what makes a Nation a democracy?

Well I believe that Australia was a democracy, despite some discriminatory laws. So did the thousands, including my father and grandfather, who fought in wars.

But how about getting to your point about the Israel non-democracy?
 
lionking said:
Well I believe that Australia was a democracy, despite some discriminatory laws. So did the thousands, including my father and grandfather, who fought in wars.
Click to expand...
why do you believe it was a democracy? I'm trying to get to the issue of what you believe are the minimum requirements.


But how about getting to your point about the Israel non-democracy?
Click to expand...

looks like "skeptic" has convinced at least one person?
 
Pardalis said:
> So, is USA a democratic country?
Is Finland?
Click to expand...
If we take the word "democratic" as a declinable adjective -- "democratic", "more democratic", "most democratic" -- USA is democratic to some minimal extent. At least they get to elect the representatives, who elect the semi-dictator of the country. After an election campaign where media exposure is paid with bribe money (also known as "donations to election candidates").

Compared to USA, countries like Finland are a bit "more democratic", because:
- Political power is shared by a larger group than in USA, we don't have a semi-dictator system which concentrates so strong powers in the hands of one person.
- Bribery (aka "donations") plays a less massive role in our election process.
- We have three equally strong main parties (left, center, right), instead of only two in USA (which both look like right-wing parties, compared to European politics), so in USA one party typically has more than 50% rule over the political life, in countries like Finland nobody has over 50% share, and all decisions must be discussed with other parties.

But I don't support the idea anyway that majority (over 51%) has the right to dictate the lives of large minorities. This is often taken for granted that everything is OK and "democratic" if we have a system where 51% of people support the decisions that are made in the country. I think that 51% of people should have the right to decide for 51% of the national budget, no less and no more. And 51% of people should have the right to decide the laws for 51% of the national territory, no less and no more.
 
JJM 777 said:
If we take the word "democratic" as a declinable adjective -- "democratic", "more democratic", "most democratic" -- USA is democratic to some minimal extent. At least they get to elect the representatives, who elect the semi-dictator of the country.
Click to expand...
Data point that this poster is wilfully ignorant.

Teachable Moment:

You are invited to study the Constitution of the United States, and try to grasp the roles and functions of three branches of our government, before making moronic statemens of this sort.

DR
 
The Fool said:
Much is made of the need to advance democracy or bring democracy to populations that do not have it.

It is my view that among some other minimum requirements no citizens should be discriminated against by law on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic group, or gender.

Is is generally agreed that this is required for a nation to be called a democracy?
Click to expand...


Democracy be damned. That's the (not even) the minimum requirement needed to be called free.


We are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan the idiocy of separating Democracy from Freedom. They are "democratically creating constitutions" with theocracy and other bullP&T built in.

We should have jammed a constitution down their throats the way we did with Japan. You lose, you will now have this framework in which the indigenous thugs may fight for power because it works to produce a throbbing, powerful, relatively free populace.

In other words, yes, shove our snoot into the air and declare it is better.

Disagree? Well, you've had it your way. Happy?


I would like for future generations, should they get back into to nation building, as they inevitably will, to learn this lesson. I doubt they will, though.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
If we take the word "democratic" as a declinable adjective -- "democratic", "more democratic", "most democratic" -- USA is democratic to some minimal extent. At least they get to elect the representatives, who elect the semi-dictator of the country. After an election campaign where media exposure is paid with bribe money (also known as "donations to election candidates").

Compared to USA, countries like Finland are a bit "more democratic", because:
- Political power is shared by a larger group than in USA, we don't have a semi-dictator system which concentrates so strong powers in the hands of one person.
- Bribery (aka "donations") plays a less massive role in our election process.
- We have three equally strong main parties (left, center, right), instead of only two in USA (which both look like right-wing parties, compared to European politics), so in USA one party typically has more than 50% rule over the political life, in countries like Finland nobody has over 50% share, and all decisions must be discussed with other parties.

But I don't support the idea anyway that majority (over 51%) has the right to dictate the lives of large minorities. This is often taken for granted that everything is OK and "democratic" if we have a system where 51% of people support the decisions that are made in the country. I think that 51% of people should have the right to decide for 51% of the national budget, no less and no more. And 51% of people should have the right to decide the laws for 51% of the national territory, no less and no more.
Click to expand...



Is there a library in your city or town? If so, you really need to spend some time there.
 
Beerina said:
Democracy be damned. That's the (not even) the minimum requirement needed to be called free.


We are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan the idiocy of separating Democracy from Freedom. They are "democratically creating constitutions" with theocracy and other bullP&T built in.

We should have jammed a constitution down their throats the way we did with Japan. You lose, you will now have this framework in which the indigenous thugs may fight for power because it works to produce a throbbing, powerful, relatively free populace.

In other words, yes, shove our snoot into the air and declare it is better.

Disagree? Well, you've had it your way. Happy?


I would like for future generations, should they get back into to nation building, as they inevitably will, to learn this lesson. I doubt they will, though.
Click to expand...

People have to decide themself how they want to govern their country.
 
JJM 777 said:
Compared to USA, countries like Finland are a bit "more democratic", because:
- Political power is shared by a larger group than in USA, we don't have a semi-dictator system which concentrates so strong powers in the hands of one person.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Senate?

- Bribery (aka "donations") plays a less massive role in our election process.
Click to expand...

How do political parties finance their campaigns in your country?

- We have three equally strong main parties (left, center, right), instead of only two in USA (which both look like right-wing parties, compared to European politics), so in USA one party typically has more than 50% rule over the political life, in countries like Finland nobody has over 50% share, and all decisions must be discussed with other parties.
Click to expand...

Still, I bet there are two parties that mostly get elected. We have multiple parties as well in Canada, and it's always either the Liberal or the Conservative party that gets elected.

Each US party has many branches and they get to have preliminaries.

But I don't support the idea anyway that majority (over 51%) has the right to dictate the lives of large minorities. This is often taken for granted that everything is OK and "democratic" if we have a system where 51% of people support the decisions that are made in the country. I think that 51% of people should have the right to decide for 51% of the national budget, no less and no more. And 51% of people should have the right to decide the laws for 51% of the national territory, no less and no more.
Click to expand...

This is idiotic.
 
DC said:
yes :)
and Sceptic calls himself sceptic.
Click to expand...
Since you missed the joke in my first ref to N Korea, I don't expect you to get the second jest.

No matter. Skeptic is a curmudgeonly old fart, and since he is currently suspended, I'll suggest that you are wasting your bait on him at the moment. ;)

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Since you missed the joke in my first ref to N Korea, I don't expect you to get the second jest.

No matter. Skeptic is a curmudgeonly old fart, and since he is currently suspended, I'll suggest that you are wasting your bait on him at the moment. ;)

DR
Click to expand...
and the believers in his mindreading abilities got a bit upset too :)

ok....Lets see if the clowns can still manage to derail this thread onto Israel as they seem so committed to doing.



To reiterate, I think equality before the law of all citizens is a minimun factor in determining if the title "democracy" is reaqsonable....to that I want to add free and fair elections.

Should a nation such as Iraq be entitled to be routinely refered to as a "democracy"?
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
They call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea , right? ;)
Click to expand...
It means "Korean Republic of Democratic People", not "Democratic Republic of Korean People".

Pardalis said:
Ever heard of the Senate?
Click to expand...
Yes I have heard of those bribed bourgeois.

Pardalis said:
How do political parties finance their campaigns in your country?
Click to expand...
The right-wing party does arrange business luncheons with a high price ticket to business leaders, other parties get most of their income from state aid, which is given to parties according to the voting shares in previous elections. Unfair to newcomers, but some new ideologies like the Greens have overcome this obvious economical threshold. The threshold is said to help keeping the most eccentric material away from public politics. Some corruption does exist, but Finland ranks near the top (often actually no. 1) in global surveys assessing the perception of the general public about honesty vs. corruption in national politics.

Pardalis said:
Still, I bet there are two parties that mostly get elected.
Click to expand...
The three are so close to each other that any of them can win the elections, and then hand-pick one of the two others to form a majority coalition. The second biggest party can be left out if the winning party chooses the third biggest party. Is this reasonable, well I already told you that I don't see much justice in 51% majority politics.

Pardalis said:
> I think that 51% of people should have the right to decide for 51%

This is idiotic.
Click to expand...
Yes if you ask from the 51%. Not if you ask veteran politicians of minority groups that never in their entire lifetime got their pet topics through in national politics.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
It means "Korean Republic of Democratic People", not "Democratic Republic of Korean People".
Click to expand...
Distinction without a difference.
Yes I have heard of those bribed bourgeois.
Click to expand...
Self indictment of a demagogue. Thanks for clarifying that, JJM. By the way, you have just slandered (actually, libeled) an alumnus of my university, with NO evidence.

So you are now a self confessed ignoramus, who talks out of his arse.

(But to be fair to you, there are members of our government who have been bribed, which is ILLEGAL in my country, nor is it part and parcel to our democratic form of government. When they get caught they can be punished. (Sometimes their lawyers win, though.) Congressman Cunningham is an example of one in jail for getting caught.)

DR
 
Last edited:
Ooh I have touched the sacred values of some here.

Even a skeptic can be politically a believer, I see.
 
JJM 777 said:
Ooh I have touched the sacred values of some here.

Even a skeptic can be politically a believer, I see.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of belief, my demagoguical friend, but a matter of actually knowing how the system is constructed before one analyzes it.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom