5 ms·

In a country with 200 million people, do you think Bolsonaro is the only one that can carry the will of the people? Bolsonaro was attacking democracy. Claimin

In a country with 200 million people, do you think Bolsonaro is the only one that can carry the will of the people? Bolsonaro was attacking democracy. Claiming the election was stolen and ginned his supporters up to try and cease power by force. That sort of person is incompatible with democracy.

ftxbro 3y ago
OK but what if the will of the people is to move forward from democracy?
- andybak 3y ago
  The word "forward" needs a bit of explaining here.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    The expression "move forward" is just an idiom. It's like "circling back" except about the future and with a more forward-thinking can-do and proactive attitude.
    - shitpostbot 3y ago
      [dead]
- felipelemos 3y ago
  In a democracy, the only way forward from a democracy, legally speaking, is through laws. Specifically a new constitution. And the constitution (at least in Brazil) is very clear on what happens of you try to depose the democracy by force.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Then they can do what every other nation that has lost democracy does, elect a dictator with enough party members to undo democracy and kill off the opposition. Heck, they can get Bolsonaro back in power with exactly this playbook. It'll generally help if the party runs on a moralist/religious platform. "We've sinned and need to bring the nation back to god." That way, as the party breaks laws they can claim to do it in the name of god so that's ok. This even often gives them some wicked heathens to hate. Having a common enemy really brings people together. However, if they can't find that it's easy enough to blame outsiders for all the problems. Perhaps a conspiracy or two about how "those foreigners are taking all our jobs, resources, and are generally making everything here worse. If it wasn't for them, our country would be amazing. Let's make their lives a living hell because they've harmed everyone with their presence" You know, standard fascist stuff.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  It's always possible to remove democracy democratically. But the (legal) mechanism for doing this is made difficult on purpose, and rightly so. It's usually going to require a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority or referendum or something, not just a simple majority vote as if we are passing laws on mundane things like parking tickets. That's good, because it should be hard to remove people's fundamental rights on a whim during a temporary wave of hysteria and passion. Democracies have these safeguards to make it difficult on purpose.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    > "a whim during a temporary wave of hysteria" ok but I mean in global history democracy is more temporary than other governments so what if they say your team is the temporary hysteria instead
    - hackerlight 3y ago
      I'm going to repeat myself with my response. If people want to democratically remove democracy, then they can. If they want to make murder not a crime, they can. If they want to remove everyone's rights, they can. There are democratic mechanisms that can achieve all these idiotic things if the people really want to achieve them. Revoking these rights is made difficult on purpose because, over a period of 50+ years, the majority of people have decided that we shouldn't revoke said rights if only 50.001% of people wish to do so over a timeframe of 1 day. They built mechanisms to make very sure that it really was the will of the people if said rights were to be permanently revoked.
      - ftxbro 3y ago
        > "If they want to make murder not a crime, they can." I feel like you can't compare murder to allowing someone to run for office.
        vkou 3y ago
        Indeed, the consequences of letting a an autocrat keep trying fraud/violence until it works are generally far worse than a single murder.
ethbr0 3y ago
I was talking with a Bahraini acquaintance who was an admirer of Iran, debating various electoral systems. Him: "Iran is a democracy." Me: "Not fully, because the Guardian Council reserves the right to decide who can run." Him: "Well, you can't have some sheepherder become president." I thought about that for a long time. And still am. -- At its core, I think there can only be two unforgivable sins barring anyone from electability. 1 - There must always be as unbiased of an election process as possible, so that candidates can most clearly be judged on their merits and platforms. 2 - There cannot be any intent to change or remove the election process. Other than that, let sheepherders compete fairly! But there are many world leaders of "democratic" countries that fail that test, precisely because they have mettled with one of those two principles: Xi, Putin, Orban, Erdogan. Transgressions can be of greater or lesser severity, but at the end of the day any level of transgression should be unacceptable. An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check.
- cogman10 3y ago
  > An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check. This all gets pretty sticky. Putin, for example, followed both rules 1 and 2 (at least publicly). It wasn't until he'd consolidated enough power that he attacked #2 "for the good of the people". He was in office at the time. That's where I think really healthy skepticism around "stolen election" claims needs to be in play. When someone claims the elections are unfair (even when they win!) that's a sign they aren't making those claims in good faith.

ftxbro 3y ago

OK but what if the will of the people is to move forward from democracy?

andybak 3y ago
The word "forward" needs a bit of explaining here.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  The expression "move forward" is just an idiom. It's like "circling back" except about the future and with a more forward-thinking can-do and proactive attitude.
  - shitpostbot 3y ago
    [dead]
felipelemos 3y ago
In a democracy, the only way forward from a democracy, legally speaking, is through laws. Specifically a new constitution. And the constitution (at least in Brazil) is very clear on what happens of you try to depose the democracy by force.
cogman10 3y ago
Then they can do what every other nation that has lost democracy does, elect a dictator with enough party members to undo democracy and kill off the opposition. Heck, they can get Bolsonaro back in power with exactly this playbook. It'll generally help if the party runs on a moralist/religious platform. "We've sinned and need to bring the nation back to god." That way, as the party breaks laws they can claim to do it in the name of god so that's ok. This even often gives them some wicked heathens to hate. Having a common enemy really brings people together. However, if they can't find that it's easy enough to blame outsiders for all the problems. Perhaps a conspiracy or two about how "those foreigners are taking all our jobs, resources, and are generally making everything here worse. If it wasn't for them, our country would be amazing. Let's make their lives a living hell because they've harmed everyone with their presence" You know, standard fascist stuff.
hackerlight 3y ago
It's always possible to remove democracy democratically. But the (legal) mechanism for doing this is made difficult on purpose, and rightly so. It's usually going to require a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority or referendum or something, not just a simple majority vote as if we are passing laws on mundane things like parking tickets. That's good, because it should be hard to remove people's fundamental rights on a whim during a temporary wave of hysteria and passion. Democracies have these safeguards to make it difficult on purpose.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  > "a whim during a temporary wave of hysteria" ok but I mean in global history democracy is more temporary than other governments so what if they say your team is the temporary hysteria instead
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    I'm going to repeat myself with my response. If people want to democratically remove democracy, then they can. If they want to make murder not a crime, they can. If they want to remove everyone's rights, they can. There are democratic mechanisms that can achieve all these idiotic things if the people really want to achieve them. Revoking these rights is made difficult on purpose because, over a period of 50+ years, the majority of people have decided that we shouldn't revoke said rights if only 50.001% of people wish to do so over a timeframe of 1 day. They built mechanisms to make very sure that it really was the will of the people if said rights were to be permanently revoked.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      > "If they want to make murder not a crime, they can." I feel like you can't compare murder to allowing someone to run for office.
      - vkou 3y ago
        Indeed, the consequences of letting a an autocrat keep trying fraud/violence until it works are generally far worse than a single murder.

ethbr0 3y ago

I was talking with a Bahraini acquaintance who was an admirer of Iran, debating various electoral systems. Him: "Iran is a democracy." Me: "Not fully, because the Guardian Council reserves the right to decide who can run." Him: "Well, you can't have some sheepherder become president." I thought about that for a long time. And still am. -- At its core, I think there can only be two unforgivable sins barring anyone from electability. 1 - There must always be as unbiased of an election process as possible, so that candidates can most clearly be judged on their merits and platforms. 2 - There cannot be any intent to change or remove the election process. Other than that, let sheepherders compete fairly! But there are many world leaders of "democratic" countries that fail that test, precisely because they have mettled with one of those two principles: Xi, Putin, Orban, Erdogan. Transgressions can be of greater or lesser severity, but at the end of the day any level of transgression should be unacceptable. An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check.

cogman10 3y ago
> An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check. This all gets pretty sticky. Putin, for example, followed both rules 1 and 2 (at least publicly). It wasn't until he'd consolidated enough power that he attacked #2 "for the good of the people". He was in office at the time. That's where I think really healthy skepticism around "stolen election" claims needs to be in play. When someone claims the elections are unfair (even when they win!) that's a sign they aren't making those claims in good faith.