Democracy or What's Right?

[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.

[Idaho]

I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.

[Furunculus]

are these a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat

[Centurion1]

edit: lol

[Idaho]

are these a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

[Furunculus]

nope.

[al Roumi]

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).

As has been remarked here, democracy and elections are alone no guarantee of representative government.

edit:

While reading around this subject, i just came accross this fascinating page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism

Don't be put off by the title, it includes a run down of how democracy can contribute to the social good (as well as to the interests of the working class).

[Idaho]

nope.

I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

[Furunculus]

funny, i didn't see you prove that conclusion, and many examples from the cold war had as much to do with proxy conflict as internal pressure.

[rory_20_uk]

There are many left wing uprisings that just hadn't managed to take power: India / Nepal for example. But one reason for this is that Right revolutions tend to be organised and efficient at taking power. Leftist ones are more like rabbles. Look at the communist Army: decided to scrap ranks, and have votes on battle plans. A few horrendous slaughters later and ranks were reinstated.

Others that did: Eastern Europe post WW2 for example. I'm pretty sure there were some in Africa too.

[al Roumi]

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

I have to disagree. In these fairly crude terms, Fragony is right to say the political right/left is immaterial. What matters more is what the incumbent system is, and what the overthrowers stand for. If incumbents have traditionaly been conservative, preserving the interests of an elite/old order, then it is natural that the revolutionaries appear progressive, and by comparison to the conservative incumbents apparently left wing.

To provide the most obvious filibuster to your theory, one need look no further than Communism and its revolutionary doctrine which ultimately drives for a proletarian Dictatroship. Whilst it's clear that on the path to that dictatorship, Communists supported democracy, this was only ever a transient phase -witness the February & October revolutions in Russia and the Spanish Communist party's gradual corruption/creeping control of the Republican (democratic) movement druing the civil war. Democracy is even seen by Marx as one step on the path towards communism.

Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.

I have been interested to see how little people here are actually attached to democracy, for all its failings I'm happier with consensus forming politics than centralised autocracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).

[Fragony]

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

But democracy is evolutionary, do you want a list of country's growing more democratic, or at least try to do so .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

[gaelic cowboy]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

None of those could have been considered democratic at the time of there overthrow which was the point of the earlier post

[Idaho]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?

I don't see why that matters. Lenin chose to institute a dictatorship, ignoring the elections his Communists did badly in - so that's one example. More generally, you argued that doing what is "Right" over what is "Democratic" is a trait more of the political Right than the /Left. The fact that most Left-ist revolutions were anti-democratic surely proves this to be incorrect; regardless of the system they replaced.