What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:04:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism?
#1
democracy
 
#2
secularism/liberalism
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 93

Author Topic: What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism?  (Read 3092 times)
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2016, 09:46:33 AM »

It depends on time and place. In Israel and Western Europe I will take the "democracy" side of the argument every time (which, in Israel, is paradoxically the side that isn't talking about democracy all the time because the definition is so distorted), but in places such as Turkey and Egypt I'll gladly go with the "anti-democratic" alternative if necessary. Needless to say I supported the failed coup.
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2016, 10:06:35 AM »

It depends on time and place. In Israel and Western Europe I will take the "democracy" side of the argument every time (which, in Israel, is paradoxically the side that isn't talking about democracy all the time because the definition is so distorted), but in places such as Turkey and Egypt I'll gladly go with the "anti-democratic" alternative if necessary. Needless to say I supported the failed coup.
What is the democracy side of the argument in Israel and the west and is it uniform across them all?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2016, 01:00:31 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2016, 01:02:22 PM by DavidB. »

It depends on time and place. In Israel and Western Europe I will take the "democracy" side of the argument every time (which, in Israel, is paradoxically the side that isn't talking about democracy all the time because the definition is so distorted), but in places such as Turkey and Egypt I'll gladly go with the "anti-democratic" alternative if necessary. Needless to say I supported the failed coup.
What is the democracy side of the argument in Israel and the west and is it uniform across them all?
Not "the same", but similar for sure, I think. Essentially, the question here is whether one adheres to a rather electoral conceptualization of democracy or rather chooses to prioritize other concerns, which may fall into the category of secularism (Turkey) but can also be more liberal conceptualizations of democracy (Western Europe, Israel). It is a contrast between democracy in its crudest form versus "freedom"/secularism/minority rights, and while the exact situation differs, the contrast seems relevant in many cases.

In Israel, the right tends to prioritize Knesset decisions over more liberal-democratic inclined decisions or advise, such as by the Supreme Court or NGOs. By contrast, the left seeks to diminish the importance of Knesset decisions by involving many other actors (which is what they call democracy, and while I, as a political scientist, obviously see the theoretical case for doing so, I consider it a bit of a distortion because it doesn't have much to do with the "demos"). This is similar to what we see in Western Europe: "populists" and eurosceptics want the decision-making process to mainly take place in parliament and support referendums, thereby adhering to a very electoral definition of democracy, whereas most established, mainstream political forces think it is good to involve many other actors and make sure not much power is in the hands of parliament, which they see as important in guarding liberal democracy. I would say the contrast is not the same and the actors are not the same, but there are definitely important similarities.

In both contexts I support the ones who adhere to a more electoral conceptualization of democracy, because I believe it is important that large majorities agree with policies and there should be a very direct link between the majority's vote and the policies that are eventually implemented, more so than is now the case.
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2016, 01:36:11 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2016, 01:46:00 PM by Hnv1 »

It depends on time and place. In Israel and Western Europe I will take the "democracy" side of the argument every time (which, in Israel, is paradoxically the side that isn't talking about democracy all the time because the definition is so distorted), but in places such as Turkey and Egypt I'll gladly go with the "anti-democratic" alternative if necessary. Needless to say I supported the failed coup.
What is the democracy side of the argument in Israel and the west and is it uniform across them all?
Not "the same", but similar for sure, I think. Essentially, the question here is whether one adheres to a rather electoral conceptualization of democracy or rather chooses to prioritize other concerns, which may fall into the category of secularism (Turkey) but can also be more liberal conceptualizations of democracy (Western Europe, Israel). It is a contrast between democracy in its crudest form versus "freedom"/secularism/minority rights, and while the exact situation differs, the contrast seems relevant in many cases.

In Israel, the right tends to prioritize Knesset decisions over more liberal-democratic inclined decisions or advise, such as by the Supreme Court or NGOs. By contrast, the left seeks to diminish the importance of Knesset decisions by involving many other actors (which is what they call democracy, and while I, as a political scientist, obviously see the theoretical case for doing so, I consider it a bit of a distortion because it doesn't have much to do with the "demos"). This is similar to what we see in Western Europe: "populists" and eurosceptics want the decision-making process to mainly take place in parliament and support referendums, thereby adhering to a very electoral definition of democracy, whereas most established, mainstream political forces think it is good to involve many other actors and make sure not much power is in the hands of parliament, which they see as important in guarding liberal democracy. I would say the contrast is not the same and the actors are not the same, but there are definitely important similarities.

In both contexts I support the ones who adhere to a more electoral conceptualization of democracy, because I believe it is important that large majorities agree with policies and there should be a very direct link between the majority's vote and the policies that are eventually implemented, more so than is now the case.
Sorry as a political scientists you should be familiar with Kelsen hierarchy of norms. If there are constitutional norms (I'll go with on the case study - the Knesset legislated constitutional basic laws) the court must examine legality of primary and secondary legislation accordingly. That is the electoral desire (otherwise no constitutional norm would have been created) and that is the common law of the land.
So basically that was the democratic wish of the people de jure. It also not so much that the right respects Knesset legislation more as parts of it think there should be constitutional voids where it should not interfere with the political act (especially in relation to the Palestinians). So it's more of Schmitt vs Kelsen debate all over again, but it's not liberalism vs democracy per se.

If anything you could say right wing prefer a more European conception of separation of powers with more judicial deference to the legislator while the left (not just here) prefers a strong judicial branch common law like to be a counter balance to the threat of majority power.

As to political philosophy I see no intrinsic value in collective decision making in itself, without the human rights I can't see a strong justification for it unless you accept communitarian conception of morality (see niko kolodny 2014) which I believe are shaky at best
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2016, 07:27:33 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2016, 07:29:37 PM by Frodo »

The second option (namely liberalism and separation of church/mosque and state) -I have no desire, for instance, of having the People's Republic of China become a democracy if they are going to make a sham of it the way the Russians have done under Putin (or Turkey under Erdogan of late).  I'd rather they take the slow, deliberate approach so that when they do eventually become a democracy, it would actually have staying power.  
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2016, 07:30:18 PM »

The second option -I have no desire, for instance, of having the People's Republic of China become a democracy if they are going to make a sham of it the way the Russians have done under Putin (or Turkey under Erdogan of late).  I'd rather they take the slow, deliberate approach so that when they do eventually become a democracy, it would actually have staying power. 

Oh no, I would take Putin, Trump or Erdogan over Xi Jinping any day. Compared to him, they all look like Thomas Paine. That being said, I do worry that Trump would get us into a war with China given how bellicose he is.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2016, 07:34:20 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2016, 07:39:07 PM by Frodo »

The second option -I have no desire, for instance, of having the People's Republic of China become a democracy if they are going to make a sham of it the way the Russians have done under Putin (or Turkey under Erdogan of late).  I'd rather they take the slow, deliberate approach so that when they do eventually become a democracy, it would actually have staying power.  

Oh no, I would take Putin, Trump or Erdogan over Xi Jinping any day. Compared to him, they all look like Thomas Paine. That being said, I do worry that Trump would get us into a war with China given how bellicose he is.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I am not setting up China as an example to be followed.  What I am stating is that if China were at a fork in the road, and had a choice of becoming a democracy post-haste (Russia and Turkey being the most prominent cautionary examples), or choosing the slower, more deliberate approach of adopting liberal norms before becoming a democracy, I'd rather they choose the latter option. 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2016, 07:41:52 PM »

Maybe. If that's the case, apologies.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 10, 2016, 09:00:30 AM »

Sorry as a political scientists you should be familiar with Kelsen hierarchy of norms. If there are constitutional norms (I'll go with on the case study - the Knesset legislated constitutional basic laws) the court must examine legality of primary and secondary legislation accordingly. That is the electoral desire (otherwise no constitutional norm would have been created) and that is the common law of the land.
So basically that was the democratic wish of the people de jure. It also not so much that the right respects Knesset legislation more as parts of it think there should be constitutional voids where it should not interfere with the political act (especially in relation to the Palestinians). So it's more of Schmitt vs Kelsen debate all over again, but it's not liberalism vs democracy per se.

If anything you could say right wing prefer a more European conception of separation of powers with more judicial deference to the legislator while the left (not just here) prefers a strong judicial branch common law like to be a counter balance to the threat of majority power.

As to political philosophy I see no intrinsic value in collective decision making in itself, without the human rights I can't see a strong justification for it unless you accept communitarian conception of morality (see niko kolodny 2014) which I believe are shaky at best

I'm not talking about is: I know perfectly well what the law of the land in Israel is (but I agree my exact formulation was a bit shaky at times). I'm talking about ought. I do think one can see this debate in Israeli politics as a debate of democracy (advocated by the right) vs. liberalism (advocated by the left), the position of Bagatz, for instance, being a highly controversial issue.

As for philosophy, I think a nation is more than the sum of individuals that happen to have a certain passport, and it is good and necessary to decide on the nation's course collectively. But of course I'm very much of a collectivist.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 24, 2016, 09:13:01 PM »

Any new thoughts? Especially with the rising tide of nationalism in democracies right now.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 14 queries.