3 ms·

Democracy doesn't equal liberty. Current government was democratically elected, so Brazil still has democracy, it is just a totalitarian democracy.

by slaw 3y ago

alephnerd 3y ago
It's called Illiberal Democracy. In political science Liberal/Illiberal doesn't mean socially Progressive/Conservative, it means Open/Restricted from a civil liberties standpoint. This is why you can have right leaning Illiberal Democracies like Turkïye, Serbia, and Hungary as well as left leaning Illiberal Democracies like Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico, and also why you can have conservative leaning liberal democracies like South Korea, Denmark, or Japan and progressive leaning liberal democracies like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand.
- slaw 3y ago
  I never heard about Illiberal Democracy. Wikipedia definition differs from yours and even Wikipedia is not sure about what it is[0] >There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists I would stop using left/right as a description in politics. For example ruling party in Hungary is socialist, which means it cannot be right wing party no matter what they claim. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    > I never heard about Illiberal Democracy. I've heard the term from Steven Kotkin. I think it's pretty clear what the term means. It means that nominally the institutions that are meant to protect civil liberties exist, but some person or group has managed to put their hands on enough levers that they can dictate the workings of those institutions. Like Russia, for example. They have elections for government, and they have institutions that are meant to ensure that the government doesn't have a monopoly on power. In practice however one person has an absolute hold on power, to the point that people who criticize him tend to fall out of windows a lot. That doesn't happen in the US for example. You can trash Biden all you want, no one's gonna show up at your house to murder you.
  - squarefoot 3y ago
    For what is worth, Benito Mussolini was a key figure of the Italian socialist party before founding the fascist party, which is the quintessential example of right wing party.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    1. The primary definition that is used in PoliSci is the one Fareed Zakaria coined in his paper in Foreign Affairs in 1997 [0]. 2. "Socialism" is an economic not a social philosophy. Note how I said "Socially Progressive/Conservative" not economically. Outside the US+Canada and increasingly the UK, there is a consensus among both Cultural Progressive and Cultural Conservatives that welfare programs can and should be expanded. It is a major pillar of both Christian and Islamic religious political thought (traditionally, capitalism was viewed as negatively due to ursury being a sin - this was the position of the Catholic Church until the 60s). This is why the German Welfare state (Staatssozialismus) was started by Otto con Bismarck [1] with support from the Prussian nobility as a way to undercut the labor movement in late 19th century Germany. This same doctrinal evolution is used to this day by Socially Conservative parties like the CDU, Likud, BJP, AKP, Fidesz, and the PiS, as well as by Socially Right leaning autocratic leaders like Xi Jingping and Vladimir Putin. 3. The line you cite from the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Even the citation used by that line conflicts with what was written. On a separate note, this wiki page should be restricted editing wise - it looks like it is being given bad faith edits on both sides of the aisle (sadly unsurprising as most people only first heard of the term "Illiberal Democracy" in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election, so it's now a victim of culture wars as well). [0] - https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/FZakariaIlliberalDemocracy1997.pdf https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/FZakariaIlliberalDemocr... [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Current government was democratically elected, so Brazil still has democracy Democracy means more than elections. Majoritarianism is a known failure mode of elected governments, going all the way back to Athens.
- abvaw 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gmerc 3y ago
    less mass murder is still preferable to more mass murder. I think you get the point
- sofixa 3y ago
  As the saying goes, it's the worst, except for all the others that have been tried.
- slaw 3y ago
  Democracy means more than elections but liberty is not included. Brazil and UK are good examples of it.
crop_rotation 3y ago
This is not about liberty. If you cannot advocate against government policies/laws, what is the point of elections. How can you have elections if the great court solely decides what is truth. It can just punish others for "illicit disinformation". How is this different from a monarchy?
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> totalitarian democracy I just don't see how that makes any sense whatsoever.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  More than one totalitarian government has been democratically elected. Putin was. So was Chavez. When you vote for someone strong to run your country, you may get more of what you voted for than you like.

Democracy doesn't equal liberty. Current government was democratically elected, so Brazil still has democracy, it is just a totalitarian democracy.

by slaw 3y ago

Democracy doesn't equal liberty. Current government was democratically elected, so Brazil still has democracy, it is just a totalitarian democracy.

alephnerd 3y ago

It's called Illiberal Democracy. In political science Liberal/Illiberal doesn't mean socially Progressive/Conservative, it means Open/Restricted from a civil liberties standpoint. This is why you can have right leaning Illiberal Democracies like Turkïye, Serbia, and Hungary as well as left leaning Illiberal Democracies like Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico, and also why you can have conservative leaning liberal democracies like South Korea, Denmark, or Japan and progressive leaning liberal democracies like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand.

slaw 3y ago
I never heard about Illiberal Democracy. Wikipedia definition differs from yours and even Wikipedia is not sure about what it is[0] >There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists I would stop using left/right as a description in politics. For example ruling party in Hungary is socialist, which means it cannot be right wing party no matter what they claim. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  > I never heard about Illiberal Democracy. I've heard the term from Steven Kotkin. I think it's pretty clear what the term means. It means that nominally the institutions that are meant to protect civil liberties exist, but some person or group has managed to put their hands on enough levers that they can dictate the workings of those institutions. Like Russia, for example. They have elections for government, and they have institutions that are meant to ensure that the government doesn't have a monopoly on power. In practice however one person has an absolute hold on power, to the point that people who criticize him tend to fall out of windows a lot. That doesn't happen in the US for example. You can trash Biden all you want, no one's gonna show up at your house to murder you.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  For what is worth, Benito Mussolini was a key figure of the Italian socialist party before founding the fascist party, which is the quintessential example of right wing party.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  1. The primary definition that is used in PoliSci is the one Fareed Zakaria coined in his paper in Foreign Affairs in 1997 [0]. 2. "Socialism" is an economic not a social philosophy. Note how I said "Socially Progressive/Conservative" not economically. Outside the US+Canada and increasingly the UK, there is a consensus among both Cultural Progressive and Cultural Conservatives that welfare programs can and should be expanded. It is a major pillar of both Christian and Islamic religious political thought (traditionally, capitalism was viewed as negatively due to ursury being a sin - this was the position of the Catholic Church until the 60s). This is why the German Welfare state (Staatssozialismus) was started by Otto con Bismarck [1] with support from the Prussian nobility as a way to undercut the labor movement in late 19th century Germany. This same doctrinal evolution is used to this day by Socially Conservative parties like the CDU, Likud, BJP, AKP, Fidesz, and the PiS, as well as by Socially Right leaning autocratic leaders like Xi Jingping and Vladimir Putin. 3. The line you cite from the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Even the citation used by that line conflicts with what was written. On a separate note, this wiki page should be restricted editing wise - it looks like it is being given bad faith edits on both sides of the aisle (sadly unsurprising as most people only first heard of the term "Illiberal Democracy" in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election, so it's now a victim of culture wars as well). [0] - https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/FZakariaIlliberalDemocracy1997.pdf https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/FZakariaIlliberalDemocr... [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Current government was democratically elected, so Brazil still has democracy Democracy means more than elections. Majoritarianism is a known failure mode of elected governments, going all the way back to Athens.

abvaw 3y ago
[flagged]
- gmerc 3y ago
  less mass murder is still preferable to more mass murder. I think you get the point
sofixa 3y ago
As the saying goes, it's the worst, except for all the others that have been tried.
slaw 3y ago
Democracy means more than elections but liberty is not included. Brazil and UK are good examples of it.

crop_rotation 3y ago

This is not about liberty. If you cannot advocate against government policies/laws, what is the point of elections. How can you have elections if the great court solely decides what is truth. It can just punish others for "illicit disinformation". How is this different from a monarchy?

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> totalitarian democracy I just don't see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
More than one totalitarian government has been democratically elected. Putin was. So was Chavez. When you vote for someone strong to run your country, you may get more of what you voted for than you like.