Because I'm struggling to draw a line that includes PR China and Switzerland, and nowhere else.
Democracy = dont play by American rules. I.E. Swiss, Chinese and Norks.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Democracy = dont play by American rules. I.E. Swiss, Chinese and Norks.
Should we assume that the definition of democracy has changed between these posts? (It's not a bad thing - hopefully we all learn something and modify our views after reading these forums!) Because I'm struggling to draw a line that includes PR China and Switzerland, and nowhere else.
Getting a good definition is certainly tricky, but how about this: "A system of government in which those who make the laws and those who implement them are primarily chosen following processes in which all mature citizens can freely choose between alternative candidates and choose to stand themselves." I hope that draws the line in the place where you would expect it. Looking at the cases above, it would make clear that the ROC/Taiwan, Switzerland, and the USA are now democracies, but mainland PR China is not.
Most probably the PRC is nowhere near to be a democracy*... Iran is more interesting example of a borderline democracy. Sure their Supreme Court has kinda strong rights in selecting which candidates are constitutional and which not, but the concept of banning candidates are not unheard for established democracies... though probably much less frequently used
It is? I'm struggling to think of a single example. Even famously restrictive Germany allows for neo-Nazi candidates to run and even hold office. Generally limits on who is allowed to run is taken as a sign that a country is no longer a democracy. And the reverse is also true. When Myanamar and Iran allowed for opposition candidates to run, it was seen as a monumental shift in liberalization.
They did run during the McCarthy era. They lost because the organization had nearly as many FBI agents as actual members but they did run.
Iran is more interesting example of a borderline democracy. Sure their Supreme Court has kinda strong rights in selecting which candidates are constitutional and which not, but the concept of banning candidates are not unheard for established democracies... though probably much less frequently used
Yes, and I was thinking hard about Iran when I wrote that definition. Islamic democracy was a good-faith attempt at democracy, and it meets my criterion. Democracy and liberal democracy are different things.
Well, it could be argued that (many states of) the US is another borderline case. Just as in Iran, anyone can run in theory, but somehow it's very rare for anybody other than a Democrat or a Republican to win. That's due to the combination of restrictive ballot access laws (Texas is especially bad) and the first-past-the-post system. Either one is a distortion; having both together multiplies the problem.
That isn't remotely equivalent. In the FTTP system the setup is derpy and that means that it's strategic to join an existing organization that reflects your views. If no organization reflects your views, you make a new one. Both the Democratic and Republican parties emerged from exactly those circumstances.
A system that bans candidates is deliberately making it so that candidates with certain views are shut out of the process. It's not that people are are forced to simplify their choices, it's that their voice is denied entirely.
The Iranian system of democracy was not from the start a good faith attempt at democracy. They designed it specifically to shut out people that didn't agree with their revolution. The system is thawing now to allow for dissent.
There is no democracy without allowing dissent.
At this point I think the debate is looking more like one over definitions (i.e. does democracy mean just suffrage, or are there a variety of other elements that go into it, and if so which ones) than one over actual historical facts.
What is an democracy is up to debate. Pretty much every country with a few exceptions say they are democracies.
What you mean the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not democratic?????
Kind of reminds me of Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire... It's not democratic, nor run for the benefit of the people, its a monarchy in all but name and it does not control the whole of Korea...
However, the definition of a democracy is tricky to pin down. To take the example of banning candidates, most countries do not allow convicted criminals (or at least certain classes of them) to run or in some cases vote. Whilst this seems reasonable, it does require you to have a legal system that actually convicts the guilty. Iran could argue that all they are doing is preventing candidates that break their (religious) laws from running, no difference in essence from what the U.S. does. It is only the fact that the legal system in this case is controlled by a certain faction of the government that makes it 'undemocratic'.
Who isn't all that much greater? The communists in many ways were even worse to Czechs. The Nazi's at least only lasted 7 years to do damage, the communists lasted 40 or so years. And the allies could've bombed Prague if the red army dug there. I am not pretending it would've definitely gone well. It could've been much worse, but at the same time for Czechoslovakia the future could've also been better. There was once peaceful way to stop Czechoslovakia falling to the USSR and that was if they stood by their earlier agreement that Austria will go to the USSR and czechsolvoakia will go to the west. The Austrians amended to convince them to betray the agreement with Czechoslovakia and give Czechoslovakia to the USSR instead. Ironic, that in for example Berlin if you were born 5 miles west, you could've had had a much better life
On the eastern front? Yes, but that wasn't so much that the USSR had a better technology It's just they had bodies and lots of them, for example,e in Stalingrad, they even sent soldiers with no equipment and told them to get a gun from a corpse and the germans had a kill ratio of about 1:3, but one thing, the soviets could always replace was bodies. So I wouldn't say it's certain they would lose many more lives than in ww2. Don't forget they had a high technological superiority and operation unthinkable talked about a war and they basically had a 5 year window in which they had an atomic bomb superiority and so instead of soldiers, they could've used atomic bombs to destroy the infrastructure, atomic research and the army ammunition stores without fear of retribution. Lastly one important thing is that not many minorities liked nazism any better than communismm, but in a war with the west, the satellites would become prone to rebellion and also western USSR (modern Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) would've been prone to sabotage by partisans weakening the USSR further. True, most countries tried to avoid war as much as possible, but is that right? What did that get Czechoslovakia?. The Munich agreement happened because of that. Leaving Czechs and Slovaks to the soviets even when US troops were in Plzen happened because of that. Same with exchanging Czechoslovakia for Austria. Not helping Czechs in Prague spring. So yes most countries try to avoiid war as much as possible, but does that make it right? is it always better to avoid war? I disagree. Appeasement allowed Hitler to start WIWII And I am not saying the lives of the soldiers doesn't matter. I am saying, if you had to choose between the deaths of 20 million soldiers or 60 million civilians, would you choose the first choice or the second choice? No offense and this is morally hard question, but I would choose the first choice. Does that mean, their lives don't matter? No, it means that unless we count 1 soildier's life as 3 civilian's lives or more, the logical choice is the 1st. Also soldiers know that they have a chance of dying and accept the risk when signing. Civilians on the other hand don't have as much of a choice. WW2 might've been over but WWIII aka. the Cold War had begun. Churchill did think they should immediately start fighting the USSR after the end
If we could send every person who has repeated this myth to the front, we could outnumber the human waves of the volksturm in 1945...
Not unarmed. They probably found sticks on the ground or snow. And either way you're saying they didn't?
Exactly, they didn't. Of course there were shortages of ammo due to ever bad logistics, but no one was sending soldiers without equipment to fight. The Soviet industrial output of small arms and ammunition was enormous.
Sure they weren't. And yes, except the soviet industry hadn't been in time relocated to east of the murals and most of it was at the time under German occupation already. Also proof?