A democracy or dictatorship?

**castille** · 12th May 2004, 03:12 AM

If the citizens of a democratic nation elect a dictator (who DECLARES his intention to run a dictatorship), is that democratic?

**mooseboy84** · 12th May 2004, 03:14 AM

this happebed in algeria in north africa. someone ran on a platform of no more elections and was elected.

**Suburbanite** · 12th May 2004, 03:39 AM

I believe that happened in this small little country known as Germany as well.

**PatrickHenry** · 12th May 2004, 03:45 AM

Democratic People's Republic of (your choice here).
Democracy=Dictatorship

**Mia** · 12th May 2004, 04:39 AM

The President can become a dictator any time he wants. Simply declare a state of emergency and presto.

**castille** · 12th May 2004, 07:56 AM

But if the people SUPPORT the notion of dictatorship, is it democracy?

**Gorgo** · 12th May 2004, 08:15 AM

Democracy has been defined by some as a government in which the power resides with the people, and the people benefit from that power. If that is a legitimate definition, then theoretically a dictator which wasn't elected could head a democracy. With that defintion, voting has little correlation with democracy, as we see in the U.S.

**PatrickHenry** · 12th May 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Mia,
The President can become a dictator any time he wants. Simply declare a state of emergency and presto.

That happened in 1933!! I sound like a stuck record...

The Constitution has been superseded. Why won't you acknowledge and complain to Washington DC?

**PatrickHenry** · 12th May 2004, 04:51 PM

The meaning of "democracy" is up for grabs. The word has been so misused that this debate will probably degenerate unless the term is precisely defined.
From http://www.craigbhulet.com/site/

Mr. Bush and the humbled masses in America believe that winning the war “is” ipso facto winning the peace. That this has always and everywhere been unfounded in history is ignored in the main stream media also. The people of Iraq are as capable of democratizing their land as any. Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s argument that those of us who do not believe there will be democracy in Iraq, were asserting that Muslims, or Arabs, or Persians or any Middle Easterners are “incapable” of democracy; this is sophistry. Bush and Rumsfeld sought to denigrate the holders of such views by degrading the argument to that despicable level. That is not why this writer believes democracy will not come to Iraq. And I am in good company here even if the reader of this piece does not know who that company is. I shall name one below who was also a participant in the discussion group cited above:

I think we really have to recognize the extent to which we could do in war what we will not be able to do in the process of reestablishing Iraq as a viable country. And for that process we will need to work with the civilian side of the government, with the UN, and with our European partners in a way that we found unnecessary in the war. (George E. Rupp, President, International Rescue Committee. April 23, 2003)

There you have it: What we can do in war we cannot necessarily accomplish for peace. And the first premise is twofold, 1) the Iraqi people are becoming quite informed as to what we, the United States that is, wants in Iraq: absolute control, a permanent military presence, a puppet regime, and their oil, water and infrastructure under US control. Revenue to accomplish these illiberal destinies shall come from oil revenues. Whose oil? (See above.); and 2) there is no liberty in Iraq and without liberty there can be no true democracy.

Now there can be an illiberal democracy (a euphemism created by academics to describe democracies which are only democracies in name and not in substance), i.e. elections are frauds or deceptions, dissent is censored, civil liberties (traced in history to the US and French revolutionary writings) not guaranteed, true free enterprise eliminated, where government grants monopoly status over the industries and the commodities that matter. (Shoe repair and a local diner remain untouched though less and less competitive as monopolies continue to raze the free enterprise sanctuaries.) To put this in better perspective, one author responsible for coining the phrase stated it this way,

...50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the “democratizing” countries in the world today are illiberal democracies ...
Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West, democracy -- free and fair elections -- has gone hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law and basic human rights. But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies.
(Rise of illiberal democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997)

What little liberty is left here in America is eroding before our eyes under The Patriot Act I and II, under the new electronic surveillance organs enlarging daily around us, the rule of law is eroding rapidly. The US regime is centralized like never before under Homeland Security. The CIA and the Pentagon ready to operate domestically right now. Probable cause is a sad and noble concept, now lost. Conflict here at home, wars abroad. The utter lack of dissent allowed in even the most local of media outlets, TV, Radio and the printed mediums; one is regularly and viciously attacked for questioning the President’s motives; the term treason launched against the most mundane of critics. (Treason being a legal term applicable only to its “actual act” in time of war [declared] becomes a term used by the ignorant to silence someone they cannot possibly understand semantically; i.e. they are verbicidal.) Mobs are organized to confront anti-war protestors in support of “the troops.” Some of us know that 99.9 percent of those that protested the anti-war protestors have never voted, never gave a thought for the troops over the decades (Agent Orange victims, Gulf War illnesses, VFW Hall’s rejection of Vietnam Vets because “they lost the war,” etc.) throughout the past and it remains a lie now.

What many were, and remain really about, is their personal bigotry and hatred of “liberals.” A catchall term those on the far-Right use for anyone they dislike the views of. These folks are lacking any understanding that Jefferson and Paine were classical liberals and America was a liberal free Republic based on liberal democratic ideals. But these same bigots are, in the main, bigots because they do not or cannot read. It is these that make-up the mundane masses which will believe democracy has come to Iraq; the same ones that believe the war is over and we won. So, democracy in Iraq? While it is on decline in America? And it is supposed to be America, which institutionalizes it in Iraq? If they achieve anything in Iraq, and we know they will “call it” democracy even if it “is not,” just as we in America continue to mouth “but we’re free.”