Tweet
My answer: yes.
Here's why:
Lets compare the UK and the US. I think most European governments resemble the UK more than the United States so my critque applies to them too. Their sepperation of powers is extremely weak. They have the House of Lords, the Monarchy, and the House of Commons. Over the years power has beome consentrated solely in the hands of the House of Commons. This is dangerous because ultimately this is an absolutist system.
If the House of Commons decides to cancel free speech who does one turn to protest...well the House of Commons. This one body is the end all and be all of British politics. Sure the MPs are elected by the people, but what if the majority decides to oppress the minority (it has been known to happen) then only a majority in Parliment is needed to make that happen. There are no proceedural safe-guards to stop it.
In the United States however if the people get whipped up in a frenzy and congress passes some outrageous new law (....lets say the Patriot Act) then individuals can appeal the law to the Supreme Court and the Court can unbiasedly (we would hope) decide whether that new law is compatible with the Constitution or not. If it isn't then the law is thrown out.
So a British style parlimentary system is much closer to "pure democracy" and thus very dangerous. In systems like this it is very easy for some populist demogauge to come along and get the people to vote in dictatorship. It is much harder to do in the United States.
A pure democracy is dangerous because the full and ultimate power is the people. Whatever they vote on is law. Majority rule. The country could wake up on Tuesday and decide to make all Guns illegal. Then hold another vote on Thursday and change their mind. Next week a vote could be called and 51% of the population approves a system of enslaving the other 49%. This is pure democracy.
I'd rather not live in a pure democracy like this.
A constitutional republic (and terms vary) like the United States I believe is a more rational system. This system has in place an absolute law which is contained in the Constitution. This is (or ideally should be) the ultimate arbitrer in running the government. There are sacred rights that are very difficult to overturn on a whim like in a pure democracy. Also our system has the incredibly important system of checks and balances and seppertion of powers. These are integral to the stability of our system and I am amazed more countries don't have it.
Not only is the UK autocratic because it only has one body which makes decisions, that one body isn't very democratic. The executive in this system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair in this case. He is in charge of enforcing the law and in most cases he and his cabinet proposes most of the law as well. Between 85% and 97% of what the Prime Minister wants the Prime Minister gets. This my friends is nearly a dictatorship. Why is this?
It is because of the pluarlist (is that right?) system in the UK. Rather than voters voting for an individual candidate they vote for a political party. So the party apperatus decides who gets to be the canidates, and surprise surprize the party picks those people who are the most likely to follow the directions of the party leadership and least likely to think and vote independently.
Now lets say there is an election and Labour gets 51% of the vote (if that would happen), well until the next election the Labour party has a dictatorship over the country. 51% of the MPs are in Labour, and all those MPs were hand picked because they are least likely to disagree with the party leader. Who is the party leader? Well its Tony Blair. (I sure hope i didn't mix up party names) Who does the House of Commons pick for Prime Minister? Well with 51% of the vote, the Labour party picks Tony Blair. So if Tony Blair decides he wants to propose law A, well the very loyal 51% of the parliment votes to approve law A.
I have heard stats that said that around 97% of all laws proposed by Margaret Thatcher were passed into law. Can you imagine that? A dictatorship can be defined as one person making 100% of decisions. In the UK "democracy" one person can make up to 97% of decisions. How the frick is this any different?
Can you imagine 97% of every single piece of legislation proposed by George W. Bush becoming law? That'd be insane!
Now i've only used the UK as my example, because I don't know much else about other "democracies". I think France's cohabitation system is promising, but they are thinking about doing away with it now, ugh. But I'd wager most European governments are similar to the UK model, and most of them aren't much better than tyrannies of the majority, and popularly elected dictators.
Remember folks, democracy is something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Here's why:
Lets compare the UK and the US. I think most European governments resemble the UK more than the United States so my critque applies to them too. Their sepperation of powers is extremely weak. They have the House of Lords, the Monarchy, and the House of Commons. Over the years power has beome consentrated solely in the hands of the House of Commons. This is dangerous because ultimately this is an absolutist system.
If the House of Commons decides to cancel free speech who does one turn to protest...well the House of Commons. This one body is the end all and be all of British politics. Sure the MPs are elected by the people, but what if the majority decides to oppress the minority (it has been known to happen) then only a majority in Parliment is needed to make that happen. There are no proceedural safe-guards to stop it.
In the United States however if the people get whipped up in a frenzy and congress passes some outrageous new law (....lets say the Patriot Act) then individuals can appeal the law to the Supreme Court and the Court can unbiasedly (we would hope) decide whether that new law is compatible with the Constitution or not. If it isn't then the law is thrown out.
So a British style parlimentary system is much closer to "pure democracy" and thus very dangerous. In systems like this it is very easy for some populist demogauge to come along and get the people to vote in dictatorship. It is much harder to do in the United States.
A pure democracy is dangerous because the full and ultimate power is the people. Whatever they vote on is law. Majority rule. The country could wake up on Tuesday and decide to make all Guns illegal. Then hold another vote on Thursday and change their mind. Next week a vote could be called and 51% of the population approves a system of enslaving the other 49%. This is pure democracy.
I'd rather not live in a pure democracy like this.
A constitutional republic (and terms vary) like the United States I believe is a more rational system. This system has in place an absolute law which is contained in the Constitution. This is (or ideally should be) the ultimate arbitrer in running the government. There are sacred rights that are very difficult to overturn on a whim like in a pure democracy. Also our system has the incredibly important system of checks and balances and seppertion of powers. These are integral to the stability of our system and I am amazed more countries don't have it.
Not only is the UK autocratic because it only has one body which makes decisions, that one body isn't very democratic. The executive in this system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair in this case. He is in charge of enforcing the law and in most cases he and his cabinet proposes most of the law as well. Between 85% and 97% of what the Prime Minister wants the Prime Minister gets. This my friends is nearly a dictatorship. Why is this?
It is because of the pluarlist (is that right?) system in the UK. Rather than voters voting for an individual candidate they vote for a political party. So the party apperatus decides who gets to be the canidates, and surprise surprize the party picks those people who are the most likely to follow the directions of the party leadership and least likely to think and vote independently.
Now lets say there is an election and Labour gets 51% of the vote (if that would happen), well until the next election the Labour party has a dictatorship over the country. 51% of the MPs are in Labour, and all those MPs were hand picked because they are least likely to disagree with the party leader. Who is the party leader? Well its Tony Blair. (I sure hope i didn't mix up party names) Who does the House of Commons pick for Prime Minister? Well with 51% of the vote, the Labour party picks Tony Blair. So if Tony Blair decides he wants to propose law A, well the very loyal 51% of the parliment votes to approve law A.
I have heard stats that said that around 97% of all laws proposed by Margaret Thatcher were passed into law. Can you imagine that? A dictatorship can be defined as one person making 100% of decisions. In the UK "democracy" one person can make up to 97% of decisions. How the frick is this any different?
Can you imagine 97% of every single piece of legislation proposed by George W. Bush becoming law? That'd be insane!
Now i've only used the UK as my example, because I don't know much else about other "democracies". I think France's cohabitation system is promising, but they are thinking about doing away with it now, ugh. But I'd wager most European governments are similar to the UK model, and most of them aren't much better than tyrannies of the majority, and popularly elected dictators.
Remember folks, democracy is something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Comment