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

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

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!

Essentially it is a failed state masquerading as a democracy.

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.
--
Democratic dictatorship is a system where the great majority of the people enjoy --, 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 --'s -- ‘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 --, the --, the -- and the national --. 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.

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.

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.
Dancin Loonie; You didn't like MY reply......................


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!

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.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
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

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.

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.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
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

Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite.
----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Free--------------------------------------
We should have a healthier respect for the dangers of tyranny of the majority, mobocracy.
The real key is to change the culture of the elite.

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