It's not clear what kind of distinction you're trying to draw or why it would be relevant. Some kind of representative democracy where policy is chosen by something more involved than a majority popular vote would still have to be just as forbidden from engaging in tyrannical activities that influence the public discourse or the mechanisms the populace uses to express their preferences.
Sure it is, no one is arguing against that. The process includes a constant check against the Constitution and its core values and whenever a conflict is found the law or act is just nullified.
See the Italian constitutional court as an example
The heart of the argument for the person advocating democracy here is centered on the idea that democracy, by its nature, must protect certain fundamental principles, even if those principles are threatened by a majority or by actions claimed to be in defense of democracy itself.
They emphasize (in good faith I might add) that certain actions, such as censoring the opposition, canceling elections, or jailing people without due process, are inherently undemocratic and would destroy democracy if allowed, regardless of the intentions behind them. The argument is that democracy must adhere to its own rules and principles, even in the face of threats, because violating those principles in the name of protecting democracy ultimately leads to its destruction.
You can’t “protect Democracy” by violating its core tenants.
I feel like your arguments are more whataboutism than substantive.
There are no core tenants of democracy other than majority rule. The actions you listed (with the exception of canceling elections) do not actually destroy the ability for the majority to rule. In fact, one common tactic of democratic states is to employ referendums for laws that infringe on the rights of a minority, thus shifting the moral blame onto the population when convenient.
No. If the majority wants to murder or deport all immigrants and seize their assets because “fuck ‘em”, there’s no way a Democracy can just shrug and call it “vox populi, vox dei”.
It might lose but it will have to put up a fight, legal or physical.
> There are no core tenants of democracy other than majority rule.
Let's suppose you're right. We have a "democracy" that holds elections and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, but there is no freedom of speech. Whoever is in office controls all the media, all private communications are monitored and lèse-majesté is a crime. Everything is a crime, in fact, and the law relies entirely on selective enforcement. By election day, opposition candidates with any chance of winning are always blood relatives of the incumbent. Deranged candidates with no chance of winning are ignored but independent candidates who start to gain any support are immediately executed for treason. Every year there is an election in which the people can choose between the incumbent, the incumbent's favored offspring (if any) and a selection of paste-eating loons who think Hitler is still alive, campaign on raising energy costs to help Hitler accelerate human extinction and never get any votes.
That isn't a democracy, it's the fig leaf dictatorships wear when they want to lie about being a democracy.
It's not clear what kind of distinction you're trying to draw or why it would be relevant. Some kind of representative democracy where policy is chosen by something more involved than a majority popular vote would still have to be just as forbidden from engaging in tyrannical activities that influence the public discourse or the mechanisms the populace uses to express their preferences.
Sure it is, no one is arguing against that. The process includes a constant check against the Constitution and its core values and whenever a conflict is found the law or act is just nullified.
See the Italian constitutional court as an example
The heart of the argument for the person advocating democracy here is centered on the idea that democracy, by its nature, must protect certain fundamental principles, even if those principles are threatened by a majority or by actions claimed to be in defense of democracy itself.
They emphasize (in good faith I might add) that certain actions, such as censoring the opposition, canceling elections, or jailing people without due process, are inherently undemocratic and would destroy democracy if allowed, regardless of the intentions behind them. The argument is that democracy must adhere to its own rules and principles, even in the face of threats, because violating those principles in the name of protecting democracy ultimately leads to its destruction.
You can’t “protect Democracy” by violating its core tenants.
I feel like your arguments are more whataboutism than substantive.
There are no core tenants of democracy other than majority rule. The actions you listed (with the exception of canceling elections) do not actually destroy the ability for the majority to rule. In fact, one common tactic of democratic states is to employ referendums for laws that infringe on the rights of a minority, thus shifting the moral blame onto the population when convenient.
No. If the majority wants to murder or deport all immigrants and seize their assets because “fuck ‘em”, there’s no way a Democracy can just shrug and call it “vox populi, vox dei”.
It might lose but it will have to put up a fight, legal or physical.
1 reply →
To play by the rules is an implicit rule in any political/power system. There are consequences when a ruler practices tyranny.
> There are no core tenants of democracy other than majority rule.
Let's suppose you're right. We have a "democracy" that holds elections and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, but there is no freedom of speech. Whoever is in office controls all the media, all private communications are monitored and lèse-majesté is a crime. Everything is a crime, in fact, and the law relies entirely on selective enforcement. By election day, opposition candidates with any chance of winning are always blood relatives of the incumbent. Deranged candidates with no chance of winning are ignored but independent candidates who start to gain any support are immediately executed for treason. Every year there is an election in which the people can choose between the incumbent, the incumbent's favored offspring (if any) and a selection of paste-eating loons who think Hitler is still alive, campaign on raising energy costs to help Hitler accelerate human extinction and never get any votes.
That isn't a democracy, it's the fig leaf dictatorships wear when they want to lie about being a democracy.