Survivors of prolonged authoritarianism

[plarq]

From the threads about Russian democracy, I was thinking to myself, what the heck is that? Sovereignty + national pride vs. Democracy and human rights? Both are inedible and incurable of social illnesses.

I'm quite sure that my country doesn't have "democracy" from day 1, so I guess I'm eligible of posting humble citizens' basics of perpetual authoritarianism.

1. Democracy is not a cure-for-all. Since it is authoritarian to start, only the powerful one (caste of leadership) dare say things about democracy, that alone should scare off naively dissidents and liberals.

Proof: Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Gorbachev, Fang Lizhi, Zhao Ziyang, and students from Tiananman Square.

2. Authority doesn't need your support. Since the government runs smoothly without your vote, why support it? Even if you agree with its policies (trust me, sometimes we call it "popular dictatorship"), doesn't mean you should spare your effort to support it--you add no work done by the government.

The last time Mao called people to support himself and to fight off "bourgeois restoration", it is the start of Cultural Revolution. If the government or any pro-government individual asks you to support the government since the situation is "urgent", think twice.

3. Don't borrow historical pride or national relativism. It is a national pasttime in authoritarian states to boost how big territory we had and we should have, even when it is against government's interest (you accidentally demand territory from a friendly state). It is another national sports to single out dangerous enemies that seek to destruct our glorious nation while the government is sitting pretty, developing economy and drinking wine with the said enemy.

Relativism is more absurd, it is borderline masochist to cover up our national blunders and civil right offenses--the government won't spare you from the burden, regardless you support the government or not. Saying Americans can have their democracy while we should have sovereignty first equals to say we are inferior in civil rights.

The authoritarians are great tutors to us citizens as "how to be political cynical", it is political indifference and complete demotivatization. Either supporting democracy (read: some less influential officials who try to win sympathy) or supporting government, is fruitless and hazardous to one's standing in an authoritarian world.

 

[Shaihulud]

I'm quite sure that my country doesn't have "democracy" from day 1, so I guess I'm eligible of posting humble citizens' basics of perpetual authoritarianism.

The last time Mao called people to support himself and to fight off "bourgeois restoration", it is the start of Cultural Revolution. If the government or any pro-government individual asks you to support the government since the situation is "urgent", think twice.

I was under the impression that the PRC was formed under widespread support from the masses. Of course the condition they were operating under could not allow voting. I think that the blame for the cultural revolution can be put down to the Chinese people as the government. People becomes too zealous when they fall under a cult of personality, people like to shift blame for their own failings too foten.

Many things that you attribute to authoritarian government. Those traits belong to a democratic government too! Those being nationalistic, having national campaigns and stuff like that. I don't think survivors of authoritarian government are "political cynical", that is just being young and over educated.

 

[dwaxe]

From the threads about Russian democracy, I was thinking to myself, what the heck is that? Sovereignty + national pride vs. Democracy and human rights? Both are inedible and incurable of social illnesses.

Perhaps you meant 'indelible'?

Democracy is a better form of government because its power is derived from the people, however indirectly.

A true authoritarian dictatorship is not created at the consent and support of the people it protects, and is often ineffective.

 

[kulade]

Democracy is certainly not the polar opposite of authoritarianism, neither is democracy always correlated with "freedom." A true free state comes from an expansive constitution that guarantees the rights of the people and that is well-enforced. Democracy, to modern republics, is only a way of electing politicians not of preserving human rights. A democracy without a enforced constitution will end up just as bad as any totalitarian state.

That being said, citizens will maintain their rights whether their leaders be elected by vote, royal blood, or divine right, so long as the powers of the rulers are restricted.

 

[Zarn]

Democracy is not a system of the republic. It is seperate from it.

Democracy requires majority support, not checks and balances. The latter impedes upon the former. The former impedes upon liberty.

 

[plarq]

Perhaps you meant 'indelible'?

Democracy is a better form of government because its power is derived from the people, however indirectly.

A true authoritarian dictatorship is not created at the consent and support of the people it protects, and is often ineffective.

Well, the inedible quotes from Snorrius in that Russian Democracy thread as he defended Putin & Co.

Supporters of the current dictatorship, in China and in Russia, are similar in that way--since democracy is not a miracle cure, we should sacrifice it in exchange of political stability and nationalist pride.

However, as I point out, nationalism is also inedible.

 

[holy king]

i'm not sure if you know what "inedible" means.

 

[plarq]

i'm not sure if you know what "inedible" means.

As Cuivenien said, "Incredible, but inedible".

 

[aelf]

The most important element of democracy is checks and balances. Suffrage is the biggest and best vehicle for this, but it has its pitfalls. There's the term 'tyranny of the majority' for a reason. Fortunately, checks and balances are not monolithic, so the public can also be checked even while being a check itself.

 

[Zarn]

The most important element of democracy is checks and balances. Suffrage is the biggest and best vehicle for this, but it has its pitfalls. There's the term 'tyranny of the majority' for a reason. Fortunately, checks and balances are not monolithic, so the public can also be checked even while being a check itself.

You are mixing terms.

Checks and balances deter Democracy.

 

[aelf]

You are mixing terms.

Checks and balances deter Democracy.

I'm not. Democracy itself is a check because it helps to prevent accumulation of power and bad leadership.

 

[Zarn]

I'm not. Democracy itself is a check because it helps to prevent accumulation of power and bad leadership.

No, you cannot have both checks and balances and Democracy at the same time.

Democracy does not simply equal voting power.

 

[aelf]

No, you cannot have both checks and balances and Democracy at the same time.

Democracy does not simply equal voting power.

Democracy is primarily suffrage, and I don't know where you get that first statement from. My guess is your own brand of pseudo-conservative ideology. Or a half-assed interpretation of democracy that is a holdover from the Aristotelian.

But you can insist on your way if you like. I won't have a pointless back and forth with you.

 

[Shekwan]

No, you cannot have both checks and balances and Democracy at the same time.

Democracy does not simply equal voting power.

What? We have a democracy here and we have checks and balances.

 

[Zarn]

Democracy is primarily suffrage, and I don't know where you get that first statement from. My guess is your own brand of pseudo-conservative ideology. Or a half-assed interpretation of democracy that is a holdover from the Aristotelian.

But you can insist on your way if you like. I won't have a pointless back and forth with you.

It's based upon Enlightenment theories of government.