3 ms·

What is democracy?

cjfd 7y ago
Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving, executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the hands of (representatives of) the people. In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very compatible with democracy.
- HNLurker2 7y ago
  T-t-thanks
  - dang 7y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments and ignoring our request to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20948393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20948393). We're trying for a bit higher of a signal/noise ratio than internet default, so it's important to post thoughtfully here. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the site guidelines in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  While I understand your definition, this is not what Wikipedia nor what Merriam-Webster use for it. The separation of powers in three branches is not strictly necessary for a democracy, just a mechanism through witch it is attained. Surely, there could be examples where the powers are slpit another way that could still qualify as democracies. If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy? Anyways, sorry, for nitpitcking, but something just sounds... incomplete in your answer.
  - Phillipharryt 7y ago
    You're not really nitpicking, the parent comment has stretched democracy somewhat to encompass a lot of what I assume they associate with a good government.
  - HeckFeck 7y ago
    > If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy? It's an interesting question. For reasons like that I prefer to talk about liberties, which include privacy and the need for authority to be checked. These are of greater necessity than universal suffrage, though having representatives of the people elected for set terms certainly can help to put a check on authority, it's not always a guarantee of that! How often have tyrants been voted into power.
- eyko 7y ago
  Interestingly, I recently learnt that the judicial branch as implemented in most democracies (presently), holds no real power. In my country, for instance, it is appointed by the government -- in the USA, if I'm not mistaken, it's also the case that the Supreme Court is appointed by the president, but I believe they need the consent of your Senate. I've read that there are a few democracies where the judicial power is somewhat independent, but I don't recall specific examples. I was also surprised to read, also, that Montesquieu also made a note about the judicial power. Short version of that observation, taken from wikipedia: > Montesquieu actually specified that the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not merely apparent. The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of the three powers, independent and unchecked, but it is also likely to claim to be the least dangerous one. He also touches on this in the video (around the 1h40m mark). It seems quite difficult to keep our democracies in check if the judiciary doesn't really hold real power.
  - cjfd 7y ago
    Well, these distinctions are not all-or-nothing. A common way to further the independence of the judicial branch is to appoint judges for life. A judge that cannot be fired by the executive branch has less need to appease it.
buboard 7y ago
supposedly the power is with "the many" and not concentrated. The current standard is that "the many" is not really everyone but at best half of them. That's something. Under different mechanisms, e.g. if offices are appointed by lot, then power can truly be "with almost everyone"

What is democracy?

cjfd 7y ago

Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving, executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the hands of (representatives of) the people. In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very compatible with democracy.

HNLurker2 7y ago
T-t-thanks
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments and ignoring our request to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20948393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20948393). We're trying for a bit higher of a signal/noise ratio than internet default, so it's important to post thoughtfully here. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the site guidelines in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
RealityVoid 7y ago
While I understand your definition, this is not what Wikipedia nor what Merriam-Webster use for it. The separation of powers in three branches is not strictly necessary for a democracy, just a mechanism through witch it is attained. Surely, there could be examples where the powers are slpit another way that could still qualify as democracies. If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy? Anyways, sorry, for nitpitcking, but something just sounds... incomplete in your answer.
- Phillipharryt 7y ago
  You're not really nitpicking, the parent comment has stretched democracy somewhat to encompass a lot of what I assume they associate with a good government.
- HeckFeck 7y ago
  > If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy? It's an interesting question. For reasons like that I prefer to talk about liberties, which include privacy and the need for authority to be checked. These are of greater necessity than universal suffrage, though having representatives of the people elected for set terms certainly can help to put a check on authority, it's not always a guarantee of that! How often have tyrants been voted into power.
eyko 7y ago
Interestingly, I recently learnt that the judicial branch as implemented in most democracies (presently), holds no real power. In my country, for instance, it is appointed by the government -- in the USA, if I'm not mistaken, it's also the case that the Supreme Court is appointed by the president, but I believe they need the consent of your Senate. I've read that there are a few democracies where the judicial power is somewhat independent, but I don't recall specific examples. I was also surprised to read, also, that Montesquieu also made a note about the judicial power. Short version of that observation, taken from wikipedia: > Montesquieu actually specified that the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not merely apparent. The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of the three powers, independent and unchecked, but it is also likely to claim to be the least dangerous one. He also touches on this in the video (around the 1h40m mark). It seems quite difficult to keep our democracies in check if the judiciary doesn't really hold real power.
- cjfd 7y ago
  Well, these distinctions are not all-or-nothing. A common way to further the independence of the judicial branch is to appoint judges for life. A judge that cannot be fired by the executive branch has less need to appease it.

buboard 7y ago

supposedly the power is with "the many" and not concentrated. The current standard is that "the many" is not really everyone but at best half of them. That's something. Under different mechanisms, e.g. if offices are appointed by lot, then power can truly be "with almost everyone"