Not if the democratic constitution says that the abolishment of democracy is not allowed. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not even if it's democratically voted for?

I'd want to argue that if you're having to try and prevent a totalitarian leader form being elected, then your democracy has already failed, or has been compromised to a massive degree. This to the degree that democracy is less a 'system of government' than it is an impulse to and of government, characterized by - among other things - an attempt to foster a demos (a 'people'), along with it's attendant opportunities for public participation and action (voting being one among a slew of possible democratic institutions that by itself is relatively ineffectual without it's embeddedness among others).

How one wants to respond to a failure of that ethos - or at least a stark sign of it's weakness, as would be the need to worry about a impending totalitarian leader - is itself a matter of political judgement (and not a 'philosophical' one). What effects would such a response have on the contours of the democratic regime as it currently stands? Would a 'tactical' victory over such a leader imply a strategic defeat by undermining further an already fragile democratic situation? Given one's current political situation - the alliances one can forge, the institutional power one wields, the motives and needs of other agents involved - would it be politically expedient to act in this manner or that, for the sake of bolstering democracy? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked, and I don't think they can - or ought to be - answered in the abstract. There's kairotic (from the Greek kairos, 'opportune moment') element that is irreducible, and needs one to attend to the concrete 'on the ground' aspects of any one situation.

I always feel two conflicting feelings with the word "Democracy"

There is the use of "Democracy" to indicate features of current institutions which lay claim to being democratic. And then there's the more general idea "Democracy", which seems to me at least to not even require a state. The latter I think is good, the former not.

Which are we assuming is good?

If we are assuming that democratic states as we currently see them are good, then I can't say that I feel a great deal of urgency to preserve them. I am willing to participate within them for the benefits of other causes I care about, and relative to those causes I'd judge whether it were worth said institutions to continue on or not -- whether I'd go this or that far.

I don't think democracy should be spread globally. Such talk just justifies war, and nothing else. And on the whole war is bad for my people. And on the whole this is how I view actually-existing-democracy -- its opposite is not "totalitarianism" (itself a hangover term from the cold war meant to justify expansion and defense of global power), it is a totalitarianism. It constructs our world just as much as any dictatorship does, and we act within it in relation to our collective self-interest. It all boils down to self-interest, but not of the individual sort -- just of the groups we are a part of.


For the latter I don't think there's much I would rule out a priori. That being said, I can't say that I've participated in anything so extreme as your posited scenario. I've broken laws in the defense of causes which include the broader idea of democracy, and put a pause in my career for several years, but that pales in comparison to what others have done and in your hypothetical.

a priori nothing is ruled out, but at the same time it doesn't seem to me that this sort of thinking really answers the question. I think it's the sort of question you answer and find out for yourself in the moment.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.". H.L. Mencken

Direct democracy (as per ancient Athens) would be better than what there is nowadays. But it would still be quite tyrannical. Ask Socrates.

In practice, only one political party, the CPC, holds effective power at the national level. Its dominance is such that China is effectively a one-party state.

per your link at Wikipedia.

Assumption: democracy is inherently good, not just a decision-making procedure. You can agree or disagree with this, but for the purposes of this discussion, I want you to assume that this is true. — Pneumenon

Well, taking that as an assumption we are talking of a potentially hypothetical situation. We might as well assume that democracy is worth killing every single person whom it affects and that answer is just as valid as that it's a positive thing to begin with.

The question is comparable to "if -2,3 was a positive whole number, what would it be?"

Well, taking that as an assumption we are talking of a potentially hypothetical situation. We might as well assume that democracy is worth killing every single person whom it affects and that answer is just as valid as that it's a positive thing to begin with.

The question is comparable to "if -2,3 was a positive whole number, what would it be?" — BlueBanana

I disagree. "If -2,3 was a positive whole number" is an absurdity because (-2,3) is an ordered pair, which is, by definition, not a positive whole number. The assumption that "democracy is inherently good" doesn't contradict the definition of democracy. Note that it's not an assumption that I hold.

It's a decimal number because I didn't write the parenthesis. Anyway, where X is a property and A is the object with no proof of having that property, the question of "what if A was X" is absurd and that is irrelevant of whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A.

Besides, how do we define definition itself? What real difference, especially in the context, does it make whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A or whether it directly follows from its definition?

"what if A was X" is absurd and that is irrelevant of whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A. — BlueBanana

"What if I go to the store tomorrow?" is an absurd question, then (except it's not).

Seriously, man, re-read what you just wrote. If what you say is true, then all hypotheticals are absurd. Come on.

I'm reminded of Mencken's other swipe at American democracy: the "worship of jackals by jackasses."

Seriously, man, re-read what you just wrote. If what you say is true, then all hypotheticals are absurd. Come on. — Pneumenon

Are they not?

No.

So which ones are? Or are none?

The ones that involve logical contradictions. That's how philosophers generally understand "absurdity."

If democracy is not positive, there is a contradiction in asking how good it is.

Part of the purpose of assuming it's good is to investigate whether or not it's good. If you assume that democracy is good, and derive a contradiction, then you can find out that it must be not-good. Think of it like making an assumption in symbolic logic.

per your link at Wikipedia. — Bitter Crank

And here's the guy (not you BC) who said I'm the most dishonest person here... >:O

I think it's the opposite really. Democratic systems tend to change their ruling party from time to time (for instance just look at the U.S. where they went from Obama to Trump). In contrast, totalitarian countries usually have the same ruling party (and in a lot of cases the same person) as the head of government for decades. Democracy, if anything, is good at avoiding corruption, which is unfortunately something that most totalitarian governments fall victim to.

No it's not. We haven't had drastic changes in our livelihood over short periods of time. If it were a totalitarian regime it could fluctuate based on the leader. Since the Obama to Trump transfer of power there has been no huge change, the constitution still applies and all changes that happen in future will be slow. A totalitarian regime can change over night based on the absolute rulings of their leaders. That was my point, of course there could be stability like you mentioned in a totalitarian regime, but the democracy is overall more stable.

Corruption is just as bad in both systems, you just see its impact more readily in totalitarian regimes. Money in politics, division of the lower class by elites over "ideology" all are signs of corruption (propaganda). Bribery happens secretly but in broad daylight through "campaign contributions", which in most 3rd world countries is just called bribing. Democracy biggest achievement is its ability to slow down corruptions impact on the system as a whole (and it's population).

No it's not. We haven't had drastic changes in our livelihood over short periods of time. If it were a totalitarian regime it could fluctuate based on the leader. Since the Obama to Trump transfer of power there has been no huge change, the constitution still applies and all changes that happen in future will be slow. A totalitarian regime can change over night based on the absolute rulings of their leaders. That was my point, of course there could be stability like you mentioned in a totalitarian regime, but the democracy is overall more stable. — yatagarasu

I wasn't really referring to our livelihood, but the type of government that a country would have over time. Speaking of livelihood though, you say that it can change depending upon the leader, but of course, with totalitarian governments that's the one thing that rarely changes. If a leader is corrupt and selfish, then they will use any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of their people and unless they have a sudden change of heart (which sounds very unlikely) than the people will continue to suffer under their rule.

Corruption is just as bad in both systems, you just see its impact more readily in totalitarian regimes. Money in politics, division of the lower class by elites over "ideology" all are signs of corruption (propaganda). Bribery happens secretly but in broad daylight through "campaign contributions", which in most 3rd world countries is just called bribing. Democracy biggest achievement is its ability to slow down corruptions impact on the system as a whole (and it's population). — yatagarasu

Sure, there is corruption in both systems, but I wouldn't agree that they are both just as bad. Not only is it easier to get away with corruption under a totalitarian system than it is a democracy, but it is easier to get away with a greater amount of evil. A totalitarian ruler can execute someone in public and no one can do anything about it, but don't expect Donald Trump to get off with shooting someone on fifth avenue (though whether or not he would lose his core support is another issue). Democracy isn't able to stop all kinds of corruption, but it is, despite its flaws, able to stop the worst instances of corruption.

Ah yes, but that was not a popular vote, in the sense of it being nation-wide, like the census. It appears a small mob forced a politician to bend to their requests. Sounds familiar - democracy it is not.

For example, assume that the only way to protect democracy is to prevent a totalitarian politician from being elected, and in order to do so, you must either assassinate that politician, or postpone the election, allowing some time for the revolutionary fervor of that politician's supporters to die down — Pneumenon

Supporters of any politician have a democratic right to vote for that person, even if he is a 'totalitarian politician'. It's all in the game. I would think that assassination is not part of a democratic system. I would say that such a thing breaks democracy.

The other point I wish to make is that 'you can't make a good machine with bad parts'. Is there democracy among thieves? In a nation divided by racial prejudice or even views of political systems? If you are talking about democracy among different tribes vying for control, then it becomes a sort of collective mob rule.

If you are talking about democracy among different tribes vying for control, then it becomes a sort of collective mob rule — FreeEmotion

That's all democracy is anyway.

@Mr Bee

I wasn't really referring to our livelihood, but the type of government that a country would have over time. Speaking of livelihood though, you say that it can change depending upon the leader, but of course, with totalitarian governments that's the one thing that rarely changes. If a leader is corrupt and selfish, then they will use any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of their people and unless they have a sudden change of heart (which sounds very unlikely) than the people will continue to suffer under their rule. — Mr Bee

What do you mean by "type of government"? It is either a democracy or dictatorship in this case. You mentioned the party changing but that is hardly a real change because it is still a democracy. My point was that livelihood can change over night in a totalitarian regime, that is not the case in a democracy. All corruption is slowed in a democracy and you usually don't see the worst parts of corruption, like you said. There have been times in history where a leader has been truly benevolent and changed the lives of his citizens within years. The vast majority did just better themselves but that's not really point, it's more about how stable the systems are. Democracy doesn't let that happen as quickly so they are more stable (in terms of positive livelihood for their citizens)

For the second part I guess I will agree that the worst of corruption is not very likely to occur but it is still there. It just doesn't affect the average citizen immediately because of the way democracy slows everything down. This slow "rotting" can be even worse in some ways, but still is preferable to immediate and volatile change. And because of that democracy>totalitarianism. But I wouldn't at all agree that it is good at avoiding corruption. No system is, and democracy can be just as bad. But like I said, you don't notice the affects as easily.