Democracy is a nebulous feel good word. Any discussion of it eventually breaks down into a semantic debate. This is because America, Pakistan, Russia, and Sweden are all democracies. But fundamentally, however many angels are on the head of this pin, a democracy isn’t different than any other system for rulers over ruled. If you really think you’re “voting the bastards out” you might want to check again.
Bush? You mean Former President Bush?
Yeah, there’s no way we’ll ever get him out of power…:rolleyes:
Comissar:
And you’re still wrong. A government that is vulnerable to losing power based on the will of its population is still preferable to one that has no incentive to act in the best interests of the population.
Wow. It’s been a while since we had an honest-to-goodness Holocaust Denier show up here, and now we’ve got ourselves a multiplex example of the breed.
What exactly is your favoured system?
Commissar has explained in other threads that he feels the Soviet Union was the ideal political state.
No doubt. This is democracy’s primary talking point today. No pun intended. The world at large has long since conceded democracy’s worth as a more viable system of government compared to other alternatives. I am surprised there still seems to be people around denying this.
I suppose there’s always going to be a disenfranchised fringe element to any social issue.
Last time I checked, you voters didn’t “get him out of power.” He had to leave for administrative reasons - he termed out. Why is the distinction important? Because you can have administrative political turnover without any popular voting, obviously. For example, look at China’s Jiang Zemin; he ruled, he was replaced, no voting was needed. Democracy tends to fail as a tool for replacing political leaders.
Each and every government is vulnerable to public will. Ever heard of revolutions? To date, not even the most autocratic and brutal dictatorships have been able to stand up to the will of the masses. Think Iran, think Tsarist Russia. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, my friend.
Eventually, sure. If you are willing to wait decades or until the brutal dictator shuffles off this mortal coil. Even then it doesn’t work out happily most of the time. Consider North Korea. Stalin ruled for decades and basically died in office and change didn’t come until several decades after that. Iran? They are still laboring under an autocratic totalitarian government, even if it’s not strictly speaking a ‘dictatorship’. It’s not markedly better than what they were laboring under the Shah. Iraq was ruled by Saddam et al until we tossed him out. Had we not done so, and assuming is continued good health, he’s still be in charge. The Tsar’s of Russia ruled for centuries and would probably still be in charge had they avoided WWI and the devastating losses they took…and again, what they got as a replacement was just as brutal and autocratic. Hell, more so, since a hell of a lot more folks died and were brutalized under the communists than under the Tsars.
-XT
If you’re using Iran and Tsarist Russia as good examples of power transfer then your argument has lost.
Not quite correct. Most revolutions tend to be rather spontaneous, often catching their purported masterminds by surprise. This indicates to me that no great period of waiting is required; given enough support, you can have a successful revolution in a matter of days or weeks. Have you been paying attention to Tunisia lately? Point proven.
I fundamentally disagree. A revolution that succeeds is one that has enough popular support. A revolution that fails is one that does not. Hence, any movement that truly represents the masses will “work out happily” pretty much all the time.
Consider them, indeed. See, here’s the thing: you might personally disagree with these nations, but you do not in and of yourself represent their people. Hell, you probably have no connection at all to either the Soviets or the Koreans, so your input would be entirely irrelevant in the first place. The fact that no revolutions occurred shows that the people didn’t want a revolution; no more, no less.
“Strictly speaking,” the Islamic Republic is a representative democracy. You know - the system that you happen to support? I find it interesting that you would choose to criticize them, as it tends to undermine your overall position.
A good argument, albeit for my position. Say what you will (and, once again, I doubt that you represent the Iraqi people), President Hussein generally ruled his nation in relative peace (at least by the time we reached the 21st century). The illegal Imperial invasion, on the other hand, fractured the nation and ushered in an age of unprecedented ethnic bloodshed. Go, democracy!
Commissar:
Revolutions are just an expression of might-makes-right, like a military coup. It may (if the populace is lucky) end up reflecting the will of the populace, but it cannot be regarded as an expression merely of will.
After all, plenty of revolutions fail, and fail brutally. Think Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 77, Tianmen Square 89. Revolution is rather certainly an inferior manner of popular expression compared with democracy.
I’m putting the constraints of the real world above useless moral considerations. Sure, ideally we would all sit around in a big circle and reach a just political consensus. Doesn’t always work out that way, and implementing a system of voting does little to address the lack of consensus.
So, yes, in some situations, might really does make right. While a coup may or may not fall into this category, I maintain that a people’s revolution certainly does. Nothing is more just than a battle in the streets; no matter what happens, the outcome will reflect the true will of the majority of the people. Revolutions are a beautiful thing, and a unique equalizer in this dark world of ours.
Your three examples of failed revolutions are really bad, and seem to be organized in increasing level of ridiculousness. Tianmen Square? Really?!? I didn’t realize that a riot by a small group of adolescent hooligans qualifies as a “revolution.” This riot was put down for the very simple reason that it completely failed to represent the will of the people, and thus lacked popular support. This reinforces my position, rather than contradict it.
Nonsense. Manuel Noriega used this tactic to maintain control in Panama for years. Huge demonstrations in the capital regularly turned into bloody, running battles between his thugs and the outgunned, marchers - women and childen as well. Kept the terror factor high. Worked really well, for a long time.
Keep in mind, that the people took to the streets to toss out the Communists in Commissars “beloved Soviet Union”.
So occasionally, the populous can toss out dictators and authoritarian governments.
Now I’ll bow out, as this thread will become the “Try to educate Commissar” thread, and those are doomed to failure.
He firmly believes that a dictatorial hard line Communist state is ideal, as long as he is on top of the heap.
Commissar:
That’s patently untrue, else you’d see that in the real world, democracies have, in the main, prospered far more than dictatorships, both in material manner and in measures of personal liberty. You keep spouting about the hypothetical democracy (OK, Nazi Germany is not hypothetical, but on the other hand, Hitler had become a dictator before beginning any of his atrocities) in which the minority is subject to a genocidal majority while waxing poetic about whatever benevolent dictatorships might exist.
And implementing a system in which an unelected dictator makes decisions for everyone does even less to address a lack of consensus.
So a failure in a closed-border, totalitarian country to procure tanks is actually a symptom of lack of will by the people? They have some magical ability to will into existence a power that can protect them from an unelected ruler that has a modern military on his side?
Yeah…except that it could take decades or longer to get to that special point. Stalin was in power for decades and even after he was gone the system shuffled on for a while before finally running out of steam and collapsing under it’s own weight. Same with the Tsars. Same with just about every other dictatorship and totalitarian government that has ever existed. So…point not proven except by fiat in your own mind.
Again, you assert this as if it’s a fundamental truth. In very few cases do revolutions (popular or otherwise) work out to happy ends. That’s why when they do work out (such as in the American revolution, ironically enough considering your thinking on this) they sort of stand out.
And yet, in the cases I mentioned it took pretty brutal measures in order to keep the totalitarian governments large and in charge. Stalin sent millions to re-education camps and killed gods know how many millions to stay in power. Saddam used brutal measures to maintain his hold on power, even gassing villages that failed to heed the governments will. Kimmy and Daddy have killed untold millions though starvation and in camps during their brutal reign to stay in power. Hitler and the Nazis did exactly the same things to maintain their power and stay on top. They do that so that they can crush any organized revolt or revolution before it has any chance of rising up. It’s like the old saw about the tallest tree getting lopped off first. It’s only after dictators start to lose their grip that revolt and rebellion is possible.
On the other side of the score card, when we have a fuck up like GW Bush we only have him for 8 years and then he’s gone and we get someone else. And that’s only IF said fuck up actually manages to get re-elected…otherwise we are rid of our mistake in 4.
Only by the loosest and most blind definition is Iran’s government a ‘democracy’. If those you can vote for only include those hand picked for the post by some ruling body then that’s not real democracy. It’s like saying that Cuba is a ‘democracy’ because they give the people the chance to vote for Fidel every year…which may have something to do with why he always won with 100% of the votes going his way.
He ruled his nation with an iron fist, killing any who even had the appearance of being in an opposition to him or the Ba’athists. It’s ridiculous to state that Iraq was some sort of peaceful paradise until the evil US came in and rained on their parade. Whether or not the US invasion was justified or a good thing for the Iraqis (and, FWIW, I don’t believe it was) has nothing to do with the rather rose colored view you are using to evaluate them.
-XT
OK, let’s imagine this situation for a moment. Absent divine favor, popular will is one way of (leigitimately) enshrining a new set of leaders in power. China’s system of political transfer is non-transparent, but even so it likely involves power blocks opposed to each other. What happens if they don’t agree one day on the next leader?