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

A big discussion in the Turkey Coup thread right now.

What's better?

1. a democratically-elected government... even if it morphs into a populist elected-dictatorship that increasingly tries to consolidate power, oppresses free speech and the media and ethnic/religious minorities, treats women differently, and demolishes the separation of religion/government by making government lean more theocratic

or

2. a government that's secular and maintains a separation of religion/government, treats people equally regardless of ethnicity/religion/gender and other minority protections against mob-rule, doesn't imprison journalists or critics/protesters, protects other civil rights/liberties... even if it's an unelected organization (like the military) that takes control by force and may or may not reinstate a democratic government eventually


*note: "liberalism " here doesn't mean Democrats or progressives or socialism or anything like that, it means the things I listed above

 

This question doesn't really make any sense. You can't presuppose the behavior of a form of government. That's why it's a "form." The basic structure remains stable regardless of the particular occupants and their suite of strengths and failings. Even in the case of Turkey, this is only a discussion insofar as some people have put forward that Erdogan is destablizing the basic pillars of the state, thereby transitioning the form of government.

 

Well I mentioned that...

"a democratically-elected government... even if it morphs into a populist elected-dictatorship that increasingly tries to consolidate power"​

But I also don't want this thread to only be about Turkey. I know people who, in theory, would rather have a liberal/secular dictator than a populist illiberal democracy.

 

I don't see how the two may not, at times, be mutually exclusive. Sometimes, when you must consider what's best for the people, you must consider not only what they want, but the rationality of such a decision. Say, if America elects a Christian madman who wishes to purge the country of Muslims. He suggests tracking databases, wouldn't rule out the possibility of concentration camps, even proposes mass deportations and stripping their rights. This was democratically sanctioned, but it's neither secular nor free. Now consider the opposite. Against the will of the people, the American congress decides against the will of the people that we are to tax religious institutions, strip references of God from all state and federal laws and properties (currency, pledges, speeches, etc). This is secular, but also not very free. The way I see it, people should be allowed the freedom to both be religious and not be religious, but also not denied that their voices be heard. Democracy and secularism should be able to coexist so long as one does not have more hold over the other. A nation can be secular, while still being democratic.

 

Yes, of course. But the thread is about which one is more important, if you had to choose between the two.

(and secularism is about the "freedom to both be religious and not be religious", it just also means government itself is neutral)

 

Abolish the state and abolish the church!

 

It's a troubling question. At the end of the day, it feels like people have the right to self-determination until that becomes actively dangerous to others. Maybe the same is true of nations, but it's hard enough to know when it crosses the line from self-determination to socially dangerous even when it just comes to individuals. Who would get to make that call when it comes to nations?

But then again asking the question about whether we'd give up democracy or secular liberalism first kind of reminds me of the old slogan: "Down with democracy . . . once we get it." Which is more important? I don't know; I'd have to actually try them and I kind of feel like I haven't.

 

what a nonsense thread

the correct answer is "socialism"

 

Yes, but "in theory" it's a silly question. You can't choose between just one dictator, because there's no way to know who the successor would be, or how succession would play out, or even how the dictator would decide to act next year. What if the dictator has a near death experience, sees a vision of God, and decides to become a religious zealot? You can't qualify that someone is both a dictator of unlimited power and that there are constraints on how he or she is always going to behave in perpetuity.

Likewise, you give little to no credit to the role of institutions in other forms of government. Even in societies were direct democracies have existed, social custom and other non-governmental institutions--to say nothing of the formal divisions of power within government itself--have served to restrain the action of office holders. Thus, even democratically elected leaders of poor character cannot go as far as they would like.

By the time you finish making all these strange alterations and stipulations, you aren't even asking us the basic question of democracy vs dictatorship any longer. You'd almost be better served just picking two different individuals and asking us under whose government we would rather have lived.

 

Democracy is a means to an end, but too many people (especially in the west) think that it's an end in and of itself. I think that's a dangerous thing because many times people think that once you have a democracy, all the problems are solved.

 

Democracy is a lynch mob.

 

Tough to really fit any one example into such generalized choices. Those could mean anything really.

But I voted for secular/liberalism anyway.

 

It doesn't matter who runs the country. If they do with with honesty, integrity and the genuine well being of the population at heart, then eh, good enough.
I figured that the purpose of Democracy is to put the fear of getting fired into the hearts of politicians.
Do a bad job, and your employers will sack you.

And Secular Liberalism is great if that's what the population wants. I also figured that one of the major delusions the West has about the Middle East, which has resulted in a good deal or misery, is that the population wants that kind of society. And largely they don't.

 

I don't want to choose between the two, I think they're both equally important.

 

French secularism <3 unlike the US, these buggers *actually* enforce the separation of Church and State.

 

%50 - %50 ...

 

I see the problem more as; "The major delusion the West has about itself is that it's actually installing secular, liberal governments."
The regimes that have been created, propped up, and backed have largely been fantastically corrupt and sectarian; the current government in Iraq is a prime example.
It's silly to say, "Oh, they hate this oppressive, unrepresentative puppet government we've set up through force; they must just hate freedom and democracy!"
Not that Saddam was better on balance, but the Ba'athist government was secular and (nominally) democratic.

 

The premise of this thread is, what if the world is as simplistic as Ghost's understanding of it?

I thought you had studied political science at some sort of university, Ghost? Was it one of those schools people go to because they haven't a choice? I ask because the curriculum seems suspect.

And, as always, you need to spice up your threads with infographics or obnoxious, facile pop culture metaphors. There are precisely none in the Turkey thread, which is unacceptable.

 

In answer to the question; the better option is the one that is precisely twice the length of a piece of string.

Democracy is merely a system of government in which people elect representatives to form a government. It may be representative or direct; there are pros and cons to both. It may also be multi-party or single party, i.e. an element of choice vs an illusion of choice.

Secularism is a way in which a government operates with respect of religion. You can have an open elections model like France, with entrenched secularism; or a closed democracy like Ba'ath party Iraq or Syria which are secular and pseudo-democratic.

One is a cultural mindset, the other is a mechanism for choosing officials.

It's like you asking, Ghost, what is warmer; architecture or a guava? What is more stubborn, fruit or sunshine?

 

Sunshine is demonstratively more unrelenting than fruit. It's objectively a fact, and that one question actually is sensible.

 

Yes but fruit will not cease to be fruit under its own volition, Wocky. That is also a fact.

For example, Per Nordsstrom of Ulmea, Sweden, spent a record 18 hours yelling at a lemon. His intent was to shame it into being a less bitter citrus, preferably an orange.

The lemon, in the face of such an unrelenting assault, was unmoved and refused to alter itself even a tiny bit.

 

6 of one. 1/2 an dozen of the other.

 

It was a debate already going on in the other thread.

I know they're different. I already know what you typed up. One is a method, one is an outcome. I'm asking if the method of democracy is a goal in itself, and even more important, than the outcome of liberalism/secularism that I defined.

If people would rather live under a benevolent dictatorship that respects human rights and equality but is not elected, or a populist but bigoted and authoritarian government that is elected.

How much value people place in having elections... whether they're a means or an end, and if they're an end then if it's more important than the goal of liberalism/secularism or not.

 

Isn't the thinking that actually the best form of government is in fact an enlightened benevolent dictatorship?