3 ms·

(1/2, continued in reply along with footnotes) I do tend to associate military coups with democratic regimes that get too democratic. Post note: after writing

(1/2, continued in reply along with footnotes) I do tend to associate military coups with democratic regimes that get too democratic. Post note: after writing this I might go too hard on the admittedly widespread (but stupid) practice of using “democracy” in two senses: real democratic practice and calling governments that we like[0] democratic if they use that name (nominative democracy) and in turn saying that every action was “by the democratic government” or “by democracy”. But the article does go into the point about using “democracy” for propaganda: > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” So it still seems relevant. [0] Long-standing democracies including, as we shall see, Myanmnar. ----- > (“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens”). Just on the face of it without context this doesn’t say anything. Except maybe something like: when you include people outside our own circle of friends and associates, all kinds of shit can happen. On the rights of other citizens: the democracy envisioned by the American founders was supposed to protect the rights of the opulent.[1] > The allure of democracy is simple: by allowing people to collectively express their collective will, a representative government should be entitled to rely on their support in carrying out its political agenda. The allure to who? The founders who wanted to protect their own rights? Do you need popular support? There’s a Princeton study that showed that for 70% percent of Americans, their own policy preferences have no correlation with what is implemented.[2] A modern democratic theory is that elites govern with the occassional input from regular people. Those are election cycles. But the input of regular people is more to do with settling inta-elite disputes. With a well-oiled smoke-filled room you don’t need their input that much.[3 > Nevertheless, in the 20th Century, as the memory of monarchies faded and the threats of fascism and communism blossomed, Americans have gradually come to believe that democracy embodied the American project. Despite America’s traditional suspicion of pure democracy (and James Madison’s plea for a government run by enlightened delegates), “democracy” came to stand for all that is good and holy in a world threatened by godless collectivism and/or authoritarianism. Beginning with President Wilson’s exhortation to “make the world safe for democracy” our Founders’ strong philosophical misgivings about mob rule appear to have been discarded as part of America’s search for common ground with allies against authoritarian alternatives. Unlike the Founders, 20th Century Americans weren’t trying to rise above the shortcomings of western European governments in such as those in France or Britain, but rather trying to find common cause with them. Let’s talk about communism. Italy was dealing fine with getting rid of fascism. They worked against it towards the end of the war (lynching people like Mussolini) and they didn’t go home at the end of the war either. But these were socialists. So the CIA intervened in Operation Gladio, where they empowered fascists in order to get rid of the socialist influence. Democracy? The US would rather Italy have fascism. The rest of that paragraph is just political science buzzwords. > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” Indeed, the author just takes utterances at face value without thought. Democracy for most people is good. That’s why they say it. Do they (the politicians, the pundits, the propagandists) mean it? Well do they mean it when they say they love peace, freedom, equality? Democracy to them is another propaganda word. Don’t overthink it. > We do this even when the problem we are concerned with is itself an inherently democratic one, only reluctantly acknowledging the very significant role played by the pervasive (and anti-democratic) “checks and balances” built into our own federal constitution. Don’t worry. Democracy that you don’t like can just be called “mob rule”. See previous sloganeering. Or populism. > The fault lines inherent in democracies—so well known to the Founders—can be showcased by (mostly) contemporary examples. People who quote the Federalist Papers tend to think that whatever the founders said is the eternal truth, ipso facto they said it. So what are they? > The problem of having the “last” election – electing anti-democratic government. This is as much of a problem with democracy as an absolute monarch abolishing monarch. In other words it isn’t. Nothing is permanent. Nothing can be protected forever and flawlessly with the impeccable foresight of some founders.

keybored 1y ago
(2/2, continued) > The 2006 election of Hamas to govern the Gaza strip is instructive. Let’s get a lecture on the problems with democracy by that most democratic and free of occupation entity. Gaza. > There were insufficient state institutions (or committed outside forces) to ensure that the rules—rules which would have ensured Hamas’ legitimacy as the primary political force in Gaza, at least for that election cycle—were respected. [...] Ugh, how technical. All too technical when the people of Gaza aren’t even free. That’s much more of a prerequisite then any of this. > Mob rule and orgies of violence. The problem with democracy is that it takes violence to overthrow a monarchy. That’s what this paragraph is about. That’s a problem with democracy. Another problem is that a revolution can lead into a dictatorship. This is the fault of the bourgeoisie revolution and not the repression under the monarchy. > Dependence on extremist support for political survival. Again not special to democratic entities. > As the political balance of their government changes, one might consider what proportion of the limited Lithuanian Land Forces (a division-sized element) may be re-allocated to internal security missions and away from US-led NATO priorities. Lithuania might need their army for internal security rather than US-led NATO stuff, says US officer. > Pretextual assertion of emergency powers to extinguish civil liberties. Ditto. Just a repetition of the democracy-can-abolish-democracy truism. > Repression of minority groups. Is this part about Palestine? > Inherent in majority rule is that the majority makes the rules. Again only truisms. Inherent in an absolute monarchy is that one person makes the rules. Inherent in a rule-of-a-thousand is that the thousand makes the rule. This rule-of-a-thousand is likely to be alike in many respects. What if none of them are of some ethnic minority? What if all the others live in the slums? What do the thosands have to care about them? This is less of a problem the more spread out the power is. Democracy in other words. And the process of a “pure democracy” isn’t dictated by the founders or anyone to mean “must have 51% votes on every matter”. You can have consensus processes on some matters where you need to find a consensus that all have to agree to. And you can have a constitution. Amazing stuff. Having said all that. The “flaw” of democracy was that it didn’t protect the minority of the opulent.[1] But even Federalist Papers devotees apparently think that the founders were woke and wanted to protect the sociological minorities. > That said, majority rule can involve the use of state power to oppress minority groups. America has easily recalled examples. The “but America is not a democracy (founding fathers)” fans snap right back to America being a pure democracy when the state did something wrong. But you can’t have it both ways. > More contemporary examples also often involve conflict between ethnic groups. > https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312-identity-crisis-ethnicity-and-conflict-myanmar https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312... Myamnar was apparently a military dictatorship for fifty years after independence.[4] And Derek Mitchell, 2012–2016 US ambassdor to Myamnar,[5] blames the military for things like persecution of minorities. And the very link that the author used: > Mistrustful of the Burman elite who control most levers of power, scores of minority groups have taken up arms since independence. So is it such a strong democracy that you can blame the democratic part[5] for the persecution of Myanmnar minorities? Of course you can. Because again, in this two-faced worldview, a nominal democracy becomes a pure democracy when something bad happens. > Redefining conduct to skirt mandatory prohibitions. Abuse by the military at the executive branch’ order in Abu Ghraib but I would assume Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well. So democratic. Does anything even need to be said here? > In this instance, the political leadership’s call to unlawful and illegitimate action was largely and steadfastly resisted by the military leadership (particularly the military legal community) based on the baked-in values inherent in Army doctrine. Ultimately, that resistance (as well as the statutory prohibition and related obligations in international law) were overcome by the determination of the political leadership of the day and the primacy of civilian control of the military. #+end_quote That is honestly the first time I’ve ever heard of that. What a resounding success, too. And (I wouldn’t bring this up except for this paragraph) how proud the servicepeople must be to protect America by invading the Middle East. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pJR45HNEM&pp=ygUcY2hvbXNreSBtYWRpc29uaWFuIGRlbW9jcmFjeQ%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pJR45HNEM&pp=ygUcY2hvbXNre... [2] Apparently it is: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theoriesof-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-averagecitizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [3] See Robert Dahl and others [4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/g-s1-38848/myanmar-democracy-leadership https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/g-s1-38848/myanmar-democracy-... [5] I vaguely recall something by the author about democratic systems not being pure democracies? Well, I guess that especially holds when the military likes to assert their power and do coups.

keybored 1y ago

(2/2, continued) > The 2006 election of Hamas to govern the Gaza strip is instructive. Let’s get a lecture on the problems with democracy by that most democratic and free of occupation entity. Gaza. > There were insufficient state institutions (or committed outside forces) to ensure that the rules—rules which would have ensured Hamas’ legitimacy as the primary political force in Gaza, at least for that election cycle—were respected. [...] Ugh, how technical. All too technical when the people of Gaza aren’t even free. That’s much more of a prerequisite then any of this. > Mob rule and orgies of violence. The problem with democracy is that it takes violence to overthrow a monarchy. That’s what this paragraph is about. That’s a problem with democracy. Another problem is that a revolution can lead into a dictatorship. This is the fault of the bourgeoisie revolution and not the repression under the monarchy. > Dependence on extremist support for political survival. Again not special to democratic entities. > As the political balance of their government changes, one might consider what proportion of the limited Lithuanian Land Forces (a division-sized element) may be re-allocated to internal security missions and away from US-led NATO priorities. Lithuania might need their army for internal security rather than US-led NATO stuff, says US officer. > Pretextual assertion of emergency powers to extinguish civil liberties. Ditto. Just a repetition of the democracy-can-abolish-democracy truism. > Repression of minority groups. Is this part about Palestine? > Inherent in majority rule is that the majority makes the rules. Again only truisms. Inherent in an absolute monarchy is that one person makes the rules. Inherent in a rule-of-a-thousand is that the thousand makes the rule. This rule-of-a-thousand is likely to be alike in many respects. What if none of them are of some ethnic minority? What if all the others live in the slums? What do the thosands have to care about them? This is less of a problem the more spread out the power is. Democracy in other words. And the process of a “pure democracy” isn’t dictated by the founders or anyone to mean “must have 51% votes on every matter”. You can have consensus processes on some matters where you need to find a consensus that all have to agree to. And you can have a constitution. Amazing stuff. Having said all that. The “flaw” of democracy was that it didn’t protect the minority of the opulent.[1] But even Federalist Papers devotees apparently think that the founders were woke and wanted to protect the sociological minorities. > That said, majority rule can involve the use of state power to oppress minority groups. America has easily recalled examples. The “but America is not a democracy (founding fathers)” fans snap right back to America being a pure democracy when the state did something wrong. But you can’t have it both ways. > More contemporary examples also often involve conflict between ethnic groups. > https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312-identity-crisis-ethnicity-and-conflict-myanmar https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312... Myamnar was apparently a military dictatorship for fifty years after independence.[4] And Derek Mitchell, 2012–2016 US ambassdor to Myamnar,[5] blames the military for things like persecution of minorities. And the very link that the author used: > Mistrustful of the Burman elite who control most levers of power, scores of minority groups have taken up arms since independence. So is it such a strong democracy that you can blame the democratic part[5] for the persecution of Myanmnar minorities? Of course you can. Because again, in this two-faced worldview, a nominal democracy becomes a pure democracy when something bad happens. > Redefining conduct to skirt mandatory prohibitions. Abuse by the military at the executive branch’ order in Abu Ghraib but I would assume Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well. So democratic. Does anything even need to be said here? > In this instance, the political leadership’s call to unlawful and illegitimate action was largely and steadfastly resisted by the military leadership (particularly the military legal community) based on the baked-in values inherent in Army doctrine. Ultimately, that resistance (as well as the statutory prohibition and related obligations in international law) were overcome by the determination of the political leadership of the day and the primacy of civilian control of the military. #+end_quote That is honestly the first time I’ve ever heard of that. What a resounding success, too. And (I wouldn’t bring this up except for this paragraph) how proud the servicepeople must be to protect America by invading the Middle East. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pJR45HNEM&pp=ygUcY2hvbXNreSBtYWRpc29uaWFuIGRlbW9jcmFjeQ%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pJR45HNEM&pp=ygUcY2hvbXNre... [2] Apparently it is: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theoriesof-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-averagecitizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [3] See Robert Dahl and others [4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/g-s1-38848/myanmar-democracy-leadership https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/g-s1-38848/myanmar-democracy-... [5] I vaguely recall something by the author about democratic systems not being pure democracies? Well, I guess that especially holds when the military likes to assert their power and do coups.