3 ms·

> Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like? I've not found a religion I like :) I'd said what's wrong

by yumraj 5y ago

> Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like? I've not found a religion I like :) I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all? In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy? But, I get your point. Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.

lostcolony 5y ago
Depends. Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy. If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy. "Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
lordnacho 5y ago
Was Nazi Germany democratic because Hitler was elected? I doubt it. Once you preclude being able to remove the leader, which seems to be the case de facto or de jure (I don't know) you stop being a democracy. Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections. Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
whimsicalism 5y ago
Sure, if we just redefine "theocracy" to mean "democracy" then it isn't too bad at all!

by yumraj 5y ago

lostcolony 5y ago

Depends. Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy. If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy. "Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).

lordnacho 5y ago

Was Nazi Germany democratic because Hitler was elected? I doubt it. Once you preclude being able to remove the leader, which seems to be the case de facto or de jure (I don't know) you stop being a democracy. Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections. Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Sure, if we just redefine "theocracy" to mean "democracy" then it isn't too bad at all!