|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 9, 2017 12:27:06 GMT
I've heard an increasing number of conservatives, over the last few years, express opposition to democracy. Indeed, a good few members of this forum have done so. I certainly think it's worth a thread.
Personally, I'm a democrat. My reasons aren't all that original, indeed they are mostly pretty obvious, but they might be worth stating anyway to get the ball rolling.
1) If nothing else, democracy seems to be a safeguard against the worst forms of tyranny and despotism. Democracies don't really elect leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. etc. Democratic leaders don't really do things like Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, or the Great Leap Forward. At least not that I've heard of.
2) All the evils people attribute to democracy seem to be equally possible in a non-democratic system. For instance, the argument is made that democracy is "just" plutocracy. But why wouldn't a non-democratic system be even more plutocratic?
3) People say democracy is just a circus, and yet every day I hear people say governments couldn't do such-and-such a thing because it would be "political suicide". How can it be both? And the will of the people often does seem to be opposed to the desires of the establishment. Take Brexit-- the big corporations, the political classes, the media, all the powers that be were against it. But it passed. According to the "circus" theory, such things shouldn't be possible.
4) When I suggest that democracy is better than Stalin, Mao, etc., the answer is very often: "Well, that's a false dichotomy. That's not what I'm looking for". My question is, how do you stop your non-democratic system from passing into such an autocracy, when you have foregone your right to a say in the matter? I often wonder if anti-democrats imagine themselves in the ruling cabal of their non-democratic system. But obviously few people would make it into the ruling cabal.
5) On a positive note, I think that elections and the whole political process is good for forming a public spirit and a national consciousness.
Just my thoughts. Interested to hear what other people think.
|
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 11, 2017 15:35:54 GMT
Democracy is probably the best of the best of the bunch, but possesses some inherent weaknesses that were always there and some potential new dangers that seem to be developing currently. A few thoughts:
I was flabbergasted all those years ago, as a politically naive person, when I heard that there was to be a second vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Obviously the first vote wasn't palatable to the Irish Government and the EU, so another vote to get the required answer was needed (with more media and government persuasion thrown in). A public reversal of democracy surely?
On a similar vein, in the U.S., when North Carolina wouldn't allow biological males/transgender females use female restrooms, a whole host of
U.S. based multinationals and 'celebs' threatened to isolate N. Carolina if it didn't comply with their morality. Obama didn't raise a hand to
ask the multinationals or celebs to butt out. So who is ruling, government or unelected multinational brands?
Democratically elected politicians are never guaranteed to be voted into power for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th term, therefore instead of working for
long term strategies that will bear fruit in the medium to long term future, they often embrace short term fads that are currently popular and will give them a better chance of being re-elected, even if these short term fads are unlikely to work.
I think it was mainly during the term of George W Bush that the patronising phrase ' we are bringing democracy to these countries' was used in relation to countries that were being invaded. This belittled the term democracy as we all know that the democracy being brought included the staples of consumerism, identity politics and secularism, a particular brand of democracy that could well be totally unsuited to a middle east or asian country with no such traditions.
The democratic process can give rise to both big centralised government or small government with devolved powers. The trend in the West appears to be towards big central government. Big central government, in bed with big companies, academia and mainstream media can then, with stealth, establish a soft totalitarian approach on agreed ideologies (secularism, consumerism, identity politics, multiculturalism etc). So eventually even conservative leaning parties will tow the line as they work within the constraints set by this ideology, albeit in a slightly begrudging way. Although elections give the illusion of change, nothing alters except for a bit of tinkering around the edges.
Although mavericks like Trump have come to the surface nominally due to democracy, it looks like the machinery of 'democratic' soft totalitarianism is desperate to negate the maverick by all methods available in order to maintain the status quo. Similarly with Brexit, every trick in the book will be used by anti-Brexiteers to undermine the vote.
Big government democracy is dangerous as it controls mainstream media and indoctrinates. Devolved government structures with federal entities may curb that power somewhat, as will the rise of alternative internet sites to provide countercultural information. Thats why Brexit and Trump (although we may see Trump himself as a volatile politician rather than a statesman) are important. But will the soft totalitarians of big government learn from these upsets and become ever more enclosed. Did renewed and concerted support from the EU, Obama and others get Macron elected so easily in France as Le Pen was demonised? In other words, will western democracy be negated, as it is reduced to returning a series of parties that are all eventually subservient to the ideology of the left and the powers behind them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 27, 2017 8:22:28 GMT
Only recently my eyes have been opened about democracy and most of the illusions I have been feed since birth. My views are in flux at the moment, but I still hope that very local governance can work. Democracy also tends to divide people into groupings and create partisan politics and seems to erode family and tradition. Maolsheachlann democracy does not safeguard anything. You say Democracies don't really elect leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong. Hitler for example and his party were democratically elected in 1933. Even today many dictators are democratically elected Idriss Deby (Chad), Assad (Syria), Islom Karimov (Uzbekistan), Pierre N’Kurunziza (Burundi), Paul Kagame (Rwanda), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) to name a few. I can agree that most of the evils people attribute to democracy seem to be equally possible in a non-democratic system. But most states today are run by a cabal, at least other systems are more open about it. Democracy has an illusion of control, and so they accept treatment that they would never accept from a monarch. Democracy is a circus and the average person had no chance of making any difference at all. Unless one of the ruling classes want such. Could the British exit be one of these? All Political systems are corrupt as the people operating them will always be tainted by the fall. That being said some Political system our intrinsically evil such as communism.  Let's end this post on a positive note. Christ is King!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 27, 2017 9:32:33 GMT
"Democracy have an illusion of control, and so they accept treatment that they would never accept from a monarch."
What choice would they have in the latter case?
My point is that there is a safeguard in democracy which there is not in other systems. If things get too bad leaders can be voted out. I agree with C.S. Lewis that it's precisely the fallen nature of man that makes democracy the best system.
Whether the Nazis came to power democratically is a big subject; I would say they got a good deal of the way democratically, but never quite got there and had to seize power eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 27, 2017 9:43:03 GMT
I think that, if you gave anyone a choice of which country they would like to live in, and they could choose any REAL country of the present day-- not Narnia or Middle Earth, etc-- and they were going to be an ordinary member of this society (i.e., not a member of the elite), virtually everybody would choose a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 27, 2017 9:51:51 GMT
"What choice would they have in the latter case?" the same as Democracy, None!! Without physical or emotional violence  If things get too bad leaders can be voted out? Maybe a leader, but another head will grow. I would disagree with C.S. Lewis on his point democracy that you mentioned. Democracy seems to create cultural degeneration at much faster rate than past systems. Hitler received 43,9% of the vote in 1933 and was the best result any party had ever had in the Republic of Weimar. So did the conservative party get democratically elected into the government this year with 42.4%? I don't know what the best answer is, but it definitely isn't worshiping democracy, the market, Constitution or any other ideal as a substitute for God! (Constitution, in particular, is for are Irish Amercian friends) |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 27, 2017 9:59:54 GMT
But who is worshipping democracy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 27, 2017 10:01:56 GMT
I was not accusing anyone in particular. I have come across a lot of people and politician that beleive democracy is more important than God!
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 27, 2017 17:18:01 GMT
I think the rule of law and respect for constitutional rights and responsibilities are also part of a proper democracy. The ancient Greek democracies imperfect as they were ,envisaged a very engaged active citizenry , something we don't see unfortunately ,largely due to hyper-individualism .Democracies should have limited powers with proper checks and balances to prevent tyranny and the destruction of freedom.
Simply having a ballot box election with no opposition or respect for minorities is easy to sneer at in some failed state or peoples democratic republic but our artifical public consensus on many important issues endangers our democracy. A healthy democracy will always value and protect free speech and the pursuit of truth. We have a long way to go but we have good foundations. One of our greatest achievements as a state was our democracy was never seriously questioned when finally established. In 1941 we were one of only eleven democratic states. Sometimes we take that achievement for granted. It was no mean feat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 30, 2017 10:15:33 GMT
The rule of law is the most important part of any successful political system. Respect for constitutional rights and responsibilities are changing as a proper democracy have the right to vote for whatever. “Democracies should have limited powers with proper checks and balances to prevent tyranny and the destruction of freedom”. Agreed but impossible to achieve!
Do you have an example of a healthy democracy that values and protects free speech and the pursuit of truth?
“We have a long way to go but we have good foundations”. Ireland does not have good foundations as God has never been at the centre of the state. In the 70s in so-called "Catholic Ireland," we even removed reference to "special position" of the Catholic Church and to other named Christian denominations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 30, 2017 10:57:40 GMT
I think you are making the perfect the enemy of the good. I would argue that pretty much every democracy values free speech. I think Ireland values free speech, I think America values free speech, I think the UK values free speech. You are allowed to say things that the establishment doesn't like. (The "pursuit of truth" is too intangible to quantify.) It doesn't mean I'm not very anxious about the dangers of political correctness. I am. I've spoken up about this consistently. But I know there is a huge difference between the restrictions on our ability to express ourselves in Ireland or America as compared to Cuba or Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
I think we have to deal with actualities. Which current non-democratic country do you prefer to democracies? I really think there's a danger of building castles in the air which are completely unrealisable, and missing the good of that which actually exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 30, 2017 17:20:56 GMT
Stephentyrell I think the fundamental problem is not democracy which is basically a mechanism to elect and depose our rulers but our decaying culture. That decay was not caused by the ballot , free speech and the rule of law. Democracies can flourish and democracies can decay.
There are no perfect democracies just as there are no perfect societies or individuals.
Can you mention any country were there is a just alternative to democracy?
You mention the removal of the special status of the church in the 1970s. The bishops did not oppose this at the time which goes to show what value they placed on it . I would like to research this sometime as I have never come across a good account of its abolition .I think it is a pity the catholic reference was removed along with the references to other faiths. Religion was dethroned or maybe sidelined ,perhaps not to the extent it is now but symbolically it was foolish to to ditch it in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jul 1, 2017 8:46:50 GMT
I hesitate to comment. To really do justice to what I think might take me hours to express. But I will mumble some things here, at the risk of being maladroit. I think I am probably somewhere in between Stephen and Maolsheachlann here. One the one hand, the arguments you started with Maolsheachlann do hold some weight for me. On the other hand, I very much agree with you Stephen about the fetishisation of democracy - the tremendous celebration one sees of it, when often there seems little to celebrate, given the rulers and parties it has thrown up. Also of course the fact that you can't even _begin_ to question it without being stigmatised or worse.
I think to the Church. The Church combines elements of monarchy (the Pope) aristocracy (the bishops) and democracy (the Cardinal-electors) and on the whole I think it has produced far, far better leadership in the last 200 years than Western governments have. And I would resist to the teeth any forther efforts to democratise the Church. Of course temporal politics is different to the Church and again I do see value in your initial arguments, Maolsheachlann.
Still, I think the system I am moving towards is one that in some way would also blend Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. I think this is the track that Belloc was on and probably Chesterton too (would be interested in your thoughts on GKC here, Maolsheachlann!)
Belloc began as an ardent apologist for the French Revolution, but through his time as an MP ( a radical Liberal MP!) came to believe that "parliamentary democracy" was an oxymoron. The range of options/viable candidates that the system threw up was so laughably limited in his view that it could hardly be seen as real choice. And a 100 years later, the song would seem to remain the same today ...
I don't believe that everything Belloc said was infallible! He has places where I don't follow him. HOWEVER, when I consider his biography, I think there is something providential in his bitter disillusionment. His movement over decades from zealous Republican to some kind of monarchist was neither haphazard nor unintelligent, but PROFOUND - born out of a crucible of suffering and an existential confrontation with the state of the world that few people will ever manage. Here is partly why Chesterton so deeply respected him.
And as I try to think these things out, I am also bumbling along in Belloc's footsteps, feeling that path he walked has profound, again providential direction, even if there were undoubtedly serious missteps along the way.
|
|
|
|
Democracy
Jul 1, 2017 12:29:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 1, 2017 12:29:03 GMT
Roger, a blend of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy seems like the ideal system to me. I would weight it heavily towards democracy, though. I'm interested in how you envisage such a system.
|
|
|
|
Democracy
Jul 3, 2017 20:10:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by cato on Jul 3, 2017 20:10:22 GMT
Roger I would be loath to include aristocrats as an ingredient in an ideal democracy. Modern aristocrats are largely the cheerleaders for cultural suicide and decay. Arguably the USA has been ruled by two Royal houses the Clintons and the Bushes for much of the last 30 years to the detriment of that republic .Banning political dynasties might be an idea worth entertaining.
|
|
