In cases of brainwashing and terrorism, it's important to acknowledge that is no longer what we commonly mean by democracy, because free consent of the people is impaired. Majorities who do not give their consent can and are being subjugated.
Here's a simple thought experiment:
Me to a group of five people: "Everyone, give me a dollar." Group: "No."
Then, I pull out a gun. Let's repeat the conversation:
Me to a group of five people: "Everyone, give me a dollar." Group: "OK."
I'd call that coercion, not a reasonable use of the word democracy just because they all technically gave their consent.
Except democracy relies on freedom of the press in order to operate. Brainwashing a population into supporting one guy and holding elections every so often to confirm the brainwashing is working isn't democracy.
Again, it's not about opinions when outright lies and fantasy have lead to an actual attack on democracy and democratic institutions in the US last week.
Couching this in terms of disagreement with opposing or unnaproved viewpoints is to (wilfully?) miss the point.
Democracy apparently cannot function when demonstrably false information flows so unstoppably and in such quantity. This is not theoretical. To repurpose a quote from Ben Goldacre, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
I'm not proposing a solution here, more pointing out a failure mode in the curre t setup. But I disagree that having unfettered lies abounding is the only way to execute democracy. Again I would ask - do you consider Germany undemocratic?
Encouraging people to rethink their political position isn't intolerant unless it cross over to some sort of coercion. There has to be an ability to argue what a best policy is, or there would be no reason for democracy in the first place.
If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves.
Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.
Fair point. That's also a local concern (and more legitimate). Although I need to remind people that in a democracy, its about the number of people who think a certain thought... not the legitimacy of those thoughts that count.
Further, even if the citizen ostensibly advocates the wrong belief, or say are persuaded by an adversary, that belief becomes the legitimate value of the population regardless of the reason—-as democracy is purposed to obligate government to pursue the values of its citizens.
I’ve been to a country with a dictatorship with a faux democracy and no free speech. I asked the minister of journalism & communications whether he believes that free speech is possible in a democracy. He unabashedly said no, as there is no guarantee the “consensus” will be “correct”, especially given the influence of its adversaries.
Your last clause makes this beg the question, I think.
A lot of people believe their own views are dangerous for democracy, and limited to protect democracy. They just also don't believe in protecting democracy - sometimes explicitly, sometimes with lip service to a "democracy" that's little more than nationalism.
You should judge a people if they fancy themsevles a democracy (especially if they think their democracy is so good it deserves to be "exported" to other countries!)
It is highly distressing the degree to which one of the political parties has decided "having any opinion contrary to our official one is bad for 'democracy'".
A government which mandates what people are allowed to say and think is not a democracy of any kind, of course.
reply