7 ms·

Could say the same thing about many countries, e.g. Turkey's descent into dictatorship shows democracy can be lost.

by ZenoArrow 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago
Poland is quickly eroding its democracy as well, it's terrifying.
- mc32 9y ago
  How? If anything it looks like it's becoming populist which is the opposite of not democracy. That's not to delegitimize your position which is that it does not reflect your vision of what a democracy should look like.
  - xg15 9y ago
    How a government was elected and how a government behaves are two different things. They're undermining both free media and the justice system. How would you call that?
    - mc32 9y ago
      Depends. Are they going against the will of the people and are they doing it illegally? Or are they following protocol? Germany kerbs free speech in many ways vis a vis the US, but we don't call them undemocratic --they followed protocol and it's their version --not a version I'd prefer, but still not undemocratic.
      - wegi 9y ago
        Following the Protocoll does not mean you act democratic necessarily. The NSDAP was following the protocoll as well in the beginning. Every protocol and law can be abused. Especially when you control the judiciary. The problem with Polands move is that the legislative tries to control the judiciary, a thing that goes against the very definition of a free democracy. Similar in Turkey. The AKP controls not only the legislative without any real opposition, they also inoficially control the judiciary and the executive. Since all critical journalists get put in prison, the Press is also opressed.
        mc32 9y ago
        Right, it's complicated and it's not clear cut. Amassing power is always a cautious endeavor that should be viewed with suspicion --but that's not always "undemocratic" people may want and vote for that --that all may lead to an eventual undemocratic regime which intimidates, fires rivals, jails and extorts its population ala Chavez. Poland and Germany are far from that.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        It's a slippery slope. In the beginning it looks like innocent little constitutional changes etc. Usually under the pretense of some external enemy (Terrorists, whatever). some private media losing their broadcast rights (Poland). Journalists arrested on terror charges under very strange circumstances (Turkey) and so on. Once these changes are in place, and the division of power and free press is gone - the goal is open to move much faster. That's why it's so alarming in Poland/Turkey even though Venezuela is much worse already. Liberal democracy is brittle, and it can still be saved in Poland/Turkey. In Venezuela it has to be built.
        markvdb 9y ago
        "Democratic" has been overloaded with meanings and has become very ambiguous in that respect. That is the real problem. My guess is that many here say "democratic" and mean "a system that will guarantee one respect as per John Rawls' veil of ignorance [0]". A parliamentary democracy with clear separation between legislative, executive and judiciary seems to be the lease bad solution humanity has been able to come up with for now. Venezuela, Turkey and Poland are just recent highlights of how vulnerable parliamentary democracy is... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Germany has proper separation of power, free press etc. About the only thing that makes it undemocratic (in the sense of liberal democracy) is if takes away any of these foundations: suppresses media, takes away the independence of courts etc. Germany does neither. Whether the governing person or party is populist or extreme right or socialist or whatever doesn't matter.
        biggerbistro 9y ago
        Freedom of speech (which Germany does not have) is a core tenet of democracy. If the government can police what we say then it follows that they can prevent those from being elected that they do not agree with. For example: what if we made liberal values into hatespeech, how likely do you think it would be for the democrats to win the next election? Any country without true freedom of speech is autocracy in disguise.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        What is it that makes Germany not have freedom of speech? Most liberal democracies have freedom of speech even though they have laws against libel/slander/hate speech and so on. Next you go on to say that countries without freedom of speech are autocracies in disguise - implying Germany is an autocracy... not sure what to make of that. Are you implying that e.g either you live in a democracy and you can hate-speak, or you don't live in a democracy? From the last paragraph I get the feeling you live in re US and take great pride in it being a true democracy because of its lack of hate speech laws (libel/slander laws exist). I wouldn't worry so much about politicians being able to limit hate speech in a place where elected officials draw the election district lines, effectively choosing their voters, where entire groups of citizens (such as prison inmates) can't vote at all, and where the executive branch of government doesn't have popular support even on Election Day. I'm no fan of hate speech laws myself, but I consider it quite useless to define democracy as not being able to coexist with them.
        mc32 9y ago
        Do you recall the German Boehmermann who was almost jailed because he made fun of a _foreign_ leader? That limits free speech. It's not hateful but it's political.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    Populism has little to do with letting the ruling party appoint the judges.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    The Polish government is working hard on abolishing an independent judiciary. It's the beginnings of Gleichschaltung.
  - tigershark 9y ago
    Populism is the origin of the most famous dictatorships with Mussolini and Hitler.
    - mc32 9y ago
      But was it undemocratic? I mean sometimes the people the hoi polloi democratically vote for governments you or I might disagree with --but those governments are not always undemocratic.
      - tigershark 9y ago
        Speaking about Mussolini at the beginning it was democratic, then it became a dictatorship starting with the march on Rome. Hitler took a similar path. And I can see the same thing happening in Venezuela with Chavez and Maduro. I don't know in detail the current situation in Poland to express an informed judgement, but as a rule of thumb populism in a democratic country may be the starting point of a dictatorship.
      - JauntTrooper 9y ago
        Yes, it was undemocratic. A democracy is more than just an election by majority rule. Almost all dictators hold elections. If an elected official cracks down on dissent and imprisons his or her rivals, the government is no longer democratic, even if it's done with the people's consent. True democracies require free and fair elections, protection of human rights, respect for pluralism, and equal treatment of all citizens under the law. These are the values shared by the 70+ democratic governments that govern nearly half of the world's population.
  - trhway 9y ago
    >populist which is the opposite of not democracy. this is among the top examples of the populism: https://youtu.be/ZNN3FduaHQk?t=109 https://youtu.be/ZNN3FduaHQk?t=109
    - mc32 9y ago
      But populism and democracy are not opposites. Populism is truer to true democracy than other forms of say representative democracy. In essence people only like a kind of a democracy when it goes their way. In the US people complained the Hillary won the pop vote despite everyone knowing that only electoral college votes count (not popular/populism vote). And people want the representative result when it is in their favor (most republicans today).
      - nabla9 9y ago
        > Populism is truer to true democracy than other forms of say representative democracy. This might be a case of you guessing what a word means or projecting meaning to it. Populisim is form of political rhetoric, demagogy that creates division between "common man" and the "elites". Common people are "pure and innocent" and the "elites" are evil. Populism is very anti-intellectual in its nature. Populist believes in the wisdom, or virtues of the common people. The message in populism is that things are very simple and gut level reactions are right. Populist rhetoric turns democracy into mob rule. The main difference between populism and democracy is difference between before and after. Working democracy is not just voting to express opinion or will. It requires institutions that make democratic decision making processes possible. Democratic decisions are result of many conflicting views going trough this process. Populists try to undercut all these processes and institutions. they claim that there is already existing united and just "will of the people" they (the populists) already know. Democracy is just way to get it done. This is why populists try to 'streamline' democratic prosesses so that they can push their agenda.
        mc32 9y ago
        By populism I meant popular democracy. Often referendum based democracy. Not the rhetorical device any political speaker uses regardless of leaning.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    > what a democracy should look like. The definition of democracy varies, but if we use the regular definition of "liberal democracy" (a.k.a. western democracy) which is what we are used to define democracy as in the west, then it requires not only free and fair elections but also separation or power, and an informed public with free press. Going from a liberal democracy into something else is unfortunately quite easy. Step one is usually to suppress the free press, step 2 is attacking the judiciary and changing the constitution e.g. to control courts, give more power to the executive. Populism is usually just a vehicle for this slow coup. One might of course argue that "western democracy" isn't superior to other forms of democracy (or non-democracy) but that's a separate discussion. Both Poland and Turkey had liberal/western democracy to some extent, and are losing it to something else.
    - tnzn 9y ago
      Is press really free when 90% of it is held by 5 billionaires ? (France)I'm not arguing against the bulk of the argument but really calling a profit-driven press "free" is a bit of a stretch imo (though there's a difference to be made between, say, French press and press against dictatorship, I'll admit, but this doesn't change my point)
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Press freedom doesn't really account for diversity, it's unfortunate but that's it. If those 5 are all pro govt (either by choice or persuation) then it's even worse. But press would be considered free if anyone could start a 6th outlet without being pressured to stop - and the cost of starting one is not relevant for that really.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Could say the same thing about many countries, e.g. Turkey's descent into dictatorship shows democracy can be lost.

gambiting 9y ago

Poland is quickly eroding its democracy as well, it's terrifying.

mc32 9y ago
How? If anything it looks like it's becoming populist which is the opposite of not democracy. That's not to delegitimize your position which is that it does not reflect your vision of what a democracy should look like.
- xg15 9y ago
  How a government was elected and how a government behaves are two different things. They're undermining both free media and the justice system. How would you call that?
  - mc32 9y ago
    Depends. Are they going against the will of the people and are they doing it illegally? Or are they following protocol? Germany kerbs free speech in many ways vis a vis the US, but we don't call them undemocratic --they followed protocol and it's their version --not a version I'd prefer, but still not undemocratic.
    - wegi 9y ago
      Following the Protocoll does not mean you act democratic necessarily. The NSDAP was following the protocoll as well in the beginning. Every protocol and law can be abused. Especially when you control the judiciary. The problem with Polands move is that the legislative tries to control the judiciary, a thing that goes against the very definition of a free democracy. Similar in Turkey. The AKP controls not only the legislative without any real opposition, they also inoficially control the judiciary and the executive. Since all critical journalists get put in prison, the Press is also opressed.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Right, it's complicated and it's not clear cut. Amassing power is always a cautious endeavor that should be viewed with suspicion --but that's not always "undemocratic" people may want and vote for that --that all may lead to an eventual undemocratic regime which intimidates, fires rivals, jails and extorts its population ala Chavez. Poland and Germany are far from that.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        It's a slippery slope. In the beginning it looks like innocent little constitutional changes etc. Usually under the pretense of some external enemy (Terrorists, whatever). some private media losing their broadcast rights (Poland). Journalists arrested on terror charges under very strange circumstances (Turkey) and so on. Once these changes are in place, and the division of power and free press is gone - the goal is open to move much faster. That's why it's so alarming in Poland/Turkey even though Venezuela is much worse already. Liberal democracy is brittle, and it can still be saved in Poland/Turkey. In Venezuela it has to be built.
        markvdb 9y ago
        "Democratic" has been overloaded with meanings and has become very ambiguous in that respect. That is the real problem. My guess is that many here say "democratic" and mean "a system that will guarantee one respect as per John Rawls' veil of ignorance [0]". A parliamentary democracy with clear separation between legislative, executive and judiciary seems to be the lease bad solution humanity has been able to come up with for now. Venezuela, Turkey and Poland are just recent highlights of how vulnerable parliamentary democracy is... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Germany has proper separation of power, free press etc. About the only thing that makes it undemocratic (in the sense of liberal democracy) is if takes away any of these foundations: suppresses media, takes away the independence of courts etc. Germany does neither. Whether the governing person or party is populist or extreme right or socialist or whatever doesn't matter.
      - biggerbistro 9y ago
        Freedom of speech (which Germany does not have) is a core tenet of democracy. If the government can police what we say then it follows that they can prevent those from being elected that they do not agree with. For example: what if we made liberal values into hatespeech, how likely do you think it would be for the democrats to win the next election? Any country without true freedom of speech is autocracy in disguise.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        What is it that makes Germany not have freedom of speech? Most liberal democracies have freedom of speech even though they have laws against libel/slander/hate speech and so on. Next you go on to say that countries without freedom of speech are autocracies in disguise - implying Germany is an autocracy... not sure what to make of that. Are you implying that e.g either you live in a democracy and you can hate-speak, or you don't live in a democracy? From the last paragraph I get the feeling you live in re US and take great pride in it being a true democracy because of its lack of hate speech laws (libel/slander laws exist). I wouldn't worry so much about politicians being able to limit hate speech in a place where elected officials draw the election district lines, effectively choosing their voters, where entire groups of citizens (such as prison inmates) can't vote at all, and where the executive branch of government doesn't have popular support even on Election Day. I'm no fan of hate speech laws myself, but I consider it quite useless to define democracy as not being able to coexist with them.
        mc32 9y ago
        Do you recall the German Boehmermann who was almost jailed because he made fun of a _foreign_ leader? That limits free speech. It's not hateful but it's political.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Populism has little to do with letting the ruling party appoint the judges.
- Tomte 9y ago
  The Polish government is working hard on abolishing an independent judiciary. It's the beginnings of Gleichschaltung.
- tigershark 9y ago
  Populism is the origin of the most famous dictatorships with Mussolini and Hitler.
  - mc32 9y ago
    But was it undemocratic? I mean sometimes the people the hoi polloi democratically vote for governments you or I might disagree with --but those governments are not always undemocratic.
    - tigershark 9y ago
      Speaking about Mussolini at the beginning it was democratic, then it became a dictatorship starting with the march on Rome. Hitler took a similar path. And I can see the same thing happening in Venezuela with Chavez and Maduro. I don't know in detail the current situation in Poland to express an informed judgement, but as a rule of thumb populism in a democratic country may be the starting point of a dictatorship.
    - JauntTrooper 9y ago
      Yes, it was undemocratic. A democracy is more than just an election by majority rule. Almost all dictators hold elections. If an elected official cracks down on dissent and imprisons his or her rivals, the government is no longer democratic, even if it's done with the people's consent. True democracies require free and fair elections, protection of human rights, respect for pluralism, and equal treatment of all citizens under the law. These are the values shared by the 70+ democratic governments that govern nearly half of the world's population.
- trhway 9y ago
  >populist which is the opposite of not democracy. this is among the top examples of the populism: https://youtu.be/ZNN3FduaHQk?t=109 https://youtu.be/ZNN3FduaHQk?t=109
  - mc32 9y ago
    But populism and democracy are not opposites. Populism is truer to true democracy than other forms of say representative democracy. In essence people only like a kind of a democracy when it goes their way. In the US people complained the Hillary won the pop vote despite everyone knowing that only electoral college votes count (not popular/populism vote). And people want the representative result when it is in their favor (most republicans today).
    - nabla9 9y ago
      > Populism is truer to true democracy than other forms of say representative democracy. This might be a case of you guessing what a word means or projecting meaning to it. Populisim is form of political rhetoric, demagogy that creates division between "common man" and the "elites". Common people are "pure and innocent" and the "elites" are evil. Populism is very anti-intellectual in its nature. Populist believes in the wisdom, or virtues of the common people. The message in populism is that things are very simple and gut level reactions are right. Populist rhetoric turns democracy into mob rule. The main difference between populism and democracy is difference between before and after. Working democracy is not just voting to express opinion or will. It requires institutions that make democratic decision making processes possible. Democratic decisions are result of many conflicting views going trough this process. Populists try to undercut all these processes and institutions. they claim that there is already existing united and just "will of the people" they (the populists) already know. Democracy is just way to get it done. This is why populists try to 'streamline' democratic prosesses so that they can push their agenda.
      - mc32 9y ago
        By populism I meant popular democracy. Often referendum based democracy. Not the rhetorical device any political speaker uses regardless of leaning.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > what a democracy should look like. The definition of democracy varies, but if we use the regular definition of "liberal democracy" (a.k.a. western democracy) which is what we are used to define democracy as in the west, then it requires not only free and fair elections but also separation or power, and an informed public with free press. Going from a liberal democracy into something else is unfortunately quite easy. Step one is usually to suppress the free press, step 2 is attacking the judiciary and changing the constitution e.g. to control courts, give more power to the executive. Populism is usually just a vehicle for this slow coup. One might of course argue that "western democracy" isn't superior to other forms of democracy (or non-democracy) but that's a separate discussion. Both Poland and Turkey had liberal/western democracy to some extent, and are losing it to something else.
  - tnzn 9y ago
    Is press really free when 90% of it is held by 5 billionaires ? (France)I'm not arguing against the bulk of the argument but really calling a profit-driven press "free" is a bit of a stretch imo (though there's a difference to be made between, say, French press and press against dictatorship, I'll admit, but this doesn't change my point)
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Press freedom doesn't really account for diversity, it's unfortunate but that's it. If those 5 are all pro govt (either by choice or persuation) then it's even worse. But press would be considered free if anyone could start a 6th outlet without being pressured to stop - and the cost of starting one is not relevant for that really.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]