Cloud_Strife
Deity
One is essentially a fascist colonial ethnostate, the other is lichtenstein.
When democracy is not the democratic choice - semantics and more
- Thread starter Absolution
- Start date
EnglishEdward
Deity
Alas I suspect that he may grow old and die and nothing much may change regarding democracy there.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Israel would still be a fascist ethnostate though
A democracy that has been voting further right with time, including many further right than Bibi.
Spoiler Graph of Israeli election results :
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Let's put it that way: should we tolerate intolerance in the name of tolerance? The answer is "no". Tolerating intolerance annihilates the principle of tolerance by itself as everyone could then disrespect it. That's the reason why fundamental rights have to be guaranteed by law for a society to be considered "free".
As such, I disagree with your premise that a democracy is defined as the rule of the majority only "enriched" by rule of law and respect of fundamental rights. It's not because you have a voting process that it means it's a democracy. Without any rule of law and any respect of fundamental rights, there's no democracy, no matter if elections are organized.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Voting is the most important part of democracy.
Why? I think this is mostly a semantic question. I think we all agree that there are things it is good for a society to have. Those include the leaders being chosen by voting, a vaguely equitable system of law and some system of fundamental rights. There is loads of other things as well, like a health system, a transportation system, water and sewerage, I could go on. Which ones are better encompassed in "democracy" and which are not, and why?
Absolution
King
This had been kind of true before the 7.10
Now, Israeli society is in the midst of a hurricane and nobody can have a clue about the end result of this.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
If there is no rule of law, then there's no possibility to guarantee the voting process was fair. If people can vote but elections are rigged, it's just like if there was no election. Other problem, if fundamental rights aren't guaranteed to everyone, and for instance some people can kill some other people without fearing any consequences, then those people who risk getting killed at any time couldn't care less about their ability to vote.
In both cases, this is not democracy.
EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not talking about Israel here, but about the general principles which makes a democracy.
I am not sure that is a given. For example, there was an African election recently, I cannot remember where but I posted about it. Because of recent electoral fraud, all ballot counting is done in public, each ballot is held up, many people are watching and some presumably keeping their own count. That is the sort of election that could work without modern ideas of "rule of law" but a more customary way of doing things.
I might argue that an educated and connected populace is essential for democracy, because if you cannot access and read the policies of the parties you cannot meaningfully engage with democracy. Does that mean compulsory education and internet access are requirements for democracy?
Certainly anything higher up the "pyramid of needs" than good governance will trump voting. Again, I could say that about someone starving or with unmet medical needs. Does that mean that a welfare state and a universal healthcare system is a prerequisite for democracy?
As am I.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I agree. The heart of democracy which is voting does not require formalised law.
On this I differ. As party manifestos are often just salespeak, they are often impractical and the parties rarely
follow them, so I thinkthat ignorance of them is largely irrelevant to the average voter engaging with democracy.
And I am sceptical of this thing I will call party mediated democracy. I think it best to vote for the person, not the party.
I don't think so. Welfare and healthcare are better provided by families, clans, cooperatives or local village, town, county level democracy, rather than at the nation state level.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
If voting is the only thing that matters, was Saddam Hussein's Iraq a democracy because people were voting at 99,99% to re-elect him?
1995 Iraqi presidential referendum - Wikipedia
Law doesn't have to be "formalised" to be law. "Rule of law" doesn't require it to look like a contemporary Western state's court system (... possibly it may turn out quite unlike such a system if we really commit to it...)
Elections being held a certain way due to agreed-upon tribal customs, if they apply to all and don't put any particular individual or group above it, is "rule of law" in action.
We say elections in places like Baathist Iraq weren't free and fair because there were entities that were able to act outside the law to coerce or intimidate voters or outright falsify the results of the election. Or the written law specified some political party as having a privileged position in society, in which case we don't have a rule of law, but rather law being a tool in service of a single party state.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,721
I feel like you're conflating traditions and laws. Sometimes it might be a distinction without a difference, and sometimes a tradition might be better or more powerful than a law*, but I don't think they're the same. I think a key component of a law is an enforcement mechanism. We see in the U.S. political system right now that traditions have almost no weight at all, and things like ethics and norms are out the window as soon as someone decides they are.
* In the context of a conversation about U.S. law enforcement reform, someone - I forget who - said that "culture eats policy for breakfast", which I think is true.
It's all on a spectrum yes?
If Americans actually take their norms seriously and collectively decide that people who break them - even if what they did was technically legal - should be punished, then maybe such individuals will suffer the consequences at the next election, or they will suffer more immediate consequences like social ostracisation or being "cancelled".
They're informal enforcement mechanisms, but you can imagine them being formalised eg. the literal ostracisms in Ancient Athens.
The point is, in societies where those norms, traditions, and customs take on the force of law - as in non-literate tribal ones for example - then, well, those are the laws, and you'll find breaking them will get you at the business end of those enforcement mechanisms pretty quick.
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
Firstly: Neither I, nor others here, have stated that voting is the only thing that matters.
Secondly: You know very well that Saddam Hussein came to power by a coup rather than an election.
Thirdly: You know very well that 99,99% did not vote to re-elect him.
Fourthly: You know very well that Iraq was not a democracy while Saddam Hussein was in power.
Four (4) spurious arguments in a single sentence.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Correct.
A law is a rule enforced by those in authority. Laws do not necessarily have anything to do with democracy.
Indeed in many instances laws existed to prevent democracy and democracy required breaking them.
And then?
Verbose
Deity
Debateable. Voting without the free formation of opinion, and the right of political organization is worth nothing. Arguably the independent legal, constitutional, protection of these rights are more important than having the ballot every so-or-so many years apart.
Fx Russia's continuing claim to be a democracy is precisely that the general elections roll around like clockwork when they are supposed to. But the Duma a is rubber stamp parliament that writes rubber legislation (or laws so badly formulated they cannot be applied), but it matters not because the courts (with a 90+% conviction rate) takes directions from the government as to how they in fact apply – while Russia has also changed the election laws, including heavy gerrymandering, for every single election so far. And of course the formation of opinion in Russia is not free by any stretch of imagination. And neither is there an actual right to political organization.
But if someone takes just a casual look, and Russians claiming it is just like the west, or even better (they might really think it is too), might still be taken in.
China otoh claims to be a democracy more on the old Marxist formula of "centralized democracy", that supposedly the Party is fully democratic internally until a decision is reached, which then everyone in solidarity support to uphold the union of the party. And since the role the Party is to lead, everyone happily endorses the wise policies of the party by voting for whatever it might be when instructed to. Etc.
A society with suspended election, even for a long time, will still remain at the core a democratic society provided the independent legal protection of the rights of free formation of opinion and organization remain. If they are not upheld, even if there are elections, then meaningful democracy has already been gutted.
