What is a democratic dictatorship?

[dancing-loon]

I had the pleasure of reading someone's dissertation on politics. The expression "democratic dictatorship" surfaced, and I wondered if I was seeing right! That evoked such a paradoxical image in my mind.that I have to ask you: What is a democratic dictatorship?

I'm going to bed now, but I hope to find a couple of answers in the morning.;-)

 

[Kreskin]

When a majority government is elected they have the power to do what any dictatorship does for the most part. We elected Liberal dictators for years.

 

[Scott Free]

What is a democratic dictatorship?

Essentially it is a failed state masquerading as a democracy. It is possible for this to happen in many ways but it means the people are not in control but only appear to be and/or think they are. This necessarily means someone else is in control. It could be corporate interests, a political elite class, the wealthy, lobby groups, etc... You can detect a democratic dictatorship when the government doesn't get its mandate from the people - for all appearances it will seem democratic - it just won't act like it.

 

[MikeyDB]

Dancing_Loon

Both of my collegues are correct in their charactizations of the "democratic dicatatorship" as notion and as practiced in Canada and the United States.

At least at some level the Americans reject the hypothesis of their nation as a "democracy" and will under some circumstances remind everyone that it is a Republic.

A Republic has the aim of extending its influence and power over as broad a region as can be policed effectively. "Effectively" in this context is assuring the wealthy that access to and redistribution-of anyone and everyone's resources and assets remains at the direction of the wealthy and powerful who form the putative "government" of the state.

 

[Colpy]

Unfortunately, the best example on earth of a purely democratic dictatorship is Canada with a majority government.

The use of Order in Council to by-pass Parliament (Thanks PET) and extreme party discipline in the House puts direct, unlimited power in the hands of the PM. Neither of these things are so pronounced in any other true democracy.

The USA, with it's division of powers, two year Representative terms, and effective Senate, is MUCH more democratic than Canada.

 

[MHz]

That evoked such a paradoxical image in my mind.that I have to ask you:

Well basically you live in one. Once the Gov started taking direction from the ones they were originally meant to 'reign in' you ceased to be of any importance. the classic defination is as follows, you just have to substitute a few words to understand how/why we are subject to the same system. Two or three electable parties does not change it if the agenda is the same from all the parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_dictatorship
Democratic dictatorship is a system where the great majority of the people enjoy democracy, but where a minority who shares other beliefs are forced to take part in democratic projects they are not too fond of. Due to democratic traditions in the society, they are forced to take part in things they do not sanction in order not to interfere with the social solidarity.
In Mao Zedong's China ‘democratic dictatorship’ was where democracy was to extended to ‘the people’, and dictatorial methods were applied to those excluded from the ranks of ‘the people'. ‘The people’ were the members of the four social classes; the working class, the peasantry, the petty bourgeois and the national bourgeois. According to Mao, the people were to enjoy freedom of speech, assembly, and association, they were to have the right to vote and elect their own government which was to exercise the dictatorial methods over the excluded masses.

 

[Scott Free]

Unfortunately, the best example on earth of a purely democratic dictatorship is Canada with a majority government.

The use of Order in Council to by-pass Parliament (Thanks PET) and extreme party discipline in the House puts direct, unlimited power in the hands of the PM. Neither of these things are so pronounced in any other true democracy.

The USA, with it's division of powers, two year Representative terms, and effective Senate, is MUCH more democratic than Canada.

I agree with you but I think it is an even better example of Stalinist consolidation of power which has gotten so bad in recent years that in a majority federal government the only real opposition are the provincial premiers. The PMO for example is straight out of Stalins play book!

 

[Nuggler]

I agree with you but I think it is an even better example of Stalinist consolidation of power which has gotten so bad in recent years that in a majority federal government the only real opposition are the provincial premiers. The PMO for example is straight out of Stalins play book!

Which is perhaps why we should be very cautious about ever letting one party, especially the current nazi minority with Harpo as its' leader, (the former head of the "taxpayers association of Canada") EVER getting a majority. Although how we accomplish this, is a quandry.

Actually, any minority govt. in Canada, whatever political stripe, would probably be better than any majority.............think Trudeau.........Mulroney............democratic dictatorships.

There's yer answers......dancin loonie.......all of the above posts.

Hope we have been of some little help.

:canada:

 

[dancing-loon]

Thank you, Kreskin, Scottfree, Mikey, Colpy and MHz for your contributions to my question.

I had already thought of the United States as a democratic dictatorship, because right now the Republicans are in absolute power, even if the Senate votes otherwise, they require a 66% majority which has been hard to achieve in recent trials. Plus, the president has the power to veto anything he doesn't like. So much for a democracy!

Mikey, you said the US is a Republic where the power belongs to the wealthy. Is that just accidental or a common given?

Colpy, you state that Canada is a classic dictatorial democracy. I never thought of it as such!!! What, if the minority parties join together? Couldn't they effectively topple the government, or at least force it to take a certain action favored by the minority parties?
Unlike the US Canada has more than a two-party system. Therefore, our multi-party system could make the ruling party to take notice and comply.
That established, I can not see that you feel the US is more democratic than us. At least we can be democratic, IF we want to.

Scott wrote:

Essentially it is a failed state masquerading as a democracy.

Yes, reluctantly I must agree! For example, I would want the people to decide, if we want to go to war in Afghanistan or not, after all the facts and pros and cons have been laid on the table. A war, killing other people and getting our own soldiers killed and maimed, that is a big issue and should never be decided solely by a handful of power people. NEVER! Therefore, when the question of war participation comes up we, the people, should decide. We should also decide, when it is time to withdraw. It is us, the people, who pay for everything, and it is our children who bear the brunt!

May I ask... WHY are we continuing this form of undemocratic government decade after decade after decade? How could we affect a change for the better, achieve a truly democratic people government? We likely would have to start a new grass-root movement that would capitalize on people power. Unfortunately, the person who would try to start such a movement would probably be assassinated... like Martin Luther King!

 

[Colpy]

DL, I think you suffer from misconceptions about the US system.

First of all, there is no party discipline in Congress: Representatives and Senators can and very regularly do vote against the President, despite being members of the same party.

Secondly, bills are passed in both Houses of Congress by simple majority. Then the President can, if he wishes, veto them. Then Congress can over-ride the veto with a 6&% vote...............

And, in Canada, I said a classic democratic dictatorship exists in a majority government......because in that form the government can overwhelm the opposition at will, and force their MPs to vote with them, or cross the floor. Combined with the use of OiC to sidestep Parliament altogether, the PM in our system has more power than any other elected head of gov't on earth.

 

[Praxius]

What is a democratic dictatorship?

Democratic Dictatorship is just Masked Communism, such as our current methods of government... masked in which you are given choices, but those choices mean pretty well nothing in the long run and those in power are always the ones who tell us what to do, not the other way around.

For example, the US government, where most in the country hate Bush, his approval ratings are crap, the last two elections he won, he rigged, no matter what reports, what advice, how many in the UN dissaprove, how much of congress turns over to the democrats, no matter how much the democrats bitch and moan, no matter how much even republicans complain...... he still does what he thinks should be done, regardless of not making any sense whatsoever.

So in other words, a disconection of control and power between the Government and the People of the Country and although the government keeps telling you it's democratic and you have a voice, they always have the power.

 

[dancing-loon]

Well basically you live in one. Once the Gov started taking direction from the ones they were originally meant to 'reign in' you ceased to be of any importance. the classic definition is as follows, you just have to substitute a few words to understand how/why we are subject to the same system. Two or three electable parties does not change it, if the agenda is the same from all the parties.

That is true. Here comes my new grass-roots movement in handy! But don't you think our NDP has a somewhat different agenda? Is more for people power? Or do I have that wrong... I'm not an NDPler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_dictatorship
Democratic dictatorship is a system where the great majority of the people enjoy democracy, but where a minority, who shares other beliefs, are forced to take part in democratic projects they are not too fond of. Due to democratic traditions in the society, they are forced to take part in things they do not sanction in order not to interfere with the social solidarity.

That makes sense. It can't be helped, except if in certain circumstances a referendum would be held to question all people to express/vote their choice. (like starting a war! Or not!)

In Mao Zedong's China ‘democratic dictatorship’ was where democracy was extended to ‘the people’, and dictatorial methods were applied to those excluded from the ranks of ‘the people'. ‘The people’ were the members of the four social classes; the working class, the peasantry, the petty bourgeois and the national bourgeois. According to Mao, the people were to enjoy freedom of speech, assembly, and association, they were to have the right to vote and elect their own government which was to exercise the dictatorial methods over the excluded masses.

The "people" mentioned here would constitute the majority of the country? In a democracy usually the majority rules, and minorities, unfortunately, have to go along with the will of the people majority. That seems fair to me. .So, China's Maoist regime was not bad then? Why was it derided as a brutal communist dictatorship? Or was that still another guy?
I try to remember from what I read how Hitler with his National Socialistic Workers Party of Germany got into a totalitarian power state? He was supported by the masses, and the masses were the common workers who were fed up of being enslaved and exploited by the wealthy class!

In the last analysis it boils down to capitalism versus idealism. The two can never get married!

 

[dancing-loon]

Democratic Dictatorship is just Masked Communism, such as our current methods of government... masked in which you are given choices, but those choices mean pretty well nothing in the long run and those in power are always the ones who tell us what to do, not the other way around.

For example, the US government, where most in the country hate Bush, his approval ratings are crap, the last two elections he won, he rigged, no matter what reports, what advice, how many in the UN disapprove, how much of congress turns over to the democrats, no matter how much the democrats bitch and moan, no matter how much even republicans complain...... he still does what he thinks should be done, regardless of not making any sense whatsoever.

So in other words, a disconnection of control and power between the Government and the People of the Country, and although the government keeps telling you it's democratic and you have a voice, they always have the power.

sorry, my answers are so drawn out... I had a couple of phone calls and a msn mess inbetween.

What I gather from your combined answers is that it would take a people rebellion to upset the ruling head of government. But then, that head could order the National Guards/RCMP to step in and restore the old order!!! People bitch and complain, but hardly get up on their hind legs.

There has been talk about impeaching Bush, but was never seriously considered as a way to oust him. It was figured that by the time that process was implemented he would be retiring anyway.

I find the choice we people have when voting is so limited. How do these so called "Public Servants" get into the race stall? Who knows them? I know nothing except what they themselves blast into the public realm about themselves. For instance Harper was praised as coming from a good family, is a good Christian man. Yet, he is a war person, a fan and supporter of the two worst war-mongering countries on earth. Being a Christian from a good family was totally misleading!

It is not easy to pick a good leader, its more a stab into the dark and hope to be lucky...

 

[dancing-loon]

DL, I think you suffer from misconceptions about the US system.

First of all, there is no party discipline in Congress: Representatives and Senators can and very regularly do vote against the President, despite being members of the same party.

Secondly, bills are passed in both Houses of Congress by simple majority. Then the President can, if he wishes, veto them. Then Congress can over-ride the veto with a 6&% vote...............

And, in Canada, I said a classic democratic dictatorship exists in a majority government......because in that form the government can overwhelm the opposition at will, and force their MPs to vote with them, or cross the floor. Combined with the use of OiC to sidestep Parliament altogether, the PM in our system has more power than any other elected head of gov't on earth.

Colpy;
I go by what I see... nothing has changed, despite Democrat majority in the Senate. We all thought things would turn around, but ... alas, it all stayed the same. Nancy Pelosi came in strong and determined... now we hear 0 from her!

As to our present Canadian government - yes, we do have a minority government at present, but as you can see they rule like the Nazis, because the opposition parties have no strong leaders and amount to nothing. Dion is a disappointment.
Technically you are right, Colpy, but in practice nothing happens to change the determined way of the present government. Even when the majority of the people through surveys expressed they want us out of Afghanistan, the opposite happens... we committed our troops for another three years!
It is disillusioning. No wonder many people refuse to join the farce of voting.

 

[Nuggler]

:sad10: Dancin Loonie; You didn't like MY reply......................8O ???

Jeebus, I'm crushed.

Does this mean you and I are through????:crybaby:

Dang!!!
:wav:

 

[dancing-loon]

:sad10: Dancin Loonie; You didn't like MY reply......................8O ???

Jeebus, I'm crushed.

Does this mean you and I are through????:crybaby:

Dang!!!
:wav:

That might change once you stop calling me Loonie!:x

 

[Nuggler]

:color:............sorry.






:hippy2eace.

 

[MikeyDB]

Hey Nuggler!

Ever since Grog figured out that Nog could be "bought" the world has been in constant turmoil with the wealthy finding ever-more ingenious ways of defining differences between themselves and everyone else. We've always had the wealthy versus the poor and we can plunk any number of labels on the practice but it won't change the essential meaning behind it. Capitalism is the label that permits fraud and corruption to flourish as "business" while Socialism is the label that permits fraud and corruption to fourish as "the will of the people...."

It's all the same. The wealthy grow richer through the use of slavery lies and corruption and can then practice the "generosity" of altruism. We've evolved to the point where our objectification of everything from women to cars to houses to clothing to gagetry....is acceptabel substitute for personality and character. While there may have been at one time in the distant past some substance to the concept of "the greater good" that old tale is long dead. The wealthy create systems where labor laws are created to victimize and the poor are held as endentured sub-humans to credit accounts and conditioned response to notions of "prosperity". Consumption and disposability, planned obsolesence and a rapidly declining quality in manufactured goods is the product of a system geared to reward the wealthy through the stupidity of the consumer. Nothing's changed in sixty-five million years.

 

[Scott Free]

Yes, reluctantly I must agree! For example, I would want the people to decide, if we want to go to war in Afghanistan or not, after all the facts and pros and cons have been laid on the table. A war, killing other people and getting our own soldiers killed and maimed, that is a big issue and should never be decided solely by a handful of power people. NEVER! Therefore, when the question of war participation comes up we, the people, should decide. We should also decide, when it is time to withdraw. It is us, the people, who pay for everything, and it is our children who bear the brunt!

That is a known flaw of democracy. The Americans call it the "Vietnam syndrome," where essentially, given the option to exercise their free will, a population will not want war. As you can imagine this is quite an obstacle for the Industrial Military Complex, politicians, central bankers and corporations in general. It was to stop this syndrome that reporters were "embedded" with military watchdogs and coffins could not be photographed. There is a huge propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war because no one sensible (with proper information) would support it and the hawks know that.

May I ask... WHY are we continuing this form of undemocratic government decade after decade after decade? How could we affect a change for the better, achieve a truly democratic people government? We likely would have to start a new grass-root movement that would capitalize on people power. Unfortunately, the person who would try to start such a movement would probably be assassinated... like Martin Luther King!

This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:

The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.

I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.

Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.

 

[dancing-loon]

That is a known flaw of democracy. The Americans call it the "Vietnam syndrome," where essentially, given the option to exercise their free will, a population will not want war. As you can imagine this is quite an obstacle for the Industrial Military Complex, politicians, central bankers and corporations in general. It was to stop this syndrome that reporters were "embedded" with military watchdogs and coffins could not be photographed. There is a huge propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war because no one sensible (with proper information) would support it and the hawks know that.

This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:

The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.

I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.

Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.

Oh, Scott...
you have no idea how much I appreciate your answer and your link. I listened to the Howard Zinn video!! My daughter happened to phone just now, and I told her about my question and your answer, about Sacco and Vanzetti and Howard Zinn. She in turn told me about the silent army, called Black Water. I had no idea!!
Please, don't feel there is no point in you answering, or explaining something a bit more in detail. You never know what goes on behind the forum!!;-)
I have to admit, though, that sometimes, when people post km-long posts, I give up and move on. Really, it is regrettable, because so much effort was put into them, so much information and cross-references gathered... but it overwhelms me!

You mentioned education, people need to be educated first to understand the logistics of the power elite. Yes, I agree fully. But people will have to want to know The truth and nothing but the truth!!!
I have to go now!:-(