Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
A few things prompted my enquiry.

Firstly the situation in Thailand at the moment. Where a democratically elected party was removed from office by a combination of army and anti-democracy, pro-privilege protesters. I see a lot of parallels with the Pinochet coup in Chile and the Contras in Nicaragua.
I think your examples are a helpful reminder that no system of governance functions in a vacuum or as in theory.

WRT to Thailand i can imagine that either side would argue that they are in favour of democracy, but that the other started using "un-democratic means" to gain an advantage, to which they had no option but to respond -in the interests of democracy of course.

I voted in favour of democracy, on the (shaky) belief that a consensus of the majority is most likely system to deliver the least bad/mad system of governance. Then again, there are bountiful examples from history where that has not been the case...

I believe the main reason not to compromise on democracy is not about who/what immediately replaces it, but what could happen afterwards or who could get hold of it next...

Also, it is of course easier to do something radical when you have more concentrated authority than it is when that authority is more difuse. When you have the power to do radical things, your mistakes are likely to be that much more radical too...

And of course, Democracy isn't going to be any "good" if it isn't accompanied by Montesquieu's check's & balances.