Democracy vs Authoritarianism

solarz said:

However, in the context of democracy vs authoritarianism, the fundamental difference lies in how the people choose their leaders.

Click to expand...

Wrong. That's just one issue. The rule of law, judicial independence, ability of people to get organised and campaign, media/personal freedoms and other factors are all just as important. And if you didn't agree with that, they're closely interwoven with how people are able to choose their leaders so you have to consider them anyway.

Mr T said:

Wrong. That's just one issue. The rule of law, judicial independence, ability of people to get organised and campaign, media/personal freedoms and other factors are all just as important. And if you didn't agree with that, they're closely interwoven with how people are able to choose their leaders so you have to consider them anyway.

Click to expand...

Again, it all come down to election in the end isn't it? If you disagree name me one democracy where the leader are not elected in one way or the other.

Or maybe you would consider CCP democracy as well? After all, the leaders are not pass on from father to sons, and the politburo members are also elected at the close door.

jackliu said:

Agree, this Right/Republican and Left/Democrats polarization is really nothing but an illusion, which serves to keep the people in sport mentality to support one or the other team. While they are sponsored by the same thing, the big corporations.

Right now people still believe in the government, that's why when one party screw up the other one take over, and people are so passionate about voting. But I think if this keep going on for another 20 years when people realize no matter which party got elected, the economy will not change, maybe that is the time people can see through the illusion, and do something about it.

Click to expand...

As a general description I would be inclined to agree, but we all understand I think, that when you look at apparent solid matter, it is made up of smaller components, the individual behaviour of which often confounds the observer.

I think we can also agree that in any society, that it is the rich and powerful that call the shots and will determine much of government policy in accordance with their liking.
It would though, be a mistake that the rich and powerful (the elite) are a uniform whole. Rather they are a set of competing egos, who by necessity form a public consensus in dealing with the rest, but who in private fight for advantage tooth and nail.
In a Democracy I think therefore that it is no coincidence that so many politicians come from a legal background; not so much on account of their ability to understand and draft law, but on account of their oratory skills as Barristers (Advocates or Attorneys I believe many of you will call them). In that sense they are the legal representatives of the special interests rather than the general public and the court of Parliament is where this advocacy is made and heard.
In terms of Politics, this makes national leaders PR men for vested interests and financial backers rather than leaders in the classic or heroic mould.

A modern Politician is therefore not somebody who actually campaigns for the public good, but the person able to martial the greatest and widest number of special interests and successfully promise that their interests will be advanced under their watch.

Mr T said:

Wrong. That's just one issue. The rule of law, judicial independence, ability of people to get organised and campaign, media/personal freedoms and other factors are all just as important. And if you didn't agree with that, they're closely interwoven with how people are able to choose their leaders so you have to consider them anyway.

Click to expand...

Predictable.

First, let me remind you that we're talking about democracy as a contrasting political philosophy to authoritarianism. As I said before, elections are the only fundamental difference between the two.

None of the issues you listed are any more difficult to achieve under authoritarianism compared to democracy, with the exception of campaigning, which is just a part of the election process.

First, you will never get complete judicial independence even under democracies. Under authoritarianism, the law is more lenient toward the powerful. Under democracy, the law is more lenient toward the wealthy.

Second, media and personal freedom are two different issues. Media freedom is a self-delusion. The truly free, independent journalist does not work for the big media corporations, and thus doesn't get much readership. This in turn translates into credibility issues.

Personal freedom comes from tacit consent between the people and the society in general. Again, there are no absolutes. Some democracies outlaw marijuana, some authoritarian governments outlaw pornography. In the end, it goes back to how much power the individual has. The average Chinese citizen certainly has far more personal freedom than the average Afghan citizen.

solarz said:

Sounds like a case of "no true Scotsman" to me.

A *functional* democratic government requires more than elections, absolutely. However, in the context of democracy vs authoritarianism, the fundamental difference lies in how the people choose their leaders.

Click to expand...

There's no need to choose any leader in a democracy. The only requirement is for people to decide upon something together with each one according to theory having an equal voice.
The whole leader issue is fog that clouds the vision on essentials. A democracy can have a lottery for leadership positions.
Democracies can choose to have an authoritarian dictator, authoritarianism is usually perceived as a system of lesser dependence on population goodwill. We might be better off with a different organization of the ideas shaping our discussion:

popular consent: dependent | independent
institutionalized | democracy? | 士大夫 Chinese scholar-gentlemen
personalized | Hitler, | authoritarianism?


Is everybody's influence and voice equal in a democracy - lobbyism, campaign donations for spin doctoring?
Are authoritarian dictators really independent from popular consent - visible propaganda investments?

The Enabling Act of 1933 is something very controversial in the Western democratic cultures. The latest STAR WARS episodes 1-3 were about an enabling act for Palpatine while the old episodes 4-6 are a black and white world after that enabling act.
Obama's resonant campaign "Yes, we can." was as well about enabling one man to dominate and lead to a better future. Many see his failure due to the other institutions making progress an ineffective crawl. As long as democracy with her institutions exists, there will be a drive for empowered person to achieve more. You can similarly see the emperor and the scholar-gentlemen as a person of great power and an institution that both also rely on a degree of popular consent. The drive is always to do away with institutions and have one trusted man achieving sweeping changes. Winning a civil war is also a way to garner support because winning under such conditions is foremost about intelligence supremacy due to public approval (that can detoriate while still not overthrowing or inhibiting the winning side)
Btw. in Europe a high ranking scholar was equal in status to the hereditary military nobility.

There are many hybrids reflecting different approaches to theory and reality of "democracy" and "authoritarianism".
The is an important base for the development of parliaments in most modern Western democratic cultures (including all Germanic and Romance language speaking countries due to all lof them having had sometime Germanic overlords shaping their development). It was an unequal assembly of males with military function(somewhere in between all adults or a fraction of the male population) that decided upon issues.
The other geographic half of Europe was under Slavic influence with the operating as a similar military based concept with different options of choice.
They all share the Western and Central Eurasian idea that armies vote and which ruler would deny his armed forces the right to vote?

jackliu said:

Again, it all come down to election in the end isn't it?

Click to expand...

Look, it's very simple. It isn't enough to have elections for a country to be democratic. For example, what is the point of having an election if the incumbant government refuses to respect the result because it lost? There has been an election but there was certainly no democracy. The reason that incumbants normally step aside when they have lost is because there is rule of law, an independent judicary, separation of powers, media freedoms, etc. It's not because God pointed his finger at the government and said "get out or else".

solarz said:

First, let me remind you that we're talking about democracy as a contrasting political philosophy to authoritarianism. As I said before, elections are the only fundamental difference between the two.

Click to expand...

That is completely false. Authoritarian regimes always demand control over the country in more than just the day-to-day politics. They also curb the media more than in democratic governments, have strong control of the judiciary, restrict personal freedoms and general interfere with most spheres of life. Even as a political idea, authoritarianism also seeks control over most things in life.

None of the issues you listed are any more difficult to achieve under authoritarianism compared to democracy

Click to expand...

Again, complete nonsense. Authoritarianism is about having as much control as possible. You can't have anything like an independent judicary under authoritarian regimes because that then challenges their control.

First, you will never get complete judicial independence even under democracies. Under authoritarianism, the law is more lenient toward the powerful. Under democracy, the law is more lenient toward the wealthy.

Click to expand...

Wrong, the law is not more lenient towards the wealthy in democratic systems. It is possible that if you can afford to hire a top lawyer, he may be able to get you a somewhat more favourable outcome than if you tried to do it yourself. But that requires there to be some possibility that you're innocent. If you murdered your spouse and your fingerprints were found on the knife, the fact that you're rich won't mean you're acquitted nor will it mean you have a shorter sentence.

On the other hand, if you live in an authoritarian system and the government doesn't like you, chances are you will be convicted of any crime the State decides to allege you have committed (or write the law accordingly to stop dissent).

Media freedom is a self-delusion. The truly free, independent journalist does not work for the big media corporations

Click to expand...

Who people choose to work for is irrelevant. We're talking about what the government/political system allows. Democratic media rules allow for the criticism of anyone, including the government and big media groups. That is not possible under authoritarianism.

Personal freedom comes from tacit consent between the people and the society in general.

Click to expand...

Whilst society plays a role, personal freedom is also set down in law. The system of government cannot necessarily control society, although it can attempt to protect the rights of individuals.

The average Chinese citizen certainly has far more personal freedom than the average Afghan citizen.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that's relevant given that most people would question whether Afghanistan is a democracy - even its elections are problematic and have sometimes lacked credibility. The average American citizen has more personal freedom than the average Chinese citizen.

Mr T said:

Look, it's very simple. It isn't enough to have elections for a country to be democratic. For example, what is the point of having an election if the incumbant government refuses to respect the result because it lost? There has been an election but there was certainly no democracy. The reason that incumbants normally step aside when they have lost is because there is rule of law, an independent judicary, separation of powers, media freedoms, etc. It's not because God pointed his finger at the government and said "get out or else".

That is completely false. Authoritarian regimes always demand control over the country in more than just the day-to-day politics. They also curb the media more than in democratic governments, have strong control of the judiciary, restrict personal freedoms and general interfere with most spheres of life. Even as a political idea, authoritarianism also seeks control over most things in life.

Again, complete nonsense. Authoritarianism is about having as much control as possible. You can't have anything like an independent judicary under authoritarian regimes because that then challenges their control.

Wrong, the law is not more lenient towards the wealthy in democratic systems. It is possible that if you can afford to hire a top lawyer, he may be able to get you a somewhat more favourable outcome than if you tried to do it yourself. But that requires there to be some possibility that you're innocent. If you murdered your spouse and your fingerprints were found on the knife, the fact that you're rich won't mean you're acquitted nor will it mean you have a shorter sentence.

On the other hand, if you live in an authoritarian system and the government doesn't like you, chances are you will be convicted of any crime the State decides to allege you have committed (or write the law accordingly to stop dissent).

Who people choose to work for is irrelevant. We're talking about what the government/political system allows. Democratic media rules allow for the criticism of anyone, including the government and big media groups. That is not possible under authoritarianism.

Whilst society plays a role, personal freedom is also set down in law. The system of government cannot necessarily control society, although it can attempt to protect the rights of individuals.

I'm not sure how that's relevant given that most people would question whether Afghanistan is a democracy - even its elections are problematic and have sometimes lacked credibility. The average American citizen has more personal freedom than the average Chinese citizen.

Click to expand...

If you're going to make up your own definitions of democracy and authoritarianism, then there's no point debating with you.

Do you disagree that China is an authoritarian state? If you think that the CCP wants as much control as possible, then you have very little understanding of modern China.

"Top lawyers can only get you off if there's some possibility that you're innocent"? The only way you can believe in that is if you define "innocent" as "not convicted". A circular argument.

"Who people choose to work for is irrelevant"? I guess you go against the express wishes of your boss all the time in your line of work? Are you going to argue that big media groups do not have their own agendas?

And finally, you choose to question whether Afghanistan is a democracy. By your definition, it would not be. Then again, by your definition, no nation other than a stable, industrialized, first-world nation would count as a democracy.

Also:

The average American citizen has more personal freedom than the average Chinese citizen.

Click to expand...

More Rights, yes. More personal freedom? I don't think so.

Mr T said:

Look, it's very simple. It isn't enough to have elections for a country to be democratic. For example, what is the point of having an election if the incumbant government refuses to respect the result because it lost? There has been an election but there was certainly no democracy. The reason that incumbants normally step aside when they have lost is because there is rule of law, an independent judicary, separation of powers, media freedoms, etc. It's not because God pointed his finger at the government and said "get out or else".

Click to expand...

So, by your definition, only the successful white European nations are democracy right? So can you explain to me what government system does India, Philippine, Indonesia, Haiti, Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan have?

I mean they have elections, but by your definition, they lack everything else. And they all have one thing in common, very screw up society. So please explain with your wisdom what is the official government type those nations have?

I think its all very simple

Democracy is the only genuine form of acceptable government.
Democracy is supported by all right thinking people
Right Thinking People are those that agree with me on everything
Wrong thinking people do not and these are likely to be criminals if indeed actually human at all.

Geddit now?

Authoritarians undoubtedly think in similar ways but at least they have the decency not to try and claim some form of moral superiority over everybody else.

What Mr. T means by "media freedom" is really government accountability.

Government accountability, rule of law and personal freedom are not black and white. They exist in all nations in vary degrees. In fact, those 3 factors, along with economic prosperity, are the indicators of a successful nation.

So when Mr. T includes those factors into his definition of democracy, he is essentially saying that only successful nations can be democracies.

However, I suspect that what he really means is only a democratic form of government can ensure a high level of those 3 factors.

That is in fact the fundamental issue of this thread. Thus, Mr. T's posts have served, not as any argument to advance his position, but as simply a re-iteration of his position.

Further:

"Rule of Law" is really just personal security.

China in the 1980's had high levels of security, but low levels of government accountability.

China today has lower levels of security, but higher levels of government accountability and personal freedom.

USA post-911 sacrificed large amounts of its personal freedom and government accountability in exchange for security.