4 ms·

> There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something d

> There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them? Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.

pabloski 10y ago
Are you serious? Democracy is first and foremost the government of the majority. Whoever defines himself as democratic must respect the will of the majority. Sic et simplicitur.
- fredThrind 10y ago
  I'm not sure if gp is American, but if he is then I would presume he is, indeed serious. The US Constitution is almost impossible to amend in practice, and a ridiculously small percentage of the American population can block an amendment. Indeed, the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made this point.* This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect. *http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/amending_the_constitution_is_much_too_hard_blame_the_founders.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    While it is true that the smallest states can club together to block an Amendment, I am not sure that is a real stumbling block in practice. There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split. But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.
  - toyg 10y ago
    This is not as clear-cut as you present it though, it's very much a live wound in political science. Is there anything "sacred", in a democracy? If 99 out of 100 representatives voted for a new Holocaust, would that be fine and legal to enact? Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate? What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.
zeveb 10y ago
> Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. Yes, it is: it's the rule of the demos — the mob. > There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it. Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy. I blame Woodrow Wilson and all his nonsense about making the world safe for democracy. I don't actually care about whether I live in a democracy or not: I want to live in a republic, where the fundamental liberties of even the smallest minorities are secured from even the great howling mob.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy. I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.

pabloski 10y ago

Are you serious? Democracy is first and foremost the government of the majority. Whoever defines himself as democratic must respect the will of the majority. Sic et simplicitur.

fredThrind 10y ago
I'm not sure if gp is American, but if he is then I would presume he is, indeed serious. The US Constitution is almost impossible to amend in practice, and a ridiculously small percentage of the American population can block an amendment. Indeed, the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made this point.* This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect. *http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/amending_the_constitution_is_much_too_hard_blame_the_founders.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  While it is true that the smallest states can club together to block an Amendment, I am not sure that is a real stumbling block in practice. There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split. But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.
- toyg 10y ago
  This is not as clear-cut as you present it though, it's very much a live wound in political science. Is there anything "sacred", in a democracy? If 99 out of 100 representatives voted for a new Holocaust, would that be fine and legal to enact? Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate? What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.

zeveb 10y ago

> Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. Yes, it is: it's the rule of the demos — the mob. > There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it. Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy. I blame Woodrow Wilson and all his nonsense about making the world safe for democracy. I don't actually care about whether I live in a democracy or not: I want to live in a republic, where the fundamental liberties of even the smallest minorities are secured from even the great howling mob.

denzil_correa 10y ago
> Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy. I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.