New answers tagged

1

Democracy of any shape or form is not a socio-economic and political system; it is just a form government. For example, if we consider a the system as an organism, the government will be one of its organs; in this sense the system encompasses all organs, but it is not reducible to any one in particular. Thus, the government of a particular socio-economic ...


1

"Is democracy always the opposite of authoritarianism?" Yes, the democratic system and authoritarian are two poles that stand against each other. They are mutually exclusive. In an authoritarian state, only a single person, with or without a group of chosen elites (party), dominate the state's social-political agenda. In such state, the opposite ...


5

Defining Democracy and Authoritarianism For this we should consider Democracy to be defined as a government where citizens elect officials to represent their interests (representative democracy, which is what most people think of when they think of democracy) and Authoritarianism to be a concentration of power in the government such that any public dissent ...


1

However, in a lot of situations, this immunity is waived by statute to allow for people to sue states and the federal government for damages. My question is what is the rationale behind this? Why have immunity except only to waive it? Would a republic or its government be weaker if this immunity didn't exist? The primary issue is that the influence of ...


1

Yes. That follows from basic economics: in order to induce people to be productive one has only three options: #1: The proverbial stick. "If you don't work you'll get hurt. That's the modus operandi of slavery and feudal serfdom. That's also the most potent inducement that all known to date socialist systems used, along with #3. #2: The proverbial ...


0

A government is a legal (as opposed to moral) monopoly on force. The government can compel you to do what they want, backing up the instruction with brute physical force. Fines, jail, up to execution. Any form of government can produce tyranny, since power is placed under government control. A government system may work if authority and responsibility are ...


8

If we imagine a pure democracy where the government faithfully executes the decisions enacted by a majority of the people, its level of authoritarianism would necessarily be decided by the people. In theory, people could vote that the government should perform routine searches of houses for contraband without prior cause, or arrest and imprison people ...


1

In principle, yes. In practice, no, for it depends on the specific implementation of the democratic process in the structure of the government. For example, Venezuela is democratic in form (there are elections and an opposition), but authoritarian in nature (results of election are ignored or changed, opposition are persecuted, coerced, etc.). Even in the ...


3

The key question here is whether the Tribal nations and the territories like Puerto Rico are constituents of the USA. In at least one understanding of the Constitution, they are not. The members of the USA are the 50 States, and each state has equal rights (equal is interpreted in different ways.) By this interpretation, it is a symmetric constitution. ...


2

Can we call the United States of America an asymmetric federation? Likely not. A Wikipedia article describes the United States as a symmetric federation. Though it is true that some "subdivisions" of the United States may have "various degrees of autonomy", the United States is, for the most part, symmetric. Symmetric federalism United ...


1

Because it limits what they can be sued for and they can chose when to allow or not allow it. Once you get into the details there are a lot of qualifications around what someone can and can't sue for. If anyone can sue for anything the government would be tied up in litigation as everyone sues every time something they don't like happens. https://www.law....


1

A better system will not/can not be born out of the current one. For this post I will assume the democratic definition of better: if power is spread more evenly among the population and power of each individual is limited, there is less ability to abuse said power. This is simplified and debatable, but I don't have a lot of space in this post. The reason for ...


0

Others have remarked on how hard it is to think of something better than democracy. There's a Winston Churchill quote (that I'm too lazy to get the exact wording) along these lines: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. There is another aspect to it. Suppose that a particular government is in power. They ...


20

There are experiments underway. Iran is working hard to develop a country that is both theocratic and a representative democracy. Afghanistan and Iraq have also recently adopted constitutions with this objective, and Morocco and Egypt have toyed with the idea. Nigeria's federal system has given rise to a system in which Northern states in the Sahel have ...


1

Experimenting with different forms of governments while maintaining the socio-economic system constant is simply an utopia and an impractical mental exercise. How did the slave conditions change under the Roman senate versus the dictatorship of the Caesars? The plurality of liberal democracy is in correspondence with the diversity of the socio-economic ...


24

People have been trying to create "something better than Democracy" for at least the past century and it hasn't worked very well The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history in large part because people were trying to implement alternatives to the set of socio-economic arrangements we broadly call "democracy" that they ...


10

The theoretical answer is because it is either hard or impossible. Why aren't there fishes that swim 2000 miles/hour and mammals that weigh 3000 tons? Because certain realities (physics, chemistry, biology) make it impossible to work. Simply saying "make a governance system that is better" is not enough. You need to propose specific system, with ...


1

There are demerits of democracy but there isn't something yet that is better than democracy. Efforts are made to be "more democratic". Still these demerits wouldn't disappear. And to increase efficiency, sometimes, democratic values become less. Alternate forms of government are there. Those too have demerits. A better form of government won't be ...


28

There's two things going on here: First, democracy isn't so much a single structure, but rather a concept that expresses itself in ranges. Experimentation with new governmental structures does actually happen, and these include structures which are slightly more, or slightly less 'democratic' in nature. The result of this isn't revolutionary change, but ...


14

No, because the 18th century was more violent than life today, not less The problem with this hypothetical is that it assumes that "gun violence" was not prevalent in the 18th century, and if it was, that the idea of a lone crazy gunman would be so especially horrifying that the founders might have decided that allowing private ownership of ...


3

Democracies frequently disestablish themselves, especially when they are new. A typical pattern is: (1) independence or first democratic elections in a previously non-democratic state or an interrupted democratic state (e.g. by occupation or war or coup), (2) allegations of corruption and incompetence surround the neophyte democratic political leaders, (3) ...


0

This is one of the reasons why most large societies use representative democracy rather than direct democracy. Direct democracy, where all the people vote on the laws, makes "tyranny of the majority" much easier, as in the example you describe. In a representative democracy, the theory (which may not always hold out, but often does) is that the ...


3

It only took about two years from the NSDAP becoming the strongest party in the election of July 1932 to Hitler establishing complete dictatorship as Führer and Chancellor after President von Hindenburg's death in 1934. The Nuremberg Race Laws were passed in 1935. (In addition, after the July 1932 election parties that were against the German Republic held a ...


1

Social trust, Separation of powers, and Supermajority barriers. Social trust is a belief in the honesty, integrity and reliability of others – a “faith in people.” If voters lack trust in the honesty, integrity and reliability of a defined set of people, maybe based on religion, ethnicity, gender, wealth, social status, criminal history, location, ...


5

I think the answer to this question comes down to political culture. In essence, democracy (as well as every other political system) originates with a set of attitudes, beliefs, desires, and assumptions that both instigate the formation of the system and perpetuate themselves within the system. In the specific case of democracy, people prioritize liberty, ...


6

Democracies are fragile by nature because they are based on the will of the people. If a majority of the people seriously want to get rid of their democratic system, they can succeed eventually. This is a feature, not a bug: the principle of a democracy is to give the people full power about the direction of the country, so a democracy must allow the people ...


4

The OP seems to not have done much research. Democracies do sometimes disestablish themselves, the prime example being Germany under Hitler. Other democracies often start down that road, by adopting punitive laws against out-of-favor groups. Examples might be the half-century "War Against Drugs" in the US and many other supposedly democratic ...


6

This problem is a large reason why some version of High Courts (ex: Supreme in US, Supreme Court in Canada) and a document guaranteeing fundamental rights (ex: Constitution in US, Charter of Rights in Canada, Droits de l'Homme in France) are required: Further examples: last canton grant right to vote for women in Switzerland, 1991 - via court gay marriage ...


Top 50 recent answers are included