4 ms·
You don’t use the definition of “democracy” most people use. That’s ok, an acknowledgment that more than your definition of democracy exists would be nice, thou
by ugh 15y ago
You don’t use the definition of “democracy” most people use. That’s ok, an acknowledgment that more than your definition of democracy exists would be nice, though.
My perception is that “democracy” is most often used to refer to democracy (following your definition), rule of law and human rights. Those three things contradict each other sometimes, all “democracies” have compromises to deal with those contradictions. (Protection of minorities and separation of powers are seen by pretty much everyone as essential features of democracies.)
(Your point about checks and balances seems non-sensical, though. Checks and balances are not essential democratic features following your definition – they are more in the rule of law camp – but it strikes me as wrong to claim that they contradict democratic principles. You point about wolves concerns protection of minorities and checks and balances certainly don’t do that. The president and the legislative are both elected, judges are sometimes, too [checks and balances certainly don’t demand that judges not be elected, so you can’t blame it on checks and balances when judges are not elected], so I don’t really see how checks and balances are undemocratic.)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cabalamat 15y ago> My perception is that “democracy” is most often used to refer to democracy (following your definition), rule of law and human rights. I would refer to that as a "liberal democracy". Democracy means majority rule, by definition ("people power" or "mob rule" from the Greek). Liberal democracy is democracy plus human rights. > Those three things contradict each other sometimes, all “democracies” have compromises to deal with those contradictions. Indeed; if the majority of the population are illiberal, then a country must choose between being liberal or beinbg democratic; it can't be both.
- gwright 15y ago> I would refer to that as a "liberal democracy". It would be nice if everyone adhered to the rule you are describing but that simply isn't what happens in the real world. In acutal usage the unadorned term 'democracy' almost always should be interpreted to mean 'representative government with constitutional protections for individual rights'. Obviously the 'representative' part comes in all sorts of flavors as well as the 'individual rights' part. Rarely does anyone using the naked term 'democracy' really mean 'direct majority rule with no minority rights'.
- ugh 15y agoI do not see democracy as a binary property. If the majority of the population are illiberal and that country has constitutional protections for minorities or free speech then said country is undemocratic about the protection of minorities or freedom of speech but it can still be very democratic when it comes to, say, the tax rate. (But I'm happy to use your definition, it's just that with your definition, no country in the world would be a democracy. Not even a little bit.)