4 ms·

This article reminds me of a question I've thought about a lot recently: When did elections become the norm? It seems like every despotic nation needs at leas

This article reminds me of a question I've thought about a lot recently: When did elections become the norm? It seems like every despotic nation needs at least some kind of elections. Even in totally authoritarian countries, like say, Saddam's Iraq or North Korea, elections are held even if the leader always wins in a landslide and it's clear to any outside observer that the results are pre-determined. 200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous, and people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of the masses". Systems like the electoral college (and representative democracy) were created to put a check on such fears. Even without Monarchy, "enlightened despotism" was advanced by many in the 19th century. Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The Mexican people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one." But at some point along the way, it became clear that to have any legitimacy, you have to have some kind of election. I wonder why? Or when?

dragonwriter 12y ago
> 200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous, and people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of the masses". By 1815, even many monarchies had elections of some form. > Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The Mexican people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one." Yeah, but Santa Anna said that to justify his actions at replacing an federal representative system (which he himself had also been instrumental in creating) with a centralized dictatorship, an act which provoked much of the country to revolt with three breakaway republics declared, and a massive civil war. So, in context, its not really support for the idea that people even at that time didn't see elections and democracy as important. Indeed, arguably, the results of things like Santa Anna's efforts are why later authoritarians often prefer at least an illusion of democratic accountability.
- JimboOmega 12y ago
  Perhaps the timeframe of 200 years may have been a bit short - given that the French Revolution had just wrapped up, and despite the conservative victory, the idea of absolute monarchy was on the decline. If you want to pick the French Revolution as the point in time where the world (the Western world, anyway) started to really think that at least some form of election was necessary - I'd be willing to accept that. Though the monarchist victory in that war proved it was still holding sway, and it's very debatable. Yes, Santa Anna was no saint, and clearly the Mexican people didn't think so much of abolishing the elections. The point of my using the quote, though, was to illustrate that in an international context saying "Elections are a bad idea for the people" was at least a vaguely reasonable thing to do at that point in history. You don't usually see dictators today saying "The people can't handle elections; my enlightened rule is much better without the turbulence." Instead they say "Everyone loves me! I won the election with 99% of the vote!" So I wonder - when did that change? Is it because the view of the people changed? I feel like it's more of an "international legitimacy" thing, like governments are supposed to represent the people.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > So I wonder - when did that change? Over a long period of time. It was the case in much of the world by the time 200 years ago that you point to, but its progressed further since (and was well established in some places long earlier.) > Is it because the view of the people changed? Yes. The single biggest factor in spreading this expectation was probably the British Empire and its global reach.
afsina 12y ago
Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that claasical monarchy is better than democracy. https://youtu.be/k12teOokSqM https://youtu.be/k12teOokSqM

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous, and people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of the masses". By 1815, even many monarchies had elections of some form. > Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The Mexican people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one." Yeah, but Santa Anna said that to justify his actions at replacing an federal representative system (which he himself had also been instrumental in creating) with a centralized dictatorship, an act which provoked much of the country to revolt with three breakaway republics declared, and a massive civil war. So, in context, its not really support for the idea that people even at that time didn't see elections and democracy as important. Indeed, arguably, the results of things like Santa Anna's efforts are why later authoritarians often prefer at least an illusion of democratic accountability.

JimboOmega 12y ago
Perhaps the timeframe of 200 years may have been a bit short - given that the French Revolution had just wrapped up, and despite the conservative victory, the idea of absolute monarchy was on the decline. If you want to pick the French Revolution as the point in time where the world (the Western world, anyway) started to really think that at least some form of election was necessary - I'd be willing to accept that. Though the monarchist victory in that war proved it was still holding sway, and it's very debatable. Yes, Santa Anna was no saint, and clearly the Mexican people didn't think so much of abolishing the elections. The point of my using the quote, though, was to illustrate that in an international context saying "Elections are a bad idea for the people" was at least a vaguely reasonable thing to do at that point in history. You don't usually see dictators today saying "The people can't handle elections; my enlightened rule is much better without the turbulence." Instead they say "Everyone loves me! I won the election with 99% of the vote!" So I wonder - when did that change? Is it because the view of the people changed? I feel like it's more of an "international legitimacy" thing, like governments are supposed to represent the people.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > So I wonder - when did that change? Over a long period of time. It was the case in much of the world by the time 200 years ago that you point to, but its progressed further since (and was well established in some places long earlier.) > Is it because the view of the people changed? Yes. The single biggest factor in spreading this expectation was probably the British Empire and its global reach.

afsina 12y ago

Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that claasical monarchy is better than democracy. https://youtu.be/k12teOokSqM https://youtu.be/k12teOokSqM