The question is who determines what the right speed is. You are deferring to a corrupt gang of thugs with guns (the communist party and its army) whose kids are the new super rich of the country to determine when the right time has come for them to give up power and wealth.
The transition to democracy in most other countries was the result of great struggles, sometimes more violent, sometimes more peaceful, but I don't know of many cases in which those in power have simply announced one day that the time is now right for them to pass on their power to the people.
I think that is a tough question. If the pace of democratic change is too slow, there aren't a lot of options. Essentially strip people of their voting rights and install a undemocratic government.
I hear your concern, but I think that the biggest change is that people have become accustomed to immediate change and more cynical overall. Democracies don't make sense unless you believe that people are good and correct ideas will ultimately prevail.
When a democracy transitions to a dictatorship in a decade how do you not hood the electorate responsible? They made the choices continually to allow this.
It's basically be because the natural tendency of government is acquire and centralize as much power as possible. Now some forms of government take longer but without constant review and concern by citizens in a democracy it will gradually move towards a despotic regime. In some countries like China it has already happened because individual freedom isn't that valuable to the general citizenry, in the USA and Europe it is moving in that direction. Citizens need to become more active and vote for parties that advocate for more freedom rather than less.
How long can a democracy maintain emergency limits and still call itself free?
Up to the point when laws and government stop being about limiting the violence, never adding to it. Instead they become a way for leadership and the powerful to do whatever they want, unrestrained from those laws. A chopped tree does not mean a sharp ax. An enslaved people does not mean the master can crack the whip. Their power derives from weak people. Once the people are strong, their power goes away.
marxists say the only correct speech panders to power, and speech which unleashes the covid pandemic is allowed. marxists can't speak perfectly. They can't tell others how to speak perfectly.
Russia's authoritarians and the jihadist leaders have no restraints. Give it enough time, barbarity returns and they tear each other apart. The ones unburdened without the facade of civilization have the advantage. They would be better off dropping the charade and openly saying it's no holds battle royale on the Serengeti.
Liberal democracies with their protected classes through mob rule are arbitrary. Popularity fails against contradictions, impossibilities, and dissolution. You are more focused on giving bin Laden a vote and appeasement through celebrity than you are in doing your job. You end up attacking your own for money and power.
Are leaders restrained by laws to limit violence? Is life there for people to live it, instead of people being some piece of inventory to be chewed up and spit out? If not, don't do it. Go away.
I understand the sentiment, and I don't think you were probably being serious, but, for the sake of conversation, I think the issue with dictatorships is eventually with stability. The allure of that much power in a single position leads to the wrong kind of people talking it.
Actually, when we frame things that way, it almost makes me feel like democracy is primarily designed to provide a certain amount of slowness in government; enough to spot corruption coming and head it off. Maybe corruption always eventually wins, just more slowly in democracies. Kinda feels that way lately.
You haven't addressed the facts. A significant problem exists, measures will be taken, compromises will happen. You can choose what they will be or you can refuse and someone will choose it for you.
None of the other compromises of freedom (gun controls, cash controls, security checks) have led to a fall of democracy. In fact, they are requisite for democracies to thrive. You are blowing a minor inconvenience for yourself out of proportion, covering your ears, closing your eyes and shouting.
Democracy only works because we all believe that it works.
When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power.
I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have allowed theirs to be dominated by money from the very foundation.
Even quite corrupt democracies are more open to be changed by popular vote than the US, were not being bought and paid for beforehand means you don't have the means to successfully stand for election.
Hell, even countries where political candidates regularly get murdered stand more chance of peaceful democratic change.
The US political system is a effectively a convoluted equivalent of having a ballot with only one name on it. Only in this case it's a dollar sign. I would be very surprised if this could be overturned by peaceful means, but it will most certainly require extra-parliamentary action, because US democracy has been sold.
I think you underestimate how far down the road towards totalitarianism you have travelled in the last 20-30 years. There's nothing I can see that suggests you have a threshold which will spur change. Your voting systems are being more actively rigged than ever before to ensure the people most angry about police brutality will be most likely to be disenfranchised in November.
By your logic there can never be a suitable time for democratic reform. The current political situation can only get worse until the united states becomes more democratic or more authoritarian.
This is why democracy is so important. It is the pressure valve to excess. Sure some government will abuse this type of feature but there will be a point where people push back. Maybe not soon enough for initial abuse but eventually.
It's hard to deliver democracy and freedom by oppressive means; the means undermine the ends.
However, it's also a common error of the privileged to consign the suffering to wait for a slow, gradual process that results in their entire lives passing by, and those of their children and grandchildren, etc.
Sounds good until everyone starts doing it and the whole country collapses. Cool isn't it?
There is a reason why there are democratic institutions. The correct way to do it, is to wait for the next election and elect your preferred president. You can also strike on your current job (at your own risk), leave your government job, leave the country.
Blocking a public road does not help anyone and makes you more of a pirate.
The problem is that some of these demands are unrealistic and some are downright unreasonable.
Full democracy is a legitimate demand but one that you need to be extremely optimistic, to say the least, to believe that the central government will agree to budge on.
On the other hand, demands regarding rioting are unreasonable. There objectively has been rioting going on and no government will accept to send the message that it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs or to ransack government buildings, or to use violence in general. The only leeway in these cases is usually the penalty courts hand: Very heavy to send a message or relatively light to appease.
If the economy suffers too much, there will be real internal pressure against protesters, especially against any violence.
If the bill is indeed withdrawn it allows protesters to stop while claiming a victory. This does not mean giving up on broader democratic demands but allows them to catch their breath and ponder a long term strategy.
Democracies need to be ineffective and slow to some degree in order to be stable and to allow all people to participate. Otherwise, a coup d'état would be far too easy because efficiency means that only little time would pass between a decision (whether legal or illegal) being made and it getting implemented.
I'm sure you know that democracies, in reality, actually have rule of law and universal rights.
> It used to be, the rights of the 2% of gang members were respected, while the 98% of honest citizens had no rights and lived in fear. Now, the 98% have full rights. That's +96% people with full rights
The textbook language of the dictator and populist oppressor. Maybe it will be different this time, but that's a huge risk to take.
Well, until that democracy decides you have something interesting they want to take away from you.
In that case, regardless of whether you're a grotesque dictator or a quasi-peasant just getting by with your life, better start counting the days before something bad happens to you...
The transition to democracy in most other countries was the result of great struggles, sometimes more violent, sometimes more peaceful, but I don't know of many cases in which those in power have simply announced one day that the time is now right for them to pass on their power to the people.
Your attitude is self defeating.
reply