When democracy is not the democratic choice - semantics and more

[Absolution]

With Israel going down hill, I started wondering about wider ideas about the legitimacy of democracy.
What should a democratic nation do once the majority rejects some values of democracy?

I think that these questions can be general, but if moderators see this as fitting better to the Israel/Palestine thread - merge it.
For other information and discussions about the actual changes in Israel - better do it in the other thread.

So basically, the recent democratic vote of the majority of citizens in Israel is for a government that plans to end the seperation of power in Israel.
Often this is dubbed as "the end of democracy in Israel".
But isn't it exactly the wish of the majority of the public?
A majority that also has future demography on its side.
Would it be more democratic to prevent it from them?

Honestly I don't see any democratic option.
The other option is that we manage, by civil war or by sanctions, to block these changes.
And then maintain a tyranny of the shrinking minority that we are.

Let's go to semantics here.
The "end of Israeli democracy" means end of the "full democracy", let's call it.
As past philosophers described it - a rule of the majority, that is also enriched by an indepedent court, rule of the law, rights of minorities, human rights, etc.
Israel will thus become a "thin" or "basic" democracy, which lacks these additives, and is purley the reflection of the majority's wishes.

In my view, a full democracy in Israel is no longer a possibility for the future.
A growing majority doesn't want these other additives on top of the thin democracy.
So the two options that I see are:
1. Thin democracy.
2. Tyranny of the "fully democratic" minority.

What do you guys think is the more democratic solution, for a nation whose majority isn't interested in a full democracy?

 

[Remorseless1]

Israel is teetering on the brink of turning into an apartheid state protecting the rights of adherents of one religion and oppressing adherents of all other religions. It is important to recognize the fears of many Israelis if Jews become a distinct minority in Israel, but it's not like Israel is blameless here.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I don't know what exactly the topic is referring to.

I think the more profound changes should require a vote which reaches further and further towards near unanimity. (kind of like in a jury)

democracy just means citizens get a voice, period; it doesn't mean the slim majority should always and will always be right.

 

[Samson]

A majority that also has future demography on its side.

Can you explain this? Generally, the extent to which a state has separation of powers would appear to be something not heritable enough for demographics to apply, but I guess it is to do with the different religious/ethnic groups within Israel?

 

[Absolution]

Can you explain this? Generally, the extent to which a state has separation of powers would appear to be something not heritable enough for demographics to apply, but I guess it is to do with the different religious/ethnic groups within Israel?

There are many statistics about how younger people tend to vote for more religious / hard right parties.
I am now away but when I come back I can supply here somenstatistics, but I guess you can find them.
And politically, you can easily see how left-wing opinions are disappearing from parliament.

A main facor is the extremely high birth rates of ultra-religious, but it is not only that.

 

[FredLC]

In legal doctrine, there is a concept called "existential minimal", which teaches that there are a few fundamentals which are not subject to the rule of majority. No legally achieved majority can, in theory, establish things like slavery, dehumanization, and, arguably, also the "end of the democratic process".

So, what to do when a democratic state chooses to give up it's own democratic stance? In theory, it can be perceived as a rogue state by the international community and alienated from treaties, receive commercial and political sanctions, and, in the most extreme of cases, have a war declared against it by the vote of the security council of the United Nations.

Are the tools of international treats and legislation already there in order to make this response fully functional? Not really. The effectiveness of the system of sanctions between nations is a known, and ancient, problem (known as "problem of implementation" by doctrine since the 19th century), that humanity is inching to solve since the times of the "Concert of Europe", and it is in itself a big can of worms, due to all the politics and sectorial interests involved in antagonizing nation-states; but also, because much care must be taken to avoid doing this in response to casuistic fluctuations in the democratic stance, or due to hyperbole of the defeated parts of the internal politics - or you'd also hurt democracy by overcorrecting.

The very diagnostic for when to act is something very hard to do!

That said, the reason why you are baffled (and I gotta say I'm taking your conclusion at face value; I am not familiar with current Israeli politics) is that there actually isn't, currently, any external system in place to effectively discourage, and push-back, against populists, fascists and demagogues that manage to entice large sways of populations to give up their own freedoms voluntarily. There is the skeleton of one being built, but we are not there yet, and we won't be any time soon - so now, only the internal safeguards of each nation can, in practice, counter those movements, despite them being the very thing they corrupt.

So, for now, let's just hope that your concerns are out of proportion, because if not, then true - that will be very hard to solve without placing the very values you want to safeguard in jeopardy.

Regards .

 

[Absolution]

In legal doctrine, there is a concept called "existential minimal", which teaches that there are a few fundamentals which are not subject to the rule of majority. No legally achieved majority can, in theory, establish things like slavery, dehumanization, and, arguably, also the "end of the democratic process".

So, what to do when a democratic state chooses to give up it's own democratic stance? In theory, it can be perceived as a rogue state by the international community and alienated from treaties, receive commercial and political sanctions, and, in the most extreme of cases, have a war declared against it by the vote of the security council of the United Nations.

Are the tools of international treats and legislation already there in order to make this response fully functional? Not really. The effectiveness of the system of sanctions between nations is a known, and ancient, problem (known as "problem of implementation" by doctrine since the 19th century), that humanity is inching to solve since the times of the "Concert of Europe", and it is in itself a big can of worms, due to all the politics and sectorial interests involved in antagonizing nation-states; but also, because much care must be taken to avoid doing this in response to casuistic fluctuations in the democratic stance, or due to hyperbole of the defeated parts of the internal politics - or you'd also hurt democracy by overcorrecting.

The very diagnostic for when to act is something very hard to do!

That said, the reason why you are baffled (and I gotta say I'm taking your conclusion at face value; I am not familiar with current Israeli politics) is that there actually isn't, currently, any external system in place to effectively discourage, and push-back, against populists, fascists and demagogues that manage to entice large sways of populations to give up their own freedoms voluntarily. There is the skeleton of one being built, but we are not there yet, and we won't be any time soon - so now, only the internal safeguards of each nation can, in practice, counter those movements, despite them being the very thing they corrupt.

So, for now, let's just hope that your concerns are out of proportion, because if not, then true - that will be very hard to solve without placing the very values you want to safeguard in jeopardy.

Regards .

This is sad and true, for the case of many countries that have been through this.

But even if there was an international system of that sort - this intervention will still lead to a non-democeatic outcome, wouldn't it?
If the UN or Nato or whoever, intervened, for exanple, in order to limit the changes that Turkey had been through in the past 20 years - Wouldn't it mean forcing a foreign policy over a population that has another wish?

So once the population of a nation is not interested anymore im a full democracy, it's over, isn't it?
Because a full democracy, by definition, will not oppress or reeducate its citizens in order to remain in power.

---

In Israel's case at least, I don't think it requires external forces in order to stop the process in a non-democratic way.

Internal sanctions - Loc Hi-Tech firms threaten leaving. Israel's number one export sector, remind you.
Internal Force - Civil disobedience, or even civil war are words of the day in Israel in the past month.

Here it is a good opportunity to clarify that it is not only my passimist view.
I'll admit that I've been away from Israel since Decembre, but - Twitter, news, family, friends - the end of democratic Israel and even civil war are daily phrases.
Not only by "common protestors".

See two former prime ministers:

Ehud Olmert:

What is needed is to move to the next stage, the stage of war, and war is not waged with speeches. War is waged in a face-to-face battle, head-to-head and hand-to-hand, and that is what will happen here,

From here

Ehud Barak

Barak, a fierce critic of Netanyahu and of the overhaul to the judiciary, said the “danger [is] immediate and real” and that it may “take two weeks, three weeks to turn us essentially into a de facto dictatorship like Hungary or Poland.”

From here

 

[EnglishEdward]

The

seperation of power

is, if meant seperate legislature, judiciary and executive merely a form of implementation of democracy.

It is rarely well implemented, for instance sometimes failing to do with group think amongst elites, and changing it, is not necessarily ending democracy.

 

[r16]

breaking down the barriers between the three is the primary thing everybody does these days to get called an "autocrat" by foreign media . Threadwise ...

one day you will you will notice there is nothing to watch on TV ...

Spoiler :

which is naturally a boomer thing to say . But it is the truth nonetheless . Oh , ı of course knew all those American serials and movies were tools of some imperialist agenda , imposing mores and conditioned thinking to peoples to make them malleable as assets to a limited numbers of companies and whatnot . Whose owners were de facto kings of old , decadent parasites and all .

but yeah , ı will be the first to say that my rather limited exposure to Soviet films made me to prefer American anyhow .

even if nobody is watching TV these days , the cringe ı get is rather real . ı know the debates are run from one single agency and whatnot , they say exactly the same things (because the speakers are given their talking points on the phone because you see them with eyes glued if they are not the ones talking at the moment) ... Reality shows where the winner is identified before the competition begins . TV serials where they glorify drug dealers or feudal overlords of the East or the corporate bosses of the West or the new governing so called system . One guy importing meat on advantageous prices defended his profits by getting the Ottoman Sultan to talk bad of the evil farmers who opposed foreign meat imports . If anything is Ottoman it is sacred . You can never tell why the Ottoman State ended , if it was that cool and that good . Has been like this for a decade or two now . Previously you could see or imagine people who would work on the margins and stuff .

people with long funny hair and funny hats making too many children is the least of your problems in Israel . They were the looming threat to Democracy back in late 1980s when ı started reading second hand Time/Newsweek to improve my English stuff . The trouble is that the process is foreign and the current ways of State and governing open the doors for it . Cavalry to arrive soon to cover that up and whatever .

no doubt with some article on how the Holocaust made each person more valuable and stuff so that each and every opinion had to be given equal weight . (There is no insult or sarcasm or anything in that sentence) Wrong , it perhaps starts from the Kibbutzim , the plural form of the word - one of the very few ı know , where it was practicable for every adult to vote to influence how things were run . But the real reason was to placate the terrorists and stuff powerfully enough to prevent them starting some Civil War by 1950 , while there were still a lot of Arabs to kill . Everybody had a chance to be his political movement , Menahem Begin could rant all day long instead of smuggling in an entire shipload of weapons ... Yeah , the Stuntwoman is not around , she would otherwise get to trim this a bit , despite my protests and stuff .

this ensures there is no overarching need to compromise to be a political power . To be balanced , to be in the center , to care for the middle ground . While the Israeli Right races to ever more extremism because in each election they were rewarded heavily for the limited number of seats they [once] held . Considering no Goverment could be possible without pandering to at least some of the extremist Rightwingers . This starts a tradition which then creates a condition or situation or whatever . And these people will have their followers to vote as a block . Unlike the Left and moderates who are conditioned to value stuff and criticise most blatant wrongdoing of their representatives .

which still required Henry Kissinger backstab the Labour Goverment in 1973 to decrease their bond with the population with a victory that was almost a defeat . So that Likud and the like could rise . So that they could get power and place their people in and write a narrative of their own .

yeah , a lot of history , again . Except the idea that you should know the yesterday to deal with today , let alone tomorrow . There is a drive to establish a one goverment world , despite all the perks the Rich enjoy already . It requires the dumbing of countries wholesale . As in the young ones going to or sent abroad because the country itself can offer nothing for the future . And while it has been in practice for centuries or millennia , the current technology stuff creates visions of doing it with less people at less cost , hence more profits . Despite the thing they already have all the money in the world anyhow .

which basically means there is no need to have allies in place to control the scene on your behalf . Until your expeditionary forces reach the place to hang the limited number of rabble-rousers ; as it was done in the past . You can instead have a farce in place , that will turn to dust in a moment if you stop supporting it . When the replacements are simply more of the same , willing and ready to gladly take their percentage of the loot , to keep the things same , despite the talk of reversing and correcting . Today , you can run the world with Indian call centers . And fire them all if they start demanding American level wages , because there are still more Indians to replace them . Elon Musk suffers in Twitter only because the thing that some of the Rich fail to understand the American momentum is unstoppable and hence refuse to pay money and support stuff . (There is sarcasm in the last sentence but ı won't tell where)

the future of Israel ? If you want it to remain semi-secular and stuff , a nation of whole Israelis and not become one that expels the heretic Jews , say , by the Centennary of the Kristallnacht , if not long before , the Left and the Center must agree to fight for that . Not in Civil War , not yet . The world power balance still requires the military capabilities of Tel Aviv , no griveous massacres of Jew on Jew yet . The fighting to do is still political .

stay united . Choose your public faces from honest men with no sins , because the media war will be relentless . The lies are tough already , when they are supported even by half truths they become impossible . Make sure everybody understands corruption will inevitably lead to punishment , because nothing is eternal , except God . Talking to the other side in their language is important , which makes the few experts on your side far more important . Let them speak and create the narrative that you are not pandering to the Right by using such a discourse , because you will sink together if the ship is not saved . Back to corruption stuff , because the corrupt will of course use the "we are on the same ship" angle a lot . As a threat that they will sink the ship themselves if there is any risk of them paying for their little robberies . Make them understand that will find themselves tied to the anchors by the time ship really starts to sink . Make them understand they will really pay for corruption and make-believe Piety and yet real support for the Right will not save them forever .

yeah , a lot of BS . Your true real hope is Trumpism . America's poison is making inroads into their own system , they will eventually become too paralysed to start Civil Wars and stuff . Eventually . Which means you should keep steady with the BS and make it actually work .

so , why that wasn't done here ? Every single thing the West did in relation to New Turkey was about supporting it . The Goverments of the Republic were like friendly to the West ; practically every single one after 1938 took the position of a servant and stuff . They were still moved aside . We are always defined as Middle Eastern to make the weak minds in the Western population to understand that the treatment we will eventually get is simply a law of nature . The West is just doing it , pushing us to the fringe and stuff . Even the punishments served on New Turkey to cut them to size when Ankara starts talking too big , serves in the interests of New Turkey because they are controlled and never damaging enough . New Turkey has a lot of supporters . Who would abandon the cause in an instant if their wallets suffered . Just a shock , easily covered by more loot of the treasury . While all the talk to the lunatics revolve around how worse would it be , if it was for real . Say , in a situation where New Turkey was somehow not allowed to steal the horse and cross the Bosphorus . As in one of these entirely pointless Turkish proverbs .

if there is any legal global framework to save Democracy ? Any foreign intervention in this country will be about saving New Turkey . Any foreign intervention in Israel would come much later and will involve Holocaust II . Only when it is feasible . Follow the global news about how much safety nuclear weapons do actually provide .

 

[Kyriakos]

There are two distinct issues, one with securing elements of the system that are highly important to avoid totalitarianism (such as actual distinction of powers), and one about the will of the voting population. And while the former is destructive for democracy, the latter is democratic: if your population is very conservative, it is obviously expected that the result of elections will reflect that.
Constitutions, where they exist, are supposed to prevent changes to the polity that alter its fundamental type. But those have to be safeguarded themselves by some kind of constitutional court, to arrive at decisions about which legislation goes against the constitution and which does not. And said courts, of course, have to be fully independent from the government of the day.

 

[El_Machinae]

Alastair Reynolds in his Revelation Space universe has a governmental system that governs over pockets of independent colonies (since asteroids are far apart in space). The government's policy is that it won't interfere in any internal issue as long as that internal issue was the result of democratic practices.
So, it creates this universe where there are some hellscape colonies where the society has done something like "we democratically decide that we no longer get a vote but let the technocrats rule us because they're wiser", and then all of the miserable citizenry has to live their lives without any hope of external intervention.
There's also democratically deciding the rules vs democratically deciding responses.

In the Trolley Problem, if there's a vote the majority will vote to kill someone who wasn't at risk. Why? Well, the majority of the group has a vested interest in murdering him for their benefit. BUT, if the 7 workers are planning the day and are going to be randomly assigned to the 3 positions but want to create policy in case of accident - they will also vote for the switch to be pulled.

One case is a murder "for the greater good". One case is a least-damage policy created through proper democratic processes.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

This is sad and true, for the case of many countries that have been through this.

But even if there was an international system of that sort - this intervention will still lead to a non-democeatic outcome, wouldn't it?
If the UN or Nato or whoever, intervened, for exanple, in order to limit the changes that Turkey had been through in the past 20 years - Wouldn't it mean forcing a foreign policy over a population that has another wish?

So once the population of a nation is not interested anymore im a full democracy, it's over, isn't it?
Because a full democracy, by definition, will not oppress or reeducate its citizens in order to remain in power.

---

In Israel's case at least, I don't think it requires external forces in order to stop the process in a non-democratic way.

Internal sanctions - Loc Hi-Tech firms threaten leaving. Israel's number one export sector, remind you.
Internal Force - Civil disobedience, or even civil war are words of the day in Israel in the past month.

Here it is a good opportunity to clarify that it is not only my passimist view.
I'll admit that I've been away from Israel since Decembre, but - Twitter, news, family, friends - the end of democratic Israel and even civil war are daily phrases.
Not only by "common protestors".

See two former prime ministers:

Ehud Olmert:

From here

Ehud Barak

From here

I like their attitude. Illegitimate authority should be resisted.

from the 2nd link, it looks liks this is what they're protesting:

...if the hard-right coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu completes its plans to impose radical, sweeping changes to the judiciary system.
These include granting itself total control over the appointment of judges, including to the High Court, all but eliminating the High Court’s ability to review and strike down legislation, and allowing politicians to appoint — and fire — their own legal advisers. The plans have spurred mass weekly protests in major cities, alarmed warnings from economists, legal professionals and tech entrepreneurs inside and outside Israel, and fierce criticism from the opposition.

 

[Takhisis]

Basically you're getting into Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance. Can a system tolerate intolerance? Sooner or later that intolerance will be intolerance of the system itself.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, this is a situation where violent resistance to Netanyahu's government is warranted.

 

[r16]

no , it is not and will not happen .

 

[Remorseless1]

That's why Bibi's government deliberately continues its provocative actions against Palestinians, guaranteeing violent responses from an oppressed population. It maintains an "enemy of the state" mentality that favors authoritarian governance to "save the country."

 

[FredLC]

This is sad and true, for the case of many countries that have been through this.

But even if there was an international system of that sort - this intervention will still lead to a non-democeatic outcome, wouldn't it?
If the UN or Nato or whoever, intervened, for exanple, in order to limit the changes that Turkey had been through in the past 20 years - Wouldn't it mean forcing a foreign policy over a population that has another wish?

So once the population of a nation is not interested anymore im a full democracy, it's over, isn't it?
Because a full democracy, by definition, will not oppress or reeducate its citizens in order to remain in power.

One of the reasons this system is still in beta even after a century is because there are huge resistances from nation-states against submitting to international regulation and external courts. They see this as giving up sovereignty, and... they are not wrong; it is relativizing sovereignty.

What they sidestep, is thatnothing makes the nation-state the inherent ideal expression of democratic output. It was city-states in the past; it can be world-wide in the future. All those levels require representation, abstraction, and the surrendering of individuality to regulations made by elected officials.

We are not there yet; this would require more cultural approximation to work worldwide - but that was kind of my point from the start.

That said, we are not talking about abolishing nations, but of the existential minimal, of core values of the human race. Think of it like this: if Israel passed a law allowing their soldiers to capture woman from neighbouring nations to keep as sex slaves, and it caused a reaction from NATO and a retaliatory invasion, would you be arguing that this would be an assault on the democracy by international forces?

 

[Samson]

In a similar vein, Liechtenstein has had multiple refereda in recent years, and all have gone with making it more an absolute monarchy and less a democracy.

Spoiler Youtube about it :

Spoiler LSE Comment on similar issues :

The political system of Liechtenstein can be described as dualistic, in the sense that power is constitutionally shared between the Prince and the people. Citizens are represented by an elected parliament (the Landtag) and government, but there are also a wide variety of direct democracy instruments in place. As the ruling Prince, Hans-Adam II, proudly asserts in his book, the Principality is therefore the only country in the world that combines the three institutions of monarchy, representative democracy, and direct democracy.

Within this system, the Prince plays a much more powerful role than his counterparts in other (constitutional) monarchies in Europe: he can dismiss the government, dissolve parliament, veto the outcomes of popular votes, and has an important role in the appointment of judges. It is no wonder, therefore, that the role of powerful monarchical leadership in Liechtenstein has been criticised repeatedly by international organisations, most notably the Council of Europe.

Yet while outside observers recurrently express their disapproval of Liechtenstein’s powerful monarchy, the outcome of various referendums and popular votes reveals that between two-thirds and three quarters of the Liechtenstein electorate support the constitutional position of the Prince. After conflicts between Hans-Adam II and elected politicians had sparked a constitutional crisis in the 1990s, close to 65 per cent of voters endorsed the Prince’s reform proposals in a 2003 constitutional referendum, thereby extending the power of the monarchy.

The situation raises complex questions regarding the nature of Liechtenstein’s regime: can a country be considered a democracy when a majority of voters voluntarily concede significant powers to an unelected ruler? Questions of this sort became acutely pertinent in 2011, when the Prince, in advance of a referendum on the liberalisation of abortion laws, declared that he would veto a ‘yes’-outcome, thereby essentially nullifying the entire referendum. But in a subsequent 2012 vote organised by pro-democracy activists, over 75% of voters rejected a proposal to limit the veto powers of the Prince.

Reflecting broad popular support for the monarchy, Liechtenstein’s main political parties are generally supportive of the role of the Prince, even if that curtails their own political authority. Since World War II, Liechtenstein has been ruled by coalitions between the Progressive Citizens’ Party (FBP; ‘the blacks’) and the Fatherland Union (VU; ‘the reds’), two conservative, economically liberal, and pro-monarchy parties that essentially have a similar political platform.

Source

 

[Kyriakos]

But Liechenstein has a fraction of the population of (say) ancient Sparta, so such peculiaries are to be expected 35.000 people is a tiny town.

 

[Samson]

It is a very different situation to Israel.