4 ms·
> 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 a
by 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.)