Democracy or What's Right?

[Idaho]

i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people.

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.






*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

[Furunculus]

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

Since i start from the position that the aim of democracy geovernment is to achieve representation of the people the first option; The primacy of public opinion is paramount, make a lot more sense. There have after all been plenty of political systems that claim to be deomocratic without be representaive of the will of the people.

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

[al Roumi]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

Essentially, you want to affirm a supposition you have that right wing people & groups are fundamentally undemocratic. I think you are the only person arguing that case in this thread. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence, you want to affirm your own opinion as fact!

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

I think it is very easy to be confused by what democracy theoretically means and what it is in practice. Exactly as a totalitarian state can be left wing (furthering the interests of the poor/working class) and right wing (preserving the interests of the elite), so can a “democracy”.

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

The single thing which democratic elections do contribute to representative and responsive governance is a (crude) system of accountability –if you don’t like the incumbent, don’t vote for him again! I say this is a crude system though because elections can be so open to corruption and influence that the accountability can be no more than a fig-leaf for decidedly un-representative, unresponsive and unaccountable governance.

That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.

:wince: As I mentioned above, there was a February revolution before an October one in Russia. The February revolution, supported by the communists, deposed the Tsar’s absolute power and established an elected “democratic” government (middle/upper class dominated). The communists then proceeded to undermine this government and later in the same year provoked the October revolution –deposing the elected democratic government and imposing a communist one.

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Stalin must, at some level, have been motivated by the interests of the proletariat, ergo left wing. He would also quite clearly have been one to vote “2” in this poll…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

In any case, you sgtill haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

[Idaho]

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

Well that, once again, is a whole other debate, but one more cogent of this thread. Democracy isn't per se about a system of elections. It is "rule by the people". Elections are one method to acheive this via a representative model.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

Those are examples, sure enough. Although, fairly weak ones in terms of antiquity and the nature and establishment of the state that was overthrown.

They compare fairly poorly to Spain in 1936, Greece in the 1970s, Thailand recently, Chile in the 70s, Germany in the 30s, Italy in the 20/30s - primarily because these examples were deliberate attempts to remove established democracies.

[al Roumi]

In any case, you still haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

A movement for particular values imposes the system which best suits its interests, e.g. A working class communist movement imposes a communist dictatorship. A monarchist/aristocratic movement imposes an autocratic system. A middle class movement imposes a "democracy".

There are exceptions and these are traditionaly due to neccessary measures taken to tighter enforce/preserve the movement's interests in the face of a strong challenge to them (e.g. the French revolution turning into a dictatorship during la terreur). Ironically these bourgeoi movements have often stepped away from democratic rule as a measure to preserve it in the long term.

[Rhyfelwyr]

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

I will reply now since I think this is a relevant example of what I was talking about earlier. Well, as a side note, I don't think you can apply concepts of the left/right in a seventeenth century scenario, if anyone was left wing in this period it was the Diggers, which Cromwell quite strongly opposed.

But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

[al Roumi]

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

Specifically Leftist revolutions have generally imposed Tyrannies though. What usually happens is that the Left/Right Tyranny is eventually overthrown by a democratic revolution, which is when people get fed up with ideaology and decide they'd rather the State leave them alone, thank you very much.

I was responding to Idaho's argument that Tyranny is a Right-wing phenomenon, not arguing with his examples of Right-wing Tyrannies.

I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.

Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

While I think you're glossing over Cromwell's brutality in putting down rebellions I broadly agree. However, this rather proves my point; Cromwell became a dictator in order to force a "progressive" reform program. what he didn't do was expand the franchise in order to break the Puritan hold on Parliament; or offer an amnesty and incentives to allow the more religiously liberal Royalists to come home and participate in power.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Specifically Leftist revolutions have generally imposed Tyrannies though. What usually happens is that the Left/Right Tyranny is eventually overthrown by a democratic revolution, which is when people get fed up with ideaology and decide they'd rather the State leave them alone, thank you very much.

I think this pretty much sums everything up, the whole leftist/rightist argument here just seems like petty point-scoring.

Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

The odd things about the Tories with the talk of constitutions and conservatism, is they they were actually pretty radical. I think their problem was that they had such a romanticised view of the past (a remant of the 'wrong but romantic' Royalists in many respects I suppose). They clung to their view of the old paternal, benevolent Stuart monarchs as the head of the ordered society you mentioned, yet ironically, the Stuarts had of course been quite radical in their absolutism, and all the social and political change going on which the Tories opposed was really a result of the programme of centralisation led by the Stuarts.

While I think you're glossing over Cromwell's brutality in putting down rebellions I broadly agree. However, this rather proves my point; Cromwell became a dictator in order to force a "progressive" reform program. what he didn't do was expand the franchise in order to break the Puritan hold on Parliament; or offer an amnesty and incentives to allow the more religiously liberal Royalists to come home and participate in power.

The brutality is another bone of contention (like with the 2,700 slaughtered at Drogheda Irish nationalists keep going on about... guess how many English Royalist soldiers were stationed at Drogheda). But as for the dicatator bit, he did believe in democratic government as well as individual liberty, and he did make several attempts to get a Parliament functioning that wouldn't work as a tyranny of the majority.

Having studied a bit about his personal life and his character as well, I think the problem is he went a bit... mental. When Parliament was being given 70 members to model the Sanhedrin, and Jews were being brought over from the Netherlands to the Godly Commonwealth to make way for the second coming... it became pretty clear that the religious element had taken precedent over the previous constitutional issues.

[Idaho]

I was responding to Idaho's argument that Tyranny is a Right-wing phenomenon, not arguing with his examples of Right-wing Tyrannies.

I argued no such thing. I argued that the overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.

Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

It is not coincidental, partly or fully. It is entirely causal. Conservatism, as a philosophy, is about the preservation of existing power structures.

[drone]

I argued no such thing. I argued that the successful overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.

Fixed. The lefties just don't know how to do it correctly.

[al Roumi]

Fixed. The lefties just don't know how to do it correctly.

LOL, THAT would make an interesting research subject. My (uneducated) guess would be that lefty groups are less flush, so have fewer means to fight a protracted war physically as well as ideologicaly (propaganda). That said, with the USSR and China to prop them up, there were a good few successful lefty "revolutions" during the cold war.

Or, as Idaho is dying to conclude, Right wing groups are inherently evil and ready to go that little bit further in being appalingly ruthless.

[gaelic cowboy]

The brutality is another bone of contention (like with the 2,700 slaughtered at Drogheda Irish nationalists keep going on about... guess how many English Royalist soldiers were stationed at Drogheda).

That probably had more to do with healing a rift in England due to bad blood in the civil war they ignored what really happened and so only one narrative continued to the present. It is true that both Confederate and Royalists made common cause in Ireland and this was probably an awkward memory after the Cromwellian period ended.

[rotorgun]

Not a bad body of posts to read through. I won't try to get into the whole left/right debate, but would like to offer this quote from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think that the third line, beginning "That whenever any for of government....etc." is the one point most apt to the thread. It answers entirely, for myself in any case, the question of whether it would be better to retain a democracy or adopt a government that seems "right" to the governed. It means that if the people feel that adopting a different government, notice that no distinction as to democratic or not is made, seems preferable to them, than it is their right.

PS: I appreciate all the references to Cromwell, a fascinating historical figure to say the least.

[Idaho]

Or, as Idaho is dying to conclude, Right wing groups are inherently evil and ready to go that little bit further in being appalingly ruthless.

The right usually co-opt the army into their coups.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I argued no such thing. I argued that the overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.

Actually, you said:

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.

I.e. Right-Wingers are (in your opinion) more likely to ignore democracy in order to institute a Right-Wing Government than Left-Wingers are to institute a Left-Wing one. The fact that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 20th Century were Left-Wing clearly demonstrates that subversion of democracy or, "the end justifies the means" is not an inherrently Right-Wing philosophy.

It is not coincidental, partly or fully. It is entirely causal. Conservatism, as a philosophy, is about the preservation of existing power structures.

no, Conservatism is about preservation and maintainance of society. Preservation of "existing power structues" might come under that, but that does not translate to, "we want to keep all the power for ourselves".

Conservatism is not inherrently selfish, which is your persistant position.

[al Roumi]

no, Conservatism is about preservation and maintainance of society. Preservation of "existing power structues" might come under that, but that does not translate to, "we want to keep all the power for ourselves".

Conservatism is not inherrently selfish, which is your persistant position.

While it may not eaxctly be "we want to keep all the power for ourselves", it certainly is "we want things to stay as they are" -which does mean preserving the status quo Socially, politicaly and economicaly.

Lefties think that only in changing the status quo can a "fair deal" for all, if not the institutionaly exploited in particular, be ensured. Right wingers consider that sufficiently gifted/worthy people will extricate themselves from misery/poverty and that the system therefore needs no change.

Not wanting change is the very definition of the word "conservative".

Edit:

the apparent lack of compassion and unwillingness to change the system which entraps and impedes those unable to help themselves, does make conservatives look inherently selfish. That is, providing one believes the system is at least partly at fault for the misery of the unfortunates (i.e. what lefties think).

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Furunculus and Idaho

Your both wrong a Tory is a term of insult

The word derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men". It was originally used to refer to an Irish outlaw and later applied to Confederates or Royalists in arms. The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

I had thought Whig came from the Gaelic work for sheep-thief, but some google-fu indicates it just means anyone who drove horses or cattle...

[gaelic cowboy]

Bit more complicated it may have two differant but equally plausible answers I just did a quicky on google and found this and this

It seems they were all insults adopted by the respective party involved like the N word in america for black people

[Furunculus]

@ Furunculus and Idaho

Your both wrong a Tory is a term of insult

The word derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men". It was originally used to refer to an Irish outlaw and later applied to Confederates or Royalists in arms. The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

i'm not argueing the origin of the term, merely what i hold it to represent.

[gaelic cowboy]

I couldn't resist it though

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the apparent lack of compassion and unwillingness to change the system which entraps and impedes those unable to help themselves, does make conservatives look inherently selfish. That is, providing one believes the system is at least partly at fault for the misery of the unfortunates (i.e. what lefties think).

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

[Idaho]

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

To give the poor scraps from the table to make the rich feel noble and maintain their own belief that they are fundamentally superior people. The 15th century is over - move on.

[Idaho]

Actually, you said:

I.e. Right-Wingers are (in your opinion) more likely to ignore democracy in order to institute a Right-Wing Government than Left-Wingers are to institute a Left-Wing one. The fact that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 20th Century were Left-Wing clearly demonstrates that subversion of democracy or, "the end justifies the means" is not an inherrently Right-Wing philosophy.

Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

As for the last point - it's not cogent to this particular debate. But I think that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century were definately right wing. I suggest you start a new thread.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To give the poor scraps from the table to make the rich feel noble and maintain their own belief that they are fundamentally superior people. The 15th century is over - move on.

not what I said.

Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

you didn't make that clear when you opened the thread, in fact you didn't narrow your focus until after people started giving lists of Left-Wing tyrannies.

[al Roumi]

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

Without further derailing this thread (Sorry idaho!), the only thing that is clear is that you are unable to disaggregate opinion from fact.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

As for the last point - it's not cogent to this particular debate. But I think that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century were definately right wing. I suggest you start a new thread.

The dynamics are completely different for the 18th/19th centuries. This shows where the failings of simply talking about left/right show up - the 'right' as you are terming them in those times were really the remnants of the feudal elite that resisted the up and coming class of bourgeoisie capitalists, who you could hardly call 'left-wing'.

Then in the 20th century, you might say the far-right regimes were about the oppression of the lower-classes, but they certainly didn't see it that way. Remember, fascism was the 'third way', that was strongly opposed to the decadent bourgeoisie elites and international capitalism, instead promoting the good of the nation, and all its classes, and making it self-sufficient.

We can't write modern left/right concepts (confusingingly different enough even if you just cross the Atlantic) into the past, they just don't fit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Without further derailing this thread (Sorry idaho!), the only thing that is clear is that you are unable to disaggregate opinion from fact.

Sharp words, but I feel vindicated in this case when multiple generations in some areas live in virtual poverty, subsisting on state handouts. Are you saying, "Chavs" are not generally viewed with contempt by those with jobs, and that the rich are generally viewed with contempt by Chavs?