The definitions of democracy and liberalism have been so misconstrued and distorted in the public mind that they no longer represent anything consistent between different groups of people. Equating the two terms as the same is a misnomer. This makes the question of whether people in any particular country are ready for democracy a bit meaningless in environments where ethics of integrity, truth and equality don’t materialize in governance.
Democracy is a system of governance that rules by majority vote. It is possible, then, for 49 percent of the voters and multiple minorities to be under-represented. The winning officials of an election, fair or not, then write and impose laws that can take away the rights of the people, regardless of how they voted. And once voted into positions of power, officials become difficult to remove. Voting is further weakened with untruthful reporting by the media and censorship because voters cannot make good choices without full information and knowledge.
Liberalism refers to individual freedom to make choices without harming or infringing upon the rights of others. But civil rights are often diminished by those in power, even in a democracy. In the US, many people still follow old habits of equating democracy and liberalism, but have lost faith in that type of governance as political, social and economic systems fail to provide good solutions to problems. All of our freedoms that we took for granted, such as the right to make our own health care decisions, the right on how to educate children, the right to work and travel, or the right to heterosexual gender of children are being threatened. Now Americans call those who promote the loss of those rights woke liberals.
See my Search for Truth News article called Sociocracy - Basic Concepts and Principles for more ideas in this thread.
This seems a little abstract to me. Here's a concrete example: when I was a kid 20% of Egyptians were Copts. Now, mostly because of persecution, the estimate is 10% and falling. What happens to minorities like the Copts in a demoacratic but illiberal regime?
That drop happened under ostensibly liberal autocracies that claimed to be protecting minorities, so I don't think we can attribute that to democratic but illiberal regimes. As for what would happen to Copts, women, and others under an illiberal, democratic government, we can look at 2011-2013 when the Muslim Brotherhood was dominant. Certainly a scary, uncertain time for Egyptians (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) but it was also a sort of peak for peaceful intellectual combat. Importantly, no discriminatory legislation was instituted against Copts. Perhaps more importantly, for the first time in Egyptian history, Christians were granted the right to vote in meaningful elections for their leaders. Women were as well.
Those who voted for Meloni aren't rejecting democracy, as far as I can tell. And "illiberal" isn't meant to be pejorative- it's just a way of describing parties and movements that take exception to the liberal consensus that has predominated over the past few decades. You're right, democratic government isn't a cure all, and in my book I make precisely this point: the goodness of democracy isn't dependent on its outcomes. Democracy is good irrespective of its outcomes.
The definitions of democracy and liberalism have been so misconstrued and distorted in the public mind that they no longer represent anything consistent between different groups of people. Equating the two terms as the same is a misnomer. This makes the question of whether people in any particular country are ready for democracy a bit meaningless in environments where ethics of integrity, truth and equality don’t materialize in governance.
Democracy is a system of governance that rules by majority vote. It is possible, then, for 49 percent of the voters and multiple minorities to be under-represented. The winning officials of an election, fair or not, then write and impose laws that can take away the rights of the people, regardless of how they voted. And once voted into positions of power, officials become difficult to remove. Voting is further weakened with untruthful reporting by the media and censorship because voters cannot make good choices without full information and knowledge.
Liberalism refers to individual freedom to make choices without harming or infringing upon the rights of others. But civil rights are often diminished by those in power, even in a democracy. In the US, many people still follow old habits of equating democracy and liberalism, but have lost faith in that type of governance as political, social and economic systems fail to provide good solutions to problems. All of our freedoms that we took for granted, such as the right to make our own health care decisions, the right on how to educate children, the right to work and travel, or the right to heterosexual gender of children are being threatened. Now Americans call those who promote the loss of those rights woke liberals.
See my Search for Truth News article called Sociocracy - Basic Concepts and Principles for more ideas in this thread.
This seems a little abstract to me. Here's a concrete example: when I was a kid 20% of Egyptians were Copts. Now, mostly because of persecution, the estimate is 10% and falling. What happens to minorities like the Copts in a demoacratic but illiberal regime?
That drop happened under ostensibly liberal autocracies that claimed to be protecting minorities, so I don't think we can attribute that to democratic but illiberal regimes. As for what would happen to Copts, women, and others under an illiberal, democratic government, we can look at 2011-2013 when the Muslim Brotherhood was dominant. Certainly a scary, uncertain time for Egyptians (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) but it was also a sort of peak for peaceful intellectual combat. Importantly, no discriminatory legislation was instituted against Copts. Perhaps more importantly, for the first time in Egyptian history, Christians were granted the right to vote in meaningful elections for their leaders. Women were as well.
Indeed there are. But also in any number of other states.
Those who voted for Meloni aren't rejecting democracy, as far as I can tell. And "illiberal" isn't meant to be pejorative- it's just a way of describing parties and movements that take exception to the liberal consensus that has predominated over the past few decades. You're right, democratic government isn't a cure all, and in my book I make precisely this point: the goodness of democracy isn't dependent on its outcomes. Democracy is good irrespective of its outcomes.