Absolution
King
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?
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?