Comment by IG_Semmelweiss

1 year ago

You want a democratic government to have "undemocratic" guardrails, because otherwise you are ok with mob rule. Democracy without rules is pure and simple majority rule. You do not want this. Unless of course you are ok with slavery, going back hangings, etc. If that's the case, I rest my case.

You want democracy to be prevented from acting out on its passions by a balance of powers.

IN the brazil case, the state powers, and the brazilian voters are not preventing 1 judge from acting out his passion "to protect democracy". Ergo, this is the problem. The mob is granting him this power, when in fact it should be voters, via congress or even the office of the president which brings this loose cannon of a judge back within the powers given by the constitution of brazil.

In this case, brazil is behaving like a raw democracy. It is true majority rule. Laws apply as the majority sees fit.

Hope you don't end in the minority.

5 comments

IG_Semmelweiss

Reply
parineum  1 year ago

> You do not want this. Unless of course you are ok with slavery, going back hangings, etc. If that's the case, I rest my case.

You can rest your case if you'd like but it's a loser.

Democracies got rid of those things that still exist today in undemocratic societies.

eecc  1 year ago

Nope, you’re spinning it.

The mob rule here is Bolsonaro’s, and in no functioning democracy are multiple Powers (legislative, governmental and judicial) collected into 1 hand.

If a judge goes out of control it’s another judge’s task to regain it, or an independent Judicial court.

  • datahack  1 year ago

    The idea that another judge or an independent judicial body should intervene if a judge is overstepping is consistent with how a system of checks and balances should function in a Democracy and I think you are largely correct.

    However, whether the judiciary in Brazil is actually overstepping or properly fulfilling its role is a matter of interpretation and context.

    The broader and very much core question is whether the actions taken by the judiciary, such as censoring social media or jailing individuals without trial, are justified under the circumstances or if they themselves undermine democratic principles. This is the same basic issue I made my other comment about in your series of replies.

    This is a nuanced issue that can be debated from different perspectives and much more of a subjective question, and it’s important to separate the issues.

    • eecc  1 year ago

      Thanks for explaining the distinction. In Italy we’ve had the same kind of polemic for 20 years from Berlusconi’s Right, claiming — whether preposterously or not is itself debatable, and fanned by Berlusconi’s media — that the Judiciary was corrupt, captured by the “CUmmunishti”, and the haters.

      It’s interesting how it’s all playing out again.