Cloud_Strife
Deity
One is essentially a fascist colonial ethnostate, the other is lichtenstein.It is a very different situation to Israel.
One is essentially a fascist colonial ethnostate, the other is lichtenstein.It is a very different situation to Israel.
just get rid of one man Israel would become a functioning democracy
A democracy that has been voting further right with time, including many further right than Bibi.I disagree! yes it in their constitution to be apartheid but they are still a democracy or they were anyway before Bibi
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".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.
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?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.
just get rid of one man Israel would become a functioning democracy
Voting is the most important part of democracy.
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.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?
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.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.
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?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.
As am I.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?
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?I agree. The heart of democracy which is voting does not require formalised law.
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 agree. The heart of democracy which is voting does not require formalised law.
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.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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.Voting is the most important part of democracy.