4 ms·
>The principle behind this is the defensive democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy Excu
by potato3732842 2y ago
>The principle behind this is the defensive democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Excuse me but what in the hell? To come in here and redefine a corruption investigation as being in that camp is not only an insult to the reader but it an insult to everyone who both cares about civil rights and government corruption at the same time.
Defensive democracy is just marketing spin on exactly the sort of civil rights violating process that gives the establishment huge advantage over any challenger and exactly the sort of crap totalitarian regimes love and leverage to great effect.
The wikipedia page that you linked lists the following examples of "defensive democracy".
>Surveillance by the security corps (especially military and police intelligence) of activists who are considered dangerous, or after entire associations outright;
>Restrictions on the freedom of movement or action over bodies suspected of endangering democracy;
>Deprival of the rights of individuals and parties from running for election
>Outlawing of organizations considered a danger to democracy;
>Cancellation of elections as a last resort ""
Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. It's basically a list of stuff unpopular governments use to stay in power a little longer.
To come in and lay claim to the credibility of of something that everyone can agree is good (prosecuting corruption, equality under the law) and siphon some of that off onto a subject that is highly controversial (selective violations of civil rights, nominally for a good reason) by just falsely claiming the good thing is a subset of the controversial thing is dishonest and morally reprehensible.
- aredox 2y ago>Does that sound like the kind of stuff that fair, well run by rule of law, stable democracies with lots of buy in from the populace do to you? ...Yes? Or are you saying politicians can just barge in and say "the rules don't apply to me because I'm popular"? Because that's how you don't get stable democracies. What you get is Trump, or the Red Brigades, or the Brown Shirts running things to the ground. Because the motto of those orgs is "one man, one vote... One last time"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- s1artibartfast 2y agoAre you okay with Trump having the power to do each of those quoted actions? To decide if the opposition is a threat to democracy or if elections must be canceled "as a last resort". I read that list and it looks like instructions on how to end democracy, not preserve it
- darthrupert 2y agoTrump should have been the target of defensive democracy, not the abuser of it. At least if US would have had a working version of the concept. So your question seems to evade the point.
- refurb 2y agoAs you said “no system is perfect” so you’d have to accept that it fails to stop someone like Trump from getting into office. It’s like having a gun to defender yourself then the criminal takes it from you. So are you comfortable with someone like Trump using those same tools?
- johnbronnan 2y agoYou are again comparing the flawed US "democratic" system to a real democracy. Trump should not be able to gain those tools because a functioning democracy protects the rule of law and holds justice to be above all other concepts. In the US, the legal system is a sham and the levers of power are easily taken for abuse (not to mention corporate capture of the two political parties which control all political life). So while Trump should not be able to capture those tools, it is only possible because the US does not have a real functioning democracy. In places like France, the state ensures that it is not possible to easily take complete power as Trump has in the US. In short, no, Trump should not be able to take these tools. But in actual democracies they have checks to ensure that this is not possible while in the US no such checks exist.
- woodpanel 2y agoThe Romania-ization of European democracies has just begun. Once Brussels sends „democracy-protecting“ tanks into the capitals of its member states, the „EU-SSR-meme“ will have successfully completed the „conspiracy“ life cycle we‘ve become so adjusted to lately (conspiracy > meme > reality). Just remember to, in the meantime, de-humanize every complainer as „Putin-Puppet“ because how else can we protect democracy if not by eliminating dissent, eh?
- csomar 2y agoYou are just confused because you bought the democracy fairy tale. There is no "real" democracy. There are nation states and in this case it is the French nation state. Politicians come and go but the state (also known for some reason as the deep state) made of bureaucrats, military personal, intelligence, etc... are not going to let some random dude rule over the country just because he got 50%+ of the population electing him. That's the pipe dream of democracy but not the reality.
- cowboylowrez 2y agoI'm thinking a certain level of bureaucracy is needed even in the most democratic of governments, after all we don't (normally) elect folks to argue about whats in each others underwear. We talk about "running" the country. We want laws, statutes, organizations, and sometimes the tasks and end goals are big enough with these constructs to the point where they should span election cycles. Sure, currently the US is in "burn it all down" mode but this is not efficient government at all. This "burn everything down" thing with every election cycle just spends our nations resources to no good end. Course, the problem with democracy is that if you elect a crook, you'll get a crime ring haha but I guess democracy also means giving folks what they ask for.
- eclecticfrank 2y agoA lot of words to say "I do not agree with the judgement of a fair and independet court because I feel otherwise".