2 ms·

>Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. Has any government been

by p_j_w 5y ago

>Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? No. Governments have apologized after the fact for actions of previous instances of the government. There has been zero accountability on the matter. Same with the atrocities, against first nations or slaves, here in the US. >There will never be a Truth and Reconilliation commission in Xi Jinping's China Likewise, there wasn't a T&R commission in under the Canadian governments that were in charge while these acts were committed. >its politicians may face consequences if such actions were to continue or aren't reconciled. >I would say that actually the extent to which it is possible that politicians do not face consequences is a reflection of weaknesses in the representation of our democracy These statements are true only to the extent that the atrocities are politically unpopular. We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy and not under a dictatorship or some other kind of authoritarian system, but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. That's a key ingredient in the recipe to backsliding.

jszymborski 5y ago
> Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? I'm just saying there is a mechanism by which it is possible, and I don't think it'd take an abundance of polling to recognise that something like the Xinjiang internment camps or "Residential Schools" (internment camps in their own right) would be politically viable. In fact, it can be argued that a huge reason why there is public knowledge of their existence and why the practice was ended (albeit far too late) was because of our free elections. > We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. There is much truth to this, but it's worth thinking about how democratic sliding/autocratic institutions amplify this to a huge degree. Genocide certainly can be popular in strong democracies, but things like a strong free press and equitable treatment under the law make this sort of thing much harder to defend in the court of public opinion. > ...but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. Absolutely agree, and I'd argue that there are many ways that our government and its institutions don't represent the will of the people. It's not sufficient to solely look towards our systems of government or to look inwards as a society; it's an all or nothing deal which sounds hard at first but there's a strong reinforcement loop in there. When our institutions and our communities do right by their members, it begets more awareness and will to do well by each other. I've said it before on HN: this domestic and foreign politics stuff all feels super overwhelming, but one can personally do tremendously to help rectify these ills by focusing on your local community, and being an active participant. So certainly, I wholeheartedly agree that when democracies are healthy, change happens with political will and that starts on the ground.

by p_j_w 5y ago

jszymborski 5y ago

> Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? I'm just saying there is a mechanism by which it is possible, and I don't think it'd take an abundance of polling to recognise that something like the Xinjiang internment camps or "Residential Schools" (internment camps in their own right) would be politically viable. In fact, it can be argued that a huge reason why there is public knowledge of their existence and why the practice was ended (albeit far too late) was because of our free elections. > We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. There is much truth to this, but it's worth thinking about how democratic sliding/autocratic institutions amplify this to a huge degree. Genocide certainly can be popular in strong democracies, but things like a strong free press and equitable treatment under the law make this sort of thing much harder to defend in the court of public opinion. > ...but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. Absolutely agree, and I'd argue that there are many ways that our government and its institutions don't represent the will of the people. It's not sufficient to solely look towards our systems of government or to look inwards as a society; it's an all or nothing deal which sounds hard at first but there's a strong reinforcement loop in there. When our institutions and our communities do right by their members, it begets more awareness and will to do well by each other. I've said it before on HN: this domestic and foreign politics stuff all feels super overwhelming, but one can personally do tremendously to help rectify these ills by focusing on your local community, and being an active participant. So certainly, I wholeheartedly agree that when democracies are healthy, change happens with political will and that starts on the ground.