Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796 
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 12:04 AM
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.
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.
Genius
Posts: 972
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 4th, 2008, 08:58 AM
Quoting dancing-loon
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.
What is a democratic dictatorship?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
May 4th, 2008, 09:09 AM
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.
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.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,899
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 4th, 2008, 09:14 AM
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.
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.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 4th, 2008, 09:18 AM
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.
Quoting 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 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.
That evoked such a paradoxical image in my mind.that I have to ask you:
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.
Genius
Posts: 972
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 4th, 2008, 09:25 AM
Quoting Colpy
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!
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.
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.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,100
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
May 4th, 2008, 10:53 AM
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.
Quoting Scott Free
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.
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!
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.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 11:23 AM
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:
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!
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:
Quote:
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!
Essentially it is a failed state masquerading as a democracy.
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!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,899
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 4th, 2008, 11:43 AM
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.
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.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 4th, 2008, 12:24 PM
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.
Quoting 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. What is a democratic dictatorship?
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.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 12:37 PM
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!
Quoting MHz
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.
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.
Quote:
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!) 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.
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
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!
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 01:15 PM
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...
Quoting Praxius
sorry, my answers are so drawn out... I had a couple of phone calls and a msn mess inbetween.
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.
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.
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...
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 01:46 PM
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.
Quoting Colpy
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.
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.
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.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,796
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 4th, 2008, 03:57 PM
Quoting Nuggler 
Dancin Loonie; You didn't like MY reply......................
???
Jeebus, I'm crushed.
Does this mean you and I are through????
Dang!!!
That might change once you stop calling me Loonie! Dancin Loonie; You didn't like MY reply...................... ???Jeebus, I'm crushed.
Does this mean you and I are through????
Dang!!!
............sorry.
peace.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
May 4th, 2008, 11:49 PM
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.
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.
