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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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%.

[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.

[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.