The Right of Democracy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

Not in the UK.

Yes. Democracy will overstay its welcome soon enough.

No. As Kush pointed out, the setup eats its own tail.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes. Democracy will overstay its welcome soon enough.

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

No, because then it is obviously not what you crave.

A balance.

The people must be protected for their own good. For the Greater Good.

I voted

Yes - all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of democracy.

but my own opinion is that all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of freedom.

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important.

Originally Posted by Viking

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important.

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

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.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

It isn't alright, but there isn't necessarily much one could do.

But a new idea came to mind; perhaps democracy is not holy; as long as the state is weak it does perhaps not matter that much whether it is democratic or not. Being a politician could just be another job that requires a certain education, like any other jobs. Are judges elected by the people? No, yet they hold much power in one aspect.

So, ok, I might just have contradicted what I said earlier. What I fear is the state gaining more control over people, mainly that. Maybe I am an enemy of democracy myself.

So to conclude, I am against parties abolishing democracy, if the party(ies) intend to take the power itself/themselves. Parties that wish to do so should be stopped. Still I do not want to ban them from the elections.

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.

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

I agree with this completely. The political parties in the UK at least are filled with career politicians, more concerned with getting as many MP financial privileges as possible rather than any sort of ideology. Its the only reason I would even consider voting for the tartan-brigade SNP over New Labour.

I think that this will lead to a rise in radical parties if economic conditions continue to decline, and should these extreme left/right parties be banned or oppressed, then the people will realise that putting pieces of paper in a ballot box will not translate to representing themselves in parliament.

And then, well....

EDIT: And I second EMFM, why does opposing democracy make you a loonatic?

Originally Posted by CountArach

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

Ah, 11 minutes too late...

I'd have to say that this is one issue I can't quite make up my mind on. On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision. On the other hand, my government did that to me over the Lisbon Treaty, and I am quite angry at them.

All should be allowed. If the majority of people support and them vote in a party that is undemocratic, then that is the will of the people. They have just used democracy to change the government they live under, for better or worse.

The ideal of Democracy, I do not think, ever took into account the possibility of tyranny via the ballot box. When Democracy is founded, it is usually due to popular support of it and righteous damantion of whatever preceeded it, usually a form of tyranny or monarchy, and no one thinks as they sign up for the virtues of Democracy, that one day its most important foundations may be its own demise. So perhaps the ability of such repugnent groups to take part in elections is not fundamental to the idal of Democracy, otherwise it would not be against Tyranny, which it is, and so would not be Democracy.

However, if Democracy is created properly, with a constitution that respects the humanity of all it's current and future citizens and their right to individual liberty and life that cannot be altered, no Tyranny may ever take place again. This of coarse shows the fallacy of Westminster Democracy or whatever it is they call themselves.

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.

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision.

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

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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?

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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.

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?

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?