Democracy or What's Right?

[Idaho]

Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?













*right as defined by you.

[Fragony]

Can only speak for my 'culture' but look at Yugoslavia it fared better under a dictator then it did without, falled apart in the worst possible way . Democracy or any system is only as good as it's people probably.

[rory_20_uk]

To rely totally on any one system is folly. Although less likely than others, pure democracy can have very intolerant outcomes.

[Furunculus]

The primacy of public opinion is paramount.

If the public is unequal to the responsibility then they should be punished accordingly.

[Lemur]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Individual freedom is much more important than democracy. I'd rather live under a dictator that kept a low profile running the country with his cronies, than in some sort of totalitarian society where people think being the majority gives them the right to do anything.

[Idaho]

Individual freedom is much more important than democracy. I'd rather live under a dictator that kept a low profile running the country with his cronies, than in some sort of totalitarian society where people think being the majority gives them the right to do anything.

That doesn't make much sense. How can it be a totalitarian democracy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?













*right as defined by you.

Something of a fallacy, if you believe that Tyranny is wrong, so that doing what is "right" is maintaining democracy and a freedom.

[Idaho]

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 that for many the character of the government is more important than the way it comes about, and my working hypothesis is that it's a trait more prevalent for the centre-right.

Personally I think that the democratic principle is as central as the rule of law, and without them we may as well turn the clock back 200 years.

[Furunculus]

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 that for many the character of the government is more important than the way it comes about, and my working hypothesis is that it's a trait more prevalent for the centre-right.

Personally I think that the democratic principle is as central as the rule of law, and without them we may as well turn the clock back 200 years.

chile and thailand are somewhat different examples, as pinochet is the result of cold-war superpower politics where proxies were used instead of europe as a battlefield. your talk of privilege and pinochet betrays a particular bias from the outset.

just so we get this straight; your working hypothesis is that right-wing people would hold doing what is 'right' to be more important than 'democracy' from the point of view of internal governance? let me firmly state that if this is the position then i as a right wing person am firmly on the side of representative government (by which you may read "democracy").

[gaelic cowboy]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

So say the teachings of Lemur-Maud Dib the God Emporer Bi-la kaifa

[gaelic cowboy]

I hold that it's not democracy or public opinion thats important but reason this is the key 51% cant just vote to genocide the other 49%.

[Furunculus]

I hold that any nation that does not trust it politicians to work collectively for the good of the people, and likewise does not trust the people not to descend into barbarism, should immediately introduce fundamental human rights and party-list proportional representation.

i have no use for fundamental human rights and PR in Britain, precisely because i trust both the people and the government to act in a civilised manner.

[Vladimir]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

Is this the one that runs around naked spanking himself?

[gaelic cowboy]

I hold that any nation that does not trust it politicians to work collectively for the good of the people, and likewise does not trust the people not to descend into barbarism, should immediately introduce fundamental human rights and party-list proportional representation.

i have no use for fundamental human rights and PR in Britain, precisely because i trust both the people and the government to act in a civilised manner.

So your in the reason camp so????? like meself

[Rhyfelwyr]

That doesn't make much sense. How can it be a totalitarian democracy?

Well if a totalitarian government was supported by 51% of the population, that would be a totalitarian democracy. I speak of course of the idea of pure democracy as opposed to modern western liberal democracies (which are centred on individual rights above mob rule), since a tyranny of the majority is why the likes of Aristotle said democracy was a bad form of government.

[Furunculus]

So your in the reason camp so????? like meself

i'm in the "The primacy of public opinion is paramount" camp, for Britain at any rate.

[gaelic cowboy]

But how can opinion be a good idea most people have no opinion on anything or worse they form bad ones or abuse good one's. If you use reason it doesn't matter what opinion you have it will be informed by said reason as opposed to the mob

[al Roumi]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

There is no 'right thing to do', only what people hink is the right thing to do.

[Furunculus]

But how can opinion be a good idea most people have no opinion on anything or worse they form bad ones or abuse good one's. If you use reason it doesn't matter what opinion you have it will be informed by said reason as opposed to the mob

is this directed at me, i'm struggling to make a connection?

[gaelic cowboy]

is this directed at me, i'm struggling to make a connection?

Sorry yes it is

[Furunculus]

i'm still struggling to link your comment to mine..............? :)

[gaelic cowboy]

@furunculus your saying only public opinion matters I think thats is dangerous maybe even more dangerous than dictatorship.

[Centurion1]

Pure democracy is an imbecilic notion and imo people should take an intelligence test to be able to vote. Not really but public opinion is so swayed and unknowledgeable that representative democracy controlled by a political elite is the only realistic form of democracy.

And sometimes people must extend their powers. Let's look at imo the most powerfuly middle eastern nation, turkey. Why are they the dominant faction even without vast oil reserves? Because amid a sea of islamic fundementalist nation states they are secular and westernized. And why are they like this? Because whenever islamic clerics fundies of course attempt to seize power the military squashes them since ataturk. There are other reasons of course but that is key and some would argue that turkey has a better representation for its constituents than many other nations (unless your a kurd)

Other me examples egypt pakistan (before the current events there of course lol)

[Furunculus]

@furunculus your saying only public opinion matters I think thats is dangerous maybe even more dangerous than dictatorship.

public opinion includes civic norms and societal goodwill, which is found in Britain in sufficient measure to permit FPTP winner takes all politics and a system of governance that directly reflects the will of the British electorate.

if other countries don't have that trust then they must cripple the representative nature of their government, but that isn't my concern.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is no 'right thing to do', only what people hink is the right thing to do.

That's a self-disproving statement. If it's true then it's false, which means it's true.... which demonstrates the existence of objective truth and therefore objective "right".

In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.

[Idaho]

That's a self-disproving statement. If it's true then it's false, which means it's true.... which demonstrates the existence of objective truth and therefore objective "right".

In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.

Examples?!?

I can give you Thailand, Chile, Spain in 1936, Greece off the top of my head. There are a few more in central America I would wager.

[Fragony]

Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.

[Furunculus]

Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.

agreed.

the example are influenced by too many external factors anyway.