3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou'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.