3 ms·
At times I think about how democracies, especially those plagued by winner-takes-all mechanics like presidential and semi-presidential republics, can pretend to
by epolanski 2mo ago
At times I think about how democracies, especially those plagued by winner-takes-all mechanics like presidential and semi-presidential republics, can pretend to be democratic while de facto being very authoritarian.
In the USSR, workers (in Soviets) voted their delegates and the delegates in turn elected the top hierarchy of the communist party.
So yes, the USSR was obviously an authoritarian regime controlled by a single party, but you still had to lobby and depend on getting elected by your party, whose delegates had to be first elected by the workers.
In modern Russia, Belarus, etc?
It's arguably even worse, the elected presidents and prime ministers de facto control the opposition which pretends to be an opposition, and real opposition faces either legal issues or direct threats.
And yet, you can pretend to be a democracy and tell your people its better than it was once, but is it really?
It's been 60 years now till the last parliamentary republic turned authoritarian, Sri Lanka. Every single other country to do so has always been a presidential or semi presidential republic. From the former Eastern Europe, to Asia, to Africa to South America.
We should now know that electing a single person to hold executive power is just non democratic and concentrates too much power in a single individual, but we keep falling in love with winner-takes-all elections and loving the idea of a single individual that doesn't need to win his own parties or PMs support every day can fix things quickly.
- victorbjorklund 2mo agoSoviet only had elections on paper. You serious think it was possible to vote away Stalin? You must be crazy if you claim there was free elections and anyone could run against Stali.
- nec4b 2mo agoHe is also probably not aware of how many people Stalin's KGB murdered or that even kids were supposed to report their parents.
- NoOn3 2mo agoI seriously belive that it was possible to vote away Stalin. But I'm Russian maybe I'm mistaken, but I think the accusations against Stalin are exaggerated. He was not clearly only terrible. There were definitely difficult times, and some of his decisions were bad. But he also did things for the benefit of the people. He didn't accumulate any wealth for himself.
- IAmBroom 2mo ago> But I'm Russian maybe I'm mistaken, but I think the accusations against Stalin are exaggerated. It's hard to exaggerate about the historically-documented third-worst murderer in history. But it can technically be done. > He didn't accumulate any wealth for himself. Remind me of when he had to wait in a breadline, again?
- Arodex 2mo agoModern democracy is not just about elections but about the separation of powers.
- epolanski 2mo agoThat separation of powers exists and existed in all the modern democratic presidential and semi presidential republics that failed to avoid the authoritarian turn. Winner-takes-all mechanic are flawed, non representative, breed personal cults, and put power in hands of individuals that are hard to remove (both constitutionally and by them being able to claim popular mandate). All those republics need to break them is the right person in the right moment. Numbers and facts clearly show that parliamentary republics do not suffer the same threat as any individual has to win the support and votes of its own party, coalition and parliament every single day and its very easy to remove.
- hagbard_c 2mo ago> In the USSR, workers (in Soviets) voted their delegates and the delegates in turn elected the top hierarchy of the communist party. Are you seriously claiming that 'workers' in the USSR had any influence on what happened in the Party? If so you fell for the propaganda and need to read up on the real history of Communism - not Howard Zinn, not whatever the Soviet 'history' books say.