4 ms·

Some democratic processes are good, but not all of them. For example, is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system?

Some democratic processes are good, but not all of them. For example, is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? I am glad we have a Parliamentary system in NZ. If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties, for example. This isn't about democracy. It is about protecting leftist policies from democratic backlash.

effie 3y ago
> is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? It depends on the law (constitution). If the law says it's forbidden, then it is anti-that-kind-of-democracy. If there is no such law, then it's consistent with democracy. Real presidential democracy should allow for change of law and constitution, so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating, then advocate for switching to Parliamentary system, then get this change passed through the lawmaking process. Lots of steps, very hard to do, but in principle there should be a legal and democratic way. If there isn't legal democratic way, the system is highly suspicious, and probably isn't even formally a democracy. > If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? If the government (in extreme, the president) is democratically elected, and if the ban is done constitutionally and lawfully, then that would be still democratic. > Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties Interesting, is this an official government position with some rationale? Or the government just does whatever they can legally and ignores the calls for referendum? One rationale I've came across is that international treaties (in parliamentary systems) have to go through the parliament, which is representative, so referendum is not needed, and if someone wants to invoke one, they have to do the necessary work required by the law.
- frumper 3y ago
  > so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating How does one gather support for changing the law if it is illegal to advocate for that change?
  - effie 3y ago
    Getting the right people into the lawmaking body, who will make the change. I'm assuming the hypothetical weird situation where public advocacy outside the lawmaking process is illegal, but the lawmakers in the lawmaking process can discuss and repeal that law. This isn't implausible in democracy, as it is common in democracies that lawmakers have immunity from prosecution based on objectionable speech in a parliament. Or illegally via advocating (just because an action is illegal, it does not mean it can't happen) or motivating the lawmakers in various ways, eventually a revolution (which still can be democratic in a sense). If lawmakers can't repeal that kind of law legally, the system is not a sovereign democracy, but, at best, restricted/controlled democracy, by someone else than demos, who is maintaining that superlaw.

effie 3y ago

> is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? It depends on the law (constitution). If the law says it's forbidden, then it is anti-that-kind-of-democracy. If there is no such law, then it's consistent with democracy. Real presidential democracy should allow for change of law and constitution, so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating, then advocate for switching to Parliamentary system, then get this change passed through the lawmaking process. Lots of steps, very hard to do, but in principle there should be a legal and democratic way. If there isn't legal democratic way, the system is highly suspicious, and probably isn't even formally a democracy. > If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? If the government (in extreme, the president) is democratically elected, and if the ban is done constitutionally and lawfully, then that would be still democratic. > Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties Interesting, is this an official government position with some rationale? Or the government just does whatever they can legally and ignores the calls for referendum? One rationale I've came across is that international treaties (in parliamentary systems) have to go through the parliament, which is representative, so referendum is not needed, and if someone wants to invoke one, they have to do the necessary work required by the law.

frumper 3y ago
> so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating How does one gather support for changing the law if it is illegal to advocate for that change?
- effie 3y ago
  Getting the right people into the lawmaking body, who will make the change. I'm assuming the hypothetical weird situation where public advocacy outside the lawmaking process is illegal, but the lawmakers in the lawmaking process can discuss and repeal that law. This isn't implausible in democracy, as it is common in democracies that lawmakers have immunity from prosecution based on objectionable speech in a parliament. Or illegally via advocating (just because an action is illegal, it does not mean it can't happen) or motivating the lawmakers in various ways, eventually a revolution (which still can be democratic in a sense). If lawmakers can't repeal that kind of law legally, the system is not a sovereign democracy, but, at best, restricted/controlled democracy, by someone else than demos, who is maintaining that superlaw.