is in their own interests to do so. While this situation persists, democracy (of a sort) is safe. The real threat to democracy comes from a threat to the ecconomy, such as oil running out. Then the powerful may not need the weak. As the other nations you mention grow in prosperity, they will find it necessary to enfranchise the people too.


3. Judeo-Christian-atheistic culture, law and lifestyle might be replaced by sharia and muslim lifestyle.

Actually, Christianity has a long history of opposing democracy. It's defence of democratic rights is a recent phenomenon.


Of course, removing democracy in order to "fight terrorism" is exactly what the terrorists want, and the more democratic rights that are removed, the more the terrorists will keep bombing and killing, because removal of democracy serves their purposes. Not the purposes of the entire muslim world, which is a lot more cultivated than the few actual terrorists, but the purposes of the less than one percent extremists.

True (although I think you mean removing rights and not removing democracy) and is why many counter-terrorism measures being taken are extremely unwise. The really sad thing is that a study of history would show this to be the case.

Legion is right to be concerned about recent developements, but describing them as the beginning of the end of democracy is incorrect.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The real threat to democracy comes from a threat to the ecconomy, such as oil running out.

...which is also happening at the moment.



Actually, Christianity has a long history of opposing democracy. It's defence of democratic rights is a recent phenomenon.


I'm talking about the form of atheism that exists in the formerly Judeo-Christian societies.



True (although I think you mean removing rights and not removing democracy) and is why many counter-terrorism measures being taken are extremely unwise. The really sad thing is that a study of history would show this to be the case.


Then we apparently agree that democracy is threatened. So what should the world do to counter these threats?

[Geoffrey S]

Americans bled for their freedom, and they will bleed to keep it.
Do you mean freedom from outside forces (ie. not America) or freedom from the government? As I see it at the moment it's the government which is narrowing the freedom of the American people, not outside influences.
Freedom is a precious thing; but what is it exactly you want America to be freed from? Outside cultural influences? The government? Obligations the the rest of the world?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Then we apparently agree that democracy is threatened. So what should the world do to counter these threats?

Correctly identify what the threats are. Campaign against unwise leaders' decisions and work to boost universal education and technological development (this is why I am a science teacher) to improve and share prosperity.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Duke of Gloucester: Ok, that sounds like a good start. Unfortunately you need so much education before you even begin to understand the threats, and that they at all exist. I've personally read over 50k pages of info related to these very subjects, and still don't have a complete overview. That is, by far, an even bigger threat than the physical, real threats that exist - the failure of the masses to be able to see the threats before it's too late because they're so complex. This is a phenomenon that exists in almost all fields - environmental damage, threats against democracy, military threats, economical threats, social threats etc. etc.

I'm mainly worried because if we fail to act quickly, the damage might become all the greater. For example, a majority didn't want communism in Russia, but they didn't rise coordinatedly or quickly, with the result that they got nearly 70 years of dictatorship and millions of dead in wars, paranoid killings etc. The failure to react to removal of democratic rights might be equivalent to sending a signal to the leaders that removal of democratic rights will be tolerated by the people, with the result that another dictatorship regime is created. It is in the interest of such a regime to make all threats against democracy from their regime seem unclear or non-existing, so that people fail to act quickly enough to stop it in it's early phase. If democracy is removed, it's suicide to rebel against it until it has weakened itself and brought about it's own destruction, but the threat is that many friends and relatives may die before that process is completed.

[scooter_the_shooter]

So.....when does the rebellion start...we americans can loan you some guns until you are done :charge: j/k

[Meneldil]

He promotes the nanny-state, no? As far as any right-minded (right as in sane, not politically) American is concerned, there is no difference between the Nanny-State and Socialism.


Chirac doesn't promote anything but his own interests. He speaks like a socialist, because that's the only way to get elected in France (populism excepted), then acts as a liberal. Hence why he has a very low popularity.

And they are right-wing people who more or less promote/d nanny state in France. That's called Gaullism.

Do you american only have 2 political sides ? Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican ? We europeans and our hundreds of different parties would be quickly bored ~;)

[Spetulhu]

Can we win a fight against the tyrannical dictators which threaten our nation? Can we defeat such people as Kofi Anan, Jaques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder?

Not to mention the Democrats and Republicans. Or is it OK to be buggered by politicians as long as they're domestic? ~;)

[Soulforged]

Democracy is the best form of goverment period communism marxsism socialism monarchys despots come and go because at the end of the day democracy is the only thing that works Capitalists never change.... :no:
Many authors, specially MacPherson (in his treaty of the history and models of Democracy, mostly at the end of the treaty) treats this subject, and though you fail to see that communism and marxism look for true democracy (best that you experience right now), all the historic evidence states that the state and society in general works well in democracy as in despotism, there's absolutely no difference, because the actual democracy only haves form not content. On the other side people still deny the difference between communism and democracy, one is an economical teory that uses democracy as reference and objective, the other is a political teory.
But as far as the topic goes I already answered that in my other post.

[bmolsson]

Americans bled for their freedom, and they will bleed to keep it.


It was not their freedom it was to avoid filing annual tax returns to the queen.... ~;)

[bmolsson]

Democracy is actually something that require more than people generally think. We are constantly trying to impose it on nations in the third world without really understand the mess we are creating. Democracy have a few very important parts it require to make it work:

1. Homogen population
People need to have similar values, social position and educational background. You can not have academics in one end and bush people in the other and expect it to work.

2. Economic level
The society need to have reached a certain economical level. Often we talk about the educated middle class and that is more or less what I am talking about. The economic power has to be among the voters, otherwise it will not work. It also require a certain growth to handle the constrains it faces.

3. Trust and moral
It has to be possible to elect people and have the accountable. Corruption, collusion and nepotism will always be the hardest stop block in a democratic society. This requires objective media and transparant laws that can track and handle this.

A society will go through several stages, from consolidation to degeneration. Democracy is a part of this process, but not always the most suitable, even sometimes impossible, solution. Used correct, democracy is superior to all other systems today, but it doesn't mean that John Doe can do what ever he likes just because he is a voter.

[Incongruous]

Well here in New Zealand there is very little chance of a government taking over all aspects of life and destroying democracy.