Advertisement
by Xeng He » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:35 am
Blazedtown wrote:[an ism is] A term used by people who won't admit their true beliefs, or don't have any.
by Elwher » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:00 am
Anurial wrote:This is a really interesting question. To what extent should democracy eschew democratic principles to preserve itself?
Lastly, not all elected autocrats do it through completely democratic means. The NSDAP consolidated it's power by merging the positions of Chancellor and President when Hindenburg died, as well as slowly banning political parties and muscling out the left-wing. It only got about 33% in the last free and fair legislative election. Mussolini marched on Rome after gaining a significant minority of political support and took over the government in a coup. If autocrats always use semi-legal means to achieve power, they cannot claim legitimacy and so it would be unreasonable to claim that they should be respected in the democratic process.
Either way, I'd argue that militant democracy is necessary for the survival of democracy and the survival of democracy is far more important than the right of some fascists to brutalise minorities using state violence. I would advise that militant democracy ought to be about the survival of democratic processes generally, rather than specifically liberal democracy. I do worry that some would prefer for the preservation of liberal democracy over an even more democratic system, though I think that even in Germany's case, the concept of militant democracy has been used to combat only Nazism.
by Elwher » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:05 am
Xeng He wrote:Depending on how strict you are with the label I might be anti-democratic. I would want to limit voting to those capable of proving they're informed on the issues.
by Xeng He » Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:04 am
Blazedtown wrote:[an ism is] A term used by people who won't admit their true beliefs, or don't have any.
by Anurial » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:36 am
Elwher wrote:Anurial wrote:This is a really interesting question. To what extent should democracy eschew democratic principles to preserve itself?
Lastly, not all elected autocrats do it through completely democratic means. The NSDAP consolidated it's power by merging the positions of Chancellor and President when Hindenburg died, as well as slowly banning political parties and muscling out the left-wing. It only got about 33% in the last free and fair legislative election. Mussolini marched on Rome after gaining a significant minority of political support and took over the government in a coup. If autocrats always use semi-legal means to achieve power, they cannot claim legitimacy and so it would be unreasonable to claim that they should be respected in the democratic process.
Either way, I'd argue that militant democracy is necessary for the survival of democracy and the survival of democracy is far more important than the right of some fascists to brutalise minorities using state violence. I would advise that militant democracy ought to be about the survival of democratic processes generally, rather than specifically liberal democracy. I do worry that some would prefer for the preservation of liberal democracy over an even more democratic system, though I think that even in Germany's case, the concept of militant democracy has been used to combat only Nazism.
Is it not possible, however, that an autocratic leader could be elected without the use of semi-legal means? And if so, would it be democratic to prevent him from taking power if that is truly what the majority of the people want?
21st October
✉ Anarquía Mirror: 7 remaining Liberal MLAs form the Independent Group | International Mirror: Right-wing militias join Karsian military in fight against communist militias | Politipoll Weekly: PSF 42.3%, PDS 36.3%, SU 4.3%, AF 0.1%, CU 3.1%, PP 5.1%, Co 3.6%, IL 1.1%, CG 4.1%
by Elwher » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:33 pm
Xeng He wrote:Elwher wrote:
Literacy tests to prove the ability to vote reasonably were all the vogue in the South before 1965.
1. If a state is deeply racist and the registrars are given a lot of discretion in terms of how to handle the test, it's going to lead to racist outcomes. We don't have the same structural problems now as then, and we don't have to leave up to (potentially racist) registrars things like how hard the material you're being tested on is, how you did, etc.
2. I would ideally not be testing literacy at all. Plenty of middle-class Republicans without much political knowledge can read a passage, but they might not know the content of a bill.
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Angevin-Romanov Crimea, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bienenhalde, Bolshaya, Champlania, Eahland, Eurocom, Glorious Freedonia, Gorelovia, Hidrandia, Kelz jones, Kingdom of Castille, Pizza Internazionale Di Zona Anti-ananas, Tungstan, Unmet Player, Valrifall, Valyxias, Yursea, Zhiyouguo
Advertisement