Opinion Do we take democracy as a guarantee?

[LeonardoBjj]

- I was reading about Myanmar eternal struggle with militarys in power. We also have Iran, Uganda, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba and several nations around the world, were people cant choose their leaders.
As the tests below points out:

We take democracy for granted. Very few of us living in democracies are old enough to have fought for it. We are the inheritors of our grandparents’ victories and we often don’t realise how hard they worked to build the democracies we enjoy. We were born into them, and as with any inheritance that we didn’t work for, we risk taking it for granted and frittering it away.

I’ve written before that the simplest measure of success for a form of government is life expectancy. At the very basic level, we ask of those who rule us that their rule affords us health and longevity. This has, in many ways, been the basic measure of social systems since early humans first formed societies; those that worked out how to live longer thrived, those that didn’t declined and vanished.

Democracies are good for health and longevity. By contrast, dictatorships and autocracies tend to have lower life expectancies, worse health, and less prosperity. In Russia, life expectancy is 71, in Germany it is 81.

There is a simple reason for this. In a democracy, where people can vote out their leaders, a form of political natural selection takes place. Those leaders who fail are removed from the political system, and those who succeed are given greater power. In fully enfranchised societies, politicians have to address the needs of those most vulnerable in order to get elected, and this leads to better public health outcomes.

So if democracy is in theory a universal guarantee, but bilions of people around the globe dont have acess to that, theres no guarantee that we will always have a democratic elected governant.

The idea of democracy originated, of course, in ancient Greece, more than two millennia ago. Piecemeal efforts at democratization were attempted elsewhere as well, including in India.<a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracy-as-a-universal-value/#f1" name="f1-text">1</a> But it is really in ancient Greece that the idea of democracy took shape and was seriously put into practice (albeit on a limited scale), before it collapsed and was replaced by more authoritarian and asymmetric forms of government. There were no other kinds anywhere else.

Thereafter, democracy as we know it took a long time to emerge. Its gradual–and ultimately triumphant–emergence as a working system of governance was bolstered by many developments, from the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, to the French and the American Revolutions in the eighteenth century, to the widening of the franchise in Europe and North America in the nineteenth century. It was in the twentieth century, however, that the idea of democracy became established as the “normal” form of government to which any nation is entitled–whether in Europe, America, Asia, or Africa.

The idea of democracy as a universal commitment is quite new, and it is quintessentially a product of the twentieth century. The rebels who forced restraint on the king of England through the Magna Carta saw the need as an entirely local one. In contrast, the American fighters for independence and the revolutionaries in France contributed greatly to an understanding of the need for democracy as a general system. Yet the focus of their practical demands remained quite local–confined, in effect, to the two sides of the North Atlantic, and founded on the special economic, social, and political history of the region.​

Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether one country or another was “fit for democracy.” This thinking changed only in the twentieth century, with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy. This is indeed a momentous change, extending the potential reach of democracy to cover billions of people, with their varying histories and cultures and disparate levels of affluence.

It was also in this century that people finally accepted that “franchise for all adults” must mean all–not just men but also women. When in January of this year I had the opportunity to meet Ruth Dreyfuss, the president of Switzerland and a woman of remarkable distinction, it gave me occasion to recollect that only a quarter century ago Swiss women could not even vote. We have at last reached the point of recognizing that the coverage of universality, like the quality of mercy, is not strained.​

- If you watched Super-Man, the animated series, Theres a episode weres Super beats Darkseid, he thems tell to people of Apokolips that they're free to chose their new leader, schokling to Super, they choose Darkseid again. So we can assumr, after seeing the natural development of the politics in two of the biggest countries, was that people choose to let aside the option of choyce, to pick two candidates that talked what they liked to hear, and actec the way they wanted to act. Of course, Bolsonaro, a well know coward by brazilian military, tryied to escape the punishment of trying a coup. Well, China, one of the biggst countries in the globe(yeah, i said globe), theres protesters killed and or jailed left and right. From important pop figures, jornalists to the everyday person.

Working democracy needs citizen involvement and open compromise.

Democracy requires participation and responsibility within our system of governance. It is our responsibility to make our voices heard and that we question the policies and decisions of the Government and keep the Government accountable. Listening to different perspectives and views makes democracy stronger.

One thing i noted, is that several americans dont vote, by their own choyce, so they abdic, or let other people choose for them, sans, letting key principles of democracy in the hands of others.

KEY PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY:​

• Key principles of democracy include free and fair elections, rule of law, protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (like speech, assembly, and religion), citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, equality before the law, and respect for majority rule with minority rights, all supported by an independent judiciary and a free press to ensure power rests with the people.

The Principles of Democracy​

Democratic principles are ideas that most people believe are essential for a democracy to thrive. The most important principles of democracy are:

Public participation: People have a right and a duty to participate in government and in civil society. Public participation includes standing for elections, voting in elections, becoming informed, holding and attending community meetings, joining civil and/or political organisations, paying taxes, protesting and petitioning.

Equality: All people should be treated equally and without discrimination and be given equal opportunities.

Tolerance: While the party representing the majority of people runs government, in a democracy the rights of opposition or minority groups are also protected. Government serves all the people equally. Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and join the political, religious or civil groups of their choice.

Accountability: Government must be accountable to the people for its actions, including the laws that are passed and how these laws are implemented. Our taxes are used for government spending and all budgets and financial statements should be presented to parliament and be available to the public.

Transparency: Government must be open to the public about its actions. It must allow the public to give input before new laws are passed.

Regular, free and fair elections: Elections must happen in a free and fair way, without intimidation, corruption or threats to the public before or during the election. Elections should also be held regularly. For South Africa, these occur every five years.

Accepting the results of elections: When a political party loses an election, the party and its supporters must accept this result.

Economic freedom: People in a democracy should be allowed to have some kind of private ownership of property and business, they should be allowed to choose their own type of work and join labour unions.

Controlling and preventing the abuse of power: There should be ways to prevent government officials from abusing their powers. The courts should be independent and they should have the power to:

• Act against government officials or bodies that commit an illegal or corrupt act.
• Allow for public participation and elections
• Check police abuse of power
• Intervene where corruption is exposed

Human rights: The human rights of individuals and groups are enshrined and protected in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights includes a list of rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to all people in the country. All rights and freedoms need to be protected to prevent these from being violated. Section 7 of the Constitution defines what the Bill of Rights is:

• The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
• The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights
• The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill

Multi party system: More than one political party must be allowed to participate in elections and play a role in government. At the local government level, independent ward candidates are also provided for.

Rule of law: The rule of law means laws rule above all else and that no one is above the law, including the parliament or president of the country. Everyone must obey the law and be held accountable if they break the law. The law must also be equally, fairly and consistently enforced. Laws are the rules made on our behalf by parliament. The judiciary act as referees and enforce the rule of law. They may judge any action by government, citizens, organisations or companies and will use the Constitution and laws to decide whether the action was legal or illegal.

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracy-as-a-universal-value/
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-elections-48f9f80748a23ce4ac9d7a1ea476f1f4

- I posted some hotgirls from Iran, Brazil, Afghanistan as a thank you for reading that wall of test.

Also, for those questioning if Super-Man would beat goku, it's pretty obviously. Goku doesnt has toughness, he always needs power upgrades to beat his bootleg adversaries, while Super-Man can tank a beatdown, so even if Goku is stronger, Super-Man could withstand the punishment and win the fight.

 

[avenue94]

Yes, a lot of people treat democracy as a magical organism that self-perpetuates, rather than the reflection of many institutional traditions and civic values that have to be continuously carried out.

A lot of people are also only supportive of democracy when it aligns with their interests too.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

very few countries have actual democracy.

 

[Sinister]

The U.S. had a myth of democracy because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to streamline democracy towards the preferred demographic when drafting the Constitution, which made it un-democratic for everyone else. It took many armed conflicts and rebellions to achieve anything resembling actual democracy and at probably our closest point to actual multi-racial democracy, Citizens United gets passed.

Now corporations are human beings. No spending limit on candidates. Take a look at the CEO class and tell me what you see.

So with this "democracy" that is corporate funded and has a money primary for each party, we have a weak complacent party who placates their donors. And then we gave Republicans, a party rejecting democracy outright and signaling we should be ruled rather than represented.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

very few countries have actual democracy.

Care to elaborate?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Care to elaborate?

in almost every democracy, you don't get to decide who runs in the first place, so how can you call your vote democratic?

 

[avenue94]

in almost every democracy, you don't get to decide who runs in the first place, so how can you call your vote democratic?

What's your definition of democracy then? Not to mention your logic ignores write ins.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

in almost every democracy, you don't get to decide who runs in the first place, so how can you call your vote democratic?

In which ones do people decide who runs and how are they different?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

What's your definition of democracy then? Not to mention your logic ignores write ins.

write-ins are worthless. the only form of organization for candidates is heavily warped by legal donors with corporate interest. you don't decide who's running for president. the waltons, the adelsons, the bloombergs, the mcmahons, etc. they do.

they decide whether or not a poster or ad gets run on TV because they finance it. the system decides who gets a place to speak in the debates. everyday a new law is drafted and proposed that seeks to restrict some group within this country from participating in the voting process. new district lines are drawn regularly on the lower level for the same exact reason. we have a fucking electoral college to essentially provide DEI voting practices for tiny groups of people in flyover states.

the system itself seeks to minimize democracy as much it possibly can.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

In which ones do people decide who runs and how are they different?

the netherlands has like 27 different political parties. they are much better organized for representation.

 

[avenue94]

write-ins are worthless. the only form of organization for candidates is heavily warped by legal donors with corporate interest. you don't decide who's running for president. the waltons, the adelsons, the bloombergs, the mcmahons, etc. they do.

they decide whether or not a poster or ad gets run on TV because they finance it. the system decides who gets a place to speak in the debates. everyday a new law is drafted and proposed that seeks to restrict some group within this country from participating in the voting process. new district lines are drawn regularly on the lower level for the same exact reason. we have a fucking electoral college to essentially provide DEI voting practices for tiny groups of people in flyover states.

the system itself seeks to minimize democracy as much it possibly can.

To which again I ask, what is your definition of democracy? Is it normative or non-normative?

All you're posting is no true Scotsman here, and it doesn't even make sense given one the main reasons Trump came to power was he was able to browbeat big donors and overcome a weak party.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

To which again I ask, what is your definition of democracy? Is it normative or non-normative?

democracy is when the people decide their own path forward, whether it's under a trade union , or with political representation, or whatever it may be.

All you're posting is no true Scotsman here, and it doesn't even make sense given one the main reasons Trump came to power was he was able to browbeat big donors and overcome a weak party.

browbeat donors in what way? he was the republican nomination. he was going to get the same adelsons and mcmahons and waltons on his side regardless. he also funded about 20% of his own initial campaign. being a billionaire immediately gave him a leg-up.

media coverage also makes a huge difference. for better or worse, if all the media are talking about is trump and biden, or trump and clinton, those people are going to be at the top of the polls, and at the front of your mind on super tuesday.

no true scotsman is true to a degree, as there's no such thing as a pure democracy, just different levels of it. representation in and of itself is anti-democratic, as it removes the ultimate power FROM the PEOPLE and TO a PERSON. and every single government is one of representatives.

 

[HereticBD]

The only enemy of democracy, is democracy itself.

Nothing stopping a "democracy" from going "Meh', we don't like democracy anymore", and voting to change it. That's why it's so damn fragile. At any given time, it's all over.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

the netherlands has like 27 different political parties. they are much better organized for representation.

Nothing preventing more people voting for the Greens and Libertarians.

 

[Stoic1]

Kaz got the ban or is he "not banned" just unable to collect core credits on his post count?

 

[HereticBD]

Kaz got the ban or is he "not banned" just unable to collect core credits on his post count?

Probably a points ban. Dude is constantly on dubs.

Or maybe he went crazy in another thread. Never can tell, but he's been walking the line for quite a while.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

The U.S. had a myth of democracy because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to streamline democracy towards the preferred demographic when drafting the Constitution, which made it un-democratic for everyone else. It took many armed conflicts and rebellions to achieve anything resembling actual democracy and at probably our closest point to actual multi-racial democracy, Citizens United gets passed.

Now corporations are human beings. No spending limit on candidates. Take a look at the CEO class and tell me what you see.

So with this "democracy" that is corporate funded and has a money primary for each party, we have a weak complacent party who placates their donors. And then we gave Republicans, a party rejecting democracy outright and signaling we should be ruled rather than represented.

- US is living in the world of Tekken

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Myanmar military proxy expected to win landslide in widely denounced election​

Voting ends in month-long poll derided internationally as sham designed to cement army’s grip on power

Voting in Myanmar has ended with the military-backed party expected to win a landslide victory after a month-long election that has been widely derided as a sham designed to cement the army’s grip on power.

The junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, has rejected criticism of the vote, saying it has the support of the public and presenting it as a return to democracy and stability.

The election took place almost five years after the military seized power in a coup, ousting the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi and triggering a fierce conflict that continues across the country. The 80-year-old has been detained since she was ousted, and her party, the National League for Democracy, which won sweeping victories in previous votes, has been banned.

“Whether the international community recognises this or not, we don’t understand their perspective. The people’s vote is the recognition we need,” Min Aung Hlaing told reporters on Sunday, according to video broadcast on state TV.

The UN, human rights experts, the UK, Australia, and the EU’s top rights official have rejected the election, saying it lacks legitimacy. China, a key military ally, is backing the vote, which it considers the best path towards stability.

In Mandalay, Myanmar’s second most populous city, voters were reluctant to be interviewed, saying it was not safe to speak publicly about politics. “We miss our former government, we don’t want this military government,” said a man who was voting on Sunday in the city. He could not speak further, he added: “We fear for our security.”

The military has arrested tens of thousands of political prisoners since the coup, targeting anyone suspected of opposing its rule. A new election protection law was also enacted in July, under which any criticism of the vote can lead to a minimum sentence of three years in prison, and even the death penalty.

Tom Andrews, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, said the vote had been orchestrated by the military to deliver a landslide for its political proxy, the Union Solidarity and Development party (USDP).

“It took no chances, banning credible opposition parties, jailing popular political figures, muzzling the press, crushing fundamental freedoms, and using fear and coercion to drive a reluctant electorate to the polls,” Andrews said.

“The junta is banking on the world’s fatigue, hoping that the international community will accept military rule dressed up in civilian clothing,” he added. “Governments must not allow that to happen.”

Fightingcontinued in many areas throughout the election period. Just days before voting, 21 people were killed and 28 injured in a military airstrike on a village where displaced people from the northern township of Bhamo were sheltering in Kachin state, Associated Press reported.

The election took place in three stages, with the first phase held in December and a second phase held earlier in January. In total, 57 parties competed, though only six did so nationwide, and analysts said none of the parties on the ballot paper were perceived as offering a meaningful opposition to the military. The USDP ran by far the largest number of candidates, and had secured a majority of seats in previous rounds, winning 193 of 209 seats in the lower house and 52 of 78 seats in the upper house.

According to election monitoring group Anfrel, 57% of the parties that ran in the 2020 general election no longer exist, even though they received more than 70% of votes and 90% of seats.

Malaysia has said the regional bloc, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), would not endorse the poll or send observers. However, it is unclear whether individual member states will increase their engagement with Myanmar’s leadership after the vote.

Turnout has been low, at 55%, compared with about 70% in the 2020 election, when the public queued at polling stations despite the pandemic, and the historic 2015 vote that swept Aung San Suu Kyi to power. The pre-election period has also lacked the large rallies and excitement of previous votes.

Voting took place in populous cities such as Mandalay and Yangon on Sunday, but analysts estimate about a third of the country’s territory has been excluded from the process because it is under the control of anti-junta groups or gripped by fighting.

The military coup in 2021, which marked an abrupt end to the country’s democratic transition, triggered a escalating conflict as civilians began to take up arms to fight against the junta. The army is battling a diverse patchwork of opposition groups, in what Acled, which tracks conflicts globally, has described as “the most fragmented conflict in the world”.

Su Mon, Acled’s senior analyst for Asia Pacific, said that while the military had sought to portray elections as a managed exit from political crisis and conflict, its counter-offensives had only increased in the run-up to the vote. “In an effort to regain territory, the military continued its repeated airstrikes on civilian areas throughout 2025, leading to the highest number of airstrikes and associated fatalities in any single year since 2021,” she said.

Estimates of the death toll from Myanmar’s post-coup conflict vary, though Acled has recorded 92,000 deaths since 2021. The monitoring group places Myanmar second on its conflict index, which measures conflicts based on their deadliness, danger to civilians, geographic diffusion and the number of armed groups involved.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-final-stage-amid-airstrikes-and-exclusions

 

[LeonardoBjj]

The U.S. had a myth of democracy because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to streamline democracy towards the preferred demographic when drafting the Constitution, which made it un-democratic for everyone else. It took many armed conflicts and rebellions to achieve anything resembling actual democracy and at probably our closest point to actual multi-racial democracy, Citizens United gets passed.

Now corporations are human beings. No spending limit on candidates. Take a look at the CEO class and tell me what you see.

So with this "democracy" that is corporate funded and has a money primary for each party, we have a weak complacent party who placates their donors. And then we gave Republicans, a party rejecting democracy outright and signaling we should be ruled rather than represented.

- What would be the ideal type of voting ? As pointed before, parties already choose their representatives.