3 ms·

Well, the obvious answer is that rights, along with legislative procedures, etc, get codified in a constitution which takes a supermajority to amend. In a perf

Well, the obvious answer is that rights, along with legislative procedures, etc, get codified in a constitution which takes a supermajority to amend. In a perfect world that constitution is approved at a constitutional convention by a supermajority of the citizenry acting through their representatives; in practice it arrives via various historical means, including outside imposition. Despite the "irreconcilable bootstrapping problem", constitutional democracies somehow exist. But yeah yeah that's not "true democracy" because anything other than majoritarianism is a grotesque western perversion of the perfect immaculate glorious ideal of "simple majority rules on everything". Whatever.

rayiner 2y ago
Who decides what those “rights” are? You need a source for those rules that is respected by the governed as legitimately superseding the popular will. Constitutional democracy exists in America, for example, because Americans had shared english political norms stretching back to the Magna Carta. They could invoke the “god-given rights of Englishmen” and that’s would have purchase among the electorate. What equivalent do you have in India (or Bangladesh or Iraq or Afghanistan)? You can try imposing the same ancient political norms that existed in Britain, and that’s what the Indian constitution did. But you can’t scream “you’re doing democracy wrong!” when Indians refuse to give much weight to those colonial impositions, as is happening.
- rectang 2y ago
  Democratic backsliding isn't a concept owned by Asians: see Hungary, Brazil, Poland, the US under the Confederacy, etc. All of these countries have been "doing democracy wrong" at various times. And no matter how gleefully you celebrate the distress of liberal westerners when minority populations are abused and human rights are violated, the essential force driving towards the liberation of minorities everywhere is not some foreign tradition, but their own humanity. Until the Muslims and Sikhs of India are killed off entirely, they have their will to survive and to seek a better life. Modi may be popular, but short of genocide he cannot take that away.
- ouilala 2y ago
  [flagged]
- ouilala 2y ago
  [flagged]

rayiner 2y ago

Who decides what those “rights” are? You need a source for those rules that is respected by the governed as legitimately superseding the popular will. Constitutional democracy exists in America, for example, because Americans had shared english political norms stretching back to the Magna Carta. They could invoke the “god-given rights of Englishmen” and that’s would have purchase among the electorate. What equivalent do you have in India (or Bangladesh or Iraq or Afghanistan)? You can try imposing the same ancient political norms that existed in Britain, and that’s what the Indian constitution did. But you can’t scream “you’re doing democracy wrong!” when Indians refuse to give much weight to those colonial impositions, as is happening.

rectang 2y ago
Democratic backsliding isn't a concept owned by Asians: see Hungary, Brazil, Poland, the US under the Confederacy, etc. All of these countries have been "doing democracy wrong" at various times. And no matter how gleefully you celebrate the distress of liberal westerners when minority populations are abused and human rights are violated, the essential force driving towards the liberation of minorities everywhere is not some foreign tradition, but their own humanity. Until the Muslims and Sikhs of India are killed off entirely, they have their will to survive and to seek a better life. Modi may be popular, but short of genocide he cannot take that away.
ouilala 2y ago
[flagged]
ouilala 2y ago
[flagged]