Democracy or What's Right?

[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.

[Idaho]

You are just being evasive as the evidence seems rather overwhelming. The right is much more likely to overthrow a democratic government than the left.

[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.

[Idaho]

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.

Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.

Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.

[al Roumi]

Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.

I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...

Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.

yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.

[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....).

[Idaho]

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

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

[Fragony]

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

What we see as left and right stays within our conventions, it's not powerplay it's a mere disagreement.

bit of a cynical read but OT http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

Also applies for internal affairs. Left or right, comes down to power, no matter the scale.

[Kralizec]

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

Red Army Fraction in west Germany and the Japenese Red Army (link)

There's also a handful of ultra-leftists groups wich were founded when their respective countries were autocratic, but continued to exist once they became democratic. Examples: FARC, ETA and the PKK.

[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 .