3 ms·

If a people vote for autocracy, is that democratic? Should it be respected?

jacquesm 10y ago
That's a local affair as far as I'm concerned. But you're taking issue with us on our 'high horses' criticizing it and that should be respected. People have voted for dumb things many times in the past, in my opinion this is one of those times. Might or majority do not automatically make right. If you 'clean up' a city or a country by extra-judicial killings that makes the cure no better than the disease. If the country has a corruption issue the solution is not to go and kill people without due process. This is attacking a symptom, leaving the root cause un-examined and so will not solve the problem in the longer term.
- OoTheNigerian 10y ago
  I'm merely criticizing your criticism (the loop goes on). I didn't say you did not have the right to criticize. People declare others who win stupid while claiming to to be democrats. That is hypocrisy. While I similarly think people are stupid, I am not a fan of popular democracy. I believe my position is consistent with my belief. I am criticizing the hypocrisy of being democrat only when you get what you want. Just like the labour party folks in the UK.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Democracy is far from perfect. So it is perfectly ok to use democracy but to always be suspicious of that which gets decided democratically. That's not hypocrisy, it is simply the best adaptation to reality that I can come up with. And it has nothing to do with 'getting what I want', if NL will vote massively for Wilders in the next election (our local light-weight populist get-rid-of-all-Islamists-and-our-problems-will-magically-disappear politician) then I will consider that a failure of democracy. Not because I don't get 'what I want' but because it will likely cause great harm to my country.
seraa 10y ago
No. People are stupid. By the next election cycle given the way social media and the 24x7 news cycle are evolving into just pointless reaction and counter-reaction, voting will be restricted to those who can pass an exam. Like getting your drivers license and being allowed on the road. We will have a new definition of what an elected govt is. And the commentators here can get back to thinking about things that aren't way above their pay grade.
dalke 10y ago
This is an old and well-discussed question. I'll quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the Majority" (1835): > "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them." Democracy requires that while the majority rules, the minority also have rights. Majoritarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism ) is similar to democracy, and some of its proponents argue is more democratic. I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not respect a vote for autocracy, though of course this is abstract as my respect means nothing to those who voted that way, and I can do nothing to change things. A democratic process must allow the minority at some point to be a majority. If you kill off the minorities, which yes, includes those accused of drug dealing, then there is no democracy. (And no, the frequent US policy of stripping the franchise from felons is not democratic.) See also http://democracyweb.org/node/36 http://democracyweb.org/node/36 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .

That's a local affair as far as I'm concerned. But you're taking issue with us on our 'high horses' criticizing it and that should be respected. People have voted for dumb things many times in the past, in my opinion this is one of those times. Might or majority do not automatically make right. If you 'clean up' a city or a country by extra-judicial killings that makes the cure no better than the disease. If the country has a corruption issue the solution is not to go and kill people without due process. This is attacking a symptom, leaving the root cause un-examined and so will not solve the problem in the longer term.

OoTheNigerian 10y ago
I'm merely criticizing your criticism (the loop goes on). I didn't say you did not have the right to criticize. People declare others who win stupid while claiming to to be democrats. That is hypocrisy. While I similarly think people are stupid, I am not a fan of popular democracy. I believe my position is consistent with my belief. I am criticizing the hypocrisy of being democrat only when you get what you want. Just like the labour party folks in the UK.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Democracy is far from perfect. So it is perfectly ok to use democracy but to always be suspicious of that which gets decided democratically. That's not hypocrisy, it is simply the best adaptation to reality that I can come up with. And it has nothing to do with 'getting what I want', if NL will vote massively for Wilders in the next election (our local light-weight populist get-rid-of-all-Islamists-and-our-problems-will-magically-disappear politician) then I will consider that a failure of democracy. Not because I don't get 'what I want' but because it will likely cause great harm to my country.

seraa 10y ago

No. People are stupid. By the next election cycle given the way social media and the 24x7 news cycle are evolving into just pointless reaction and counter-reaction, voting will be restricted to those who can pass an exam. Like getting your drivers license and being allowed on the road. We will have a new definition of what an elected govt is. And the commentators here can get back to thinking about things that aren't way above their pay grade.

dalke 10y ago

This is an old and well-discussed question. I'll quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the Majority" (1835): > "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them." Democracy requires that while the majority rules, the minority also have rights. Majoritarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism ) is similar to democracy, and some of its proponents argue is more democratic. I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not respect a vote for autocracy, though of course this is abstract as my respect means nothing to those who voted that way, and I can do nothing to change things. A democratic process must allow the minority at some point to be a majority. If you kill off the minorities, which yes, includes those accused of drug dealing, then there is no democracy. (And no, the frequent US policy of stripping the franchise from felons is not democratic.) See also http://democracyweb.org/node/36 http://democracyweb.org/node/36 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .