3 ms·

OK, I just read a bit about the Swedish 1809 constitution. It was still democracy, correct? So with all due respect, you do in-fact still seem to be in favor

• tored 5y ago
  Sweden was not a democracy when the 1809 constitution was adopted, however Sweden gradually became a democracy over decades with that same constitution. That happened by moving decision making from the King to his cabinet, which was already regulated in the 1809 constitution. Much of the 1809 constitution regulated what the king couldn't do (separation of powers). There was a also a lot of other legislative work that happened outside of the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Council_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Council_(Sweden) What this shows is that you can have democracy without formally having one, and likewise you can have a dictatorship with democratic constitution like the Soviet union. Constitution is more than the paper it is written on. Discussions about democracy today has a tendency to focus on what the liberal definition what a democracy is. For instance during the middle ages Kings were elected in Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_of_Mora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_of_Mora My criticism against what you wrote was more about what democracies do well, I didn't agree with your points on that and instead gave an alternative, democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies.
  • consumer451 5y ago
    My dual apologies for both misunderstanding and putting words your mouth. Thanks for the reply. This is very interesting.