4 ms·

The biggest problem with simplistic democracies is the lack of strong constitutional protections for individual liberty, as well as for democratic institutions

The biggest problem with simplistic democracies is the lack of strong constitutional protections for individual liberty, as well as for democratic institutions themselves. It's too easy in many democracies for mob rule to advantage a slim majority, and it's even easier for a democracy to vote itself into oblivion, ending democratic institutions. Edit: One mistake a lot of people make when they look at politics in the west, especially in the US, is to bemoan "gridlock". Gridlock is actually desired. It should be very difficult to get anything done with a 51% majority. That's not democracy, that's just mob rule. The system of checks and balances helps ensure that slim majorities don't result in massive changes.

tragic 12y ago
Democracy is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. It entails the subordination of political minorities to political majorities by definition, as majorities represent more of the people. Saying that the people are all well and good until they make the wrong choice, and thus their freedom to choose must have hard limits, is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position (I do not agree). But it isn't democracy. It would be better to call it liberal constitutionalism or something. Alas, since WW2 (and earlier in some places), it has been verboten to be against democracy, with the result that the word has been emptied of all meaning. A monarchy like the UK, a monarchical presidency like Fifth Republic France, a Stalinist dictatorship like the German Democratic Republic, all officially define(d) themselves as democracies. It's doublethink. Everything is a restriction on 'individual liberty'. Because most governments - of whatever form - have passed relevant laws, I do not get to drive a car at 150mph down country lanes. That is a restriction on my liberty. I'm not crying over it. (Not least because I can't drive.) When people say such things, they normally mean property rights, of course; but in no functioning society are those inviolable either. I would rather they were violated by 51% of the population than the 0.0001% who happen to be judges - that is, state bureaucrats in fancy dress.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  "liberal constitionalism" is a great phrase. We've used "democracy" as a short word to describe the institutions of the west, such as it's checks and balances, independent judiciary, rights and freedoms, et cetera. Sure, democracy is an important part of that, but is it the most important part? When the great democracies of the west were first being established; democracy was a dirty word, one to be feared and balanced with strong protections. That's why the US is technically a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. Now people think that "democracy" and "capitalism" are magic pixie dust that can turn a country around. But both are small parts of what made western countries (and others such as Japan) so successful.

tragic 12y ago

Democracy is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. It entails the subordination of political minorities to political majorities by definition, as majorities represent more of the people. Saying that the people are all well and good until they make the wrong choice, and thus their freedom to choose must have hard limits, is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position (I do not agree). But it isn't democracy. It would be better to call it liberal constitutionalism or something. Alas, since WW2 (and earlier in some places), it has been verboten to be against democracy, with the result that the word has been emptied of all meaning. A monarchy like the UK, a monarchical presidency like Fifth Republic France, a Stalinist dictatorship like the German Democratic Republic, all officially define(d) themselves as democracies. It's doublethink. Everything is a restriction on 'individual liberty'. Because most governments - of whatever form - have passed relevant laws, I do not get to drive a car at 150mph down country lanes. That is a restriction on my liberty. I'm not crying over it. (Not least because I can't drive.) When people say such things, they normally mean property rights, of course; but in no functioning society are those inviolable either. I would rather they were violated by 51% of the population than the 0.0001% who happen to be judges - that is, state bureaucrats in fancy dress.

bryanlarsen 12y ago
"liberal constitionalism" is a great phrase. We've used "democracy" as a short word to describe the institutions of the west, such as it's checks and balances, independent judiciary, rights and freedoms, et cetera. Sure, democracy is an important part of that, but is it the most important part? When the great democracies of the west were first being established; democracy was a dirty word, one to be feared and balanced with strong protections. That's why the US is technically a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. Now people think that "democracy" and "capitalism" are magic pixie dust that can turn a country around. But both are small parts of what made western countries (and others such as Japan) so successful.