The Right of Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In a democracy, citizens have the right to vote in their preferred form of government. This is where the hypothetical question arises.

Should citizens in democracies have the right to vote in a party which will abolish the democracy, if the citizens have full and prior knowledge that this party will probably do so? In short, do the citizens have the right to change their form of government?

I am a monarchist, as some of you may know. My country is a republic, and is also very restrictive towards parties that may in any way change the republican system. Therefore, to gain my desired constitutional monarchy, I believe that the citizens should have the right to vote in a democratic, monarchist party, and have it attempt to institute a monarchy, even though it is against the republican ideal.

[KarlXII]

Well, take the Communist Party in the USA. It was quickly banned from elections, and it was typical for known supporters to be jailed or deported, immigrants were asked if they were affiliated with the party, if they were, they were denied citizenship.

Should the members have been able to vote for their party or support it without fear of reprisal? Yes, however, the party was being funded and supported by the Soviet Union, rumored to have engaged in Espionage, and included left wing and anarchist radicals that were set on the overthrowing of the Government, of course, this is considered treason.

So, down to my opinion. A person should have the freedom to vote for a government that will transition from a Democracy to a Fascist state or Monarchy, peacefully of course, they would have to do it democratically, through election, and also have to deal with reprisals from the population that supports Democratic government. But if the person and the party they vote for supports and pursues active violence in an attempt to overthrow the legal government, they should be jailed, deported, and tried on the level of treason.

[Redleg]

Interesting question. I would like to say there should be a balance with parties that advocate the destruction of democracy not being allowed. Bit that in essence violates what is great about a democracy or as most are set up a democratic republic. So I because I am a firm believer that a democracy and its many forms is the best overall type of government and a firm believer in free speech - got to go with Yes allow all.

Now that also means if the parties begin to plot violence to bring about that change - then off to jail they get to go for wanting to violate the law of the land.

[Ice]

I'd say yes, but you really are screwing future generations and giving them no say in the matter if you elect on these parties. This would be easier to implant than reverse. I voted no.

[Kralizec]

Clearly Kush' opinion is at odds with democracy. We should hunt him down.

[yesdachi]

If the people want it, put it on the ballot. If enough people want it they will have it. Isn’t that what democracy is all about, getting what you want?

[Kralizec]

I think the question is incomplete. After having voted in an authoritarian regime (be it a monarchy or a simple dictatorship) do they relinquish the right of having democracy reinstalled? If yes, then you could argue the new regime is based on (tacit) consent.

Burke once wrote a rebuttal to a certain Dr. Price who had argued, put shortly, in favour of democracy and that the English actually did have the right (instead of just being entitled to) to chose their own king, but didn't excercise it: basicly tacit consent. Presumably he said so to avoid persecution.
This was nonsense according to Burke because, among other reasons, the Parliament had at the conclusion of the Glorious Revolution sworn allegiance to King William and Mary; and not only their own allegiance but also of future generations. Even if the English people had the right to chose the king at that moment they relinquished it immediately, via the Parliament.
Thomas Paine then wrote a rebuttal to Burke's argument saying that it was impossible for any man to manage affairs after his death, and that the pretense of being able to do so was disgusting. He didn't think that the Parliament of the past had the right or the ability to bind future generations to anything.

In conclusion: it's not unthinkable that a nation does vote to establish a dictatorship. That dictatorship might even maintain itself for several generations. But since you can't argue that your ancestors had relinquished certain rights on your behalf, a dictorship can never make the moral claim that the people have relinquished their right to chose the government.

EDIT: about parties, I don't think that any organisation should be forbidden who seeks to change the law while abiding it while it stands.
I wrote a short essay about this topic for a university course, democratie en rechtstaat a couple of months ago. I'm in favour of "entrenching" against radical or hastily, ill-considered change by means of constitutions and bills of rights. I think that any attempt to keep them from happening forever is going to backfire given enough time though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Certain behaviors can and should be curtailed in the interest of societal safety.

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.

However, the public is free to (and should be free to) consider members of such parties to be idiots, poltroons, perverts etc.

Freedom to express your views is matched by my freedom to reject and belittle them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.

Why are parties who believe in a more authoritarian - or even just a different - manner of governance necessarily idiots or loons?

[PBI]

I voted "no". I agree with Kush; the authority of the voters is not limitless, and they certainly do not (or at least should not) have the right to disenfranchise future generations and force them to accept their choice of party in perpetuity. A party which promises to abolish democracy should be barred from standing, and the power to suspend elections should be defined as being outside the authority of the elected government.

Quite aside from that fact I would utterly distrust the motives of any party which promises to abolish democracy as soon as they are in power. But it is not unprecedented for a wave of populist sentiment to be ridden to get a party elected against the best interests of the voters, and it is necessary that the voters must always have the power to correct that mistake at the next election rather than being lumbered with a bad choice forever.

[JR-]

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.

agreed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As much as I would rather the British monarchy did not get any more powers (Charles and Camilla ain't tellin' me what to do!), I think if we are being honest democracy in the UK is a farce. We have a parliament of career politicians, all major parties are so similar we may as well be a one party state, and the working-class in particular is so disillusioned with politics it is turning to fascists such as the BNP or nationalists in Scotland and Wales, or just not voting at all.

This is not the fault of the electorate. Scare-tactics are the order of the day, and in the recent Scottish Parliament elections I'm glad to say these backfired on Labour.

[KarlXII]

The thing about democracy is that the people are allowed to vote for their opinion, and if a law was passed that someone did not agree with, this law was voted in the majority either by the Legislative Body or by the community, your vote was cast, your opinion was heard, but ultimately the majority of people agreed. However, in an authoritan or purely monarchist government, laws are normally passed based off 1 vote: the head of the government. Now, what if one of these laws took away your property, Evil_Maniac, had you deported based off race or creed? You, and the people in general, would be powerless to do anything.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

However, in an authoritan or purely monarchist government, laws are normally passed based off 1 vote: the head of the government. Now, what if one of these laws took away your property, Evil_Maniac, had you deported based off race or creed?

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?

So we should leave everything up to 1 person, 1 person who himself may not be well informed, tyrannical or even mad (see Hitler)?

Hardly. You can read the second part of the post you quote if you wish.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People in my class bracket are doing well under Chinese authoritarianism. I still hold the concept of "democracy" dear, but there are and have always been merits to despotism or hybrid despotic-republics.

Not allowing extremists in government may not ensure democracy either. Exclude them when they have enough support and you could de-legitimize the political process. Include them when they have a bit of support and you run the risk of power being democratically usurped. The answer lies in the circumstances, doesn't it?

[Lord Winter]

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?

What about their children then? Or the generation after that? Or after that? Of after that? What if they evently tire from absolute despotic rule? Then how should they chose there government if you remove the basis of any right to chose?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What about their children then? Or the generation after that? Or after that? Of after that? What if they evently tire from absolute despotic rule? Then how should they chose there government if you remove the basis of any right to chose?

Through violence, you know, like they have traditionally done it. Or you could hand over the keys, but that might not be a great precedent to set.

[Incongruous]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance.

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before.

When has there ever been a good king?

I think there have been plenty.

[Incongruous]

Care to name any?
The goodness of Kings is held to a different standard to that of other men, thus there are many good kings in history, one good rights a thousand wrongs, no?
King Edward III would not hold up against modern concepts of a good man.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Care to name any?

Modern heads of state in constitutional or absolute monarchies:

Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
Jigme Singye Wangchuck
Queen Elizabeth II
Pope Benedict XVI (as Sovereign of Vatican City)
Bhumibol Adulyadej

Want me to go farther back? Alright, let's do that then.

Frederick II of Prussia
Gustav II Adolphus
Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov
Friedrich Wilhelm (Brandenburg)

A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

The Wikipedia page on "Monarchy" also defines a monarch as an individual who rules as head of state, but that the powers of the head of state can differ while the country remains a monarchy.

Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

The creation of a monarchy, as you can see above, does not result in the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[KarlXII]

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before. .

A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else. If nobles are voting on issues, you still have a democracy, albeit an oligarchy. If you install a legislative body, a Senate or Parliament, you have representative democracy. Who says a monarhcy has to be absolute? The very definiton of monarchy does.

[Caius]

Well, looks like a good question, as allowing people to vote for undemocratical parties in the name of freedom, and freedom of speech, and you know the rest. But, some of those kind of parties will try to impose themselves in the power if they fail to win the elections. I was going to call an not real situation, but I'm not sure if its worthy enough if this post isn't even read.

[CountArach]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.

There is one good King out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_K...gyel_Wangchuck
Of course, he is a good King because he is Democratising his country

[KarlXII]

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?.

Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[CountArach]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

An essential and inevitable defect, which will always rank monarchical below the republican government, is that in a republic the public voice hardly ever raises to the highest positions men who are not enlightened and capable, and such as to fill them with honour; while in monarchies those who rise to the top are most often merely petty blunderers, petty swindlers, and petty intriguers, whose petty talents cause them to get into the highest positions at Court, but, as soon as they have got there, serve only to make their ineptitude clear to the public. The people is far less often mistaken in its choice than the prince; and a man of real worth among the king's ministers is almost as rare as a fool at the head of a republican government. Thus, when, by some fortunate chance, one of these born governors takes the helm of State in some monarchy that has been nearly overwhelmed by swarms of "gentlemanly" administrators, there is nothing but amazement at the resources he discovers, and his coming marks an era in his country's history.

[Incongruous]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.

[CountArach]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane.

[CountArach]

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane.

Rousseau is always appropriate to quote.