(Not saying that’s a good thing, mind you.)
In all these examples, what is lacking is the rule of law, as in the FISA courts: they can do something secretly and without accountability.
There have been monarchies and dictatorships in which the rule of law was more widespread than in the present US and possibly more countries which describe themselves as “democracies”.
Do you have any examples of how the "rule of law" has been eroded in Europe with a positive public reaction? I can't think of any times where the people have cheered that the law was being wilfully broken. It was the final straw for kicking the last UK PM out.
I might agree that governments care less about their public appearance due to many factors, but it doesn't seem to ever come with public goodwill.
As for examples, look at the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. That alone should tell you enough about why GP claims the rule of law not only being eroded, but also why the majority is doing this to itself. It was a massive scandal with huge consequences for many victims. Yet, many individuals still haven't been fully compensated, the news has largely stopped reporting it, the majority has stopped caring, and the authorities in question have barely changed their modus operandi.
Afterwards, a year later unvaccinated people were denied access to public transport and even work (note that a mandate would've been lawful instead, just not the vaccine pass scheme implemented).
All of this with an overwhelmingly high support for these measures. It was a de facto tiranny of the majority.
Isnt that democracy anyway?
Lynching represent a public belief that whatever systems are in place are insufficient to bring justice. They happen regardless of what rights are declared in some legal text or whatever. The solution to building a better democracy always returns to building better, more trusted institutions, and building thr peoples trust that they are fair, and inalienable rights are just another such institution.
You missed this part. When protection of one's rights is enforced it does not matter if particular group, even the majority looses a respect.
Sorry, but if the majority of people decided to democratically elect the same people in charge, who's at fault here?
If political misbehavior is not punished though votes, then what's left?
Maybe the people should learn to vote better.
A pure democracy is garbage because it never protects a minority from the greed of the majority. No amount of education can stop populists if the education is covering the fact that your framework technically legalizes unethical behavior.
The majority of citizens in any system are going to have frustrations from some of the many trade offs made to keep a system and would rather not have the total of that frustration hit a topic where they are in the minority.
This is why a well educated wealthy person and a racist populist are often the same person, if you come from wealth then better a race argument than a class argument causing a violation of civil rights whenever the republic wrongly gives ground to the democracy.
Some times ago, there use to be constant demonstrations against the government in Paris. The police governor of the region requested police to do a lot of harmful and possibly unlawful actions and tactics. Resulting in a lot of casualties (broken eyes, concussions, ...) And more trouble as the strategies were forcing people in more aggressive and violent positions that they would have been.
All of these methods were previously forbidden especially because it was known to be harmful and against civil rights.
Still they continued without conséquence as they said that "they are the police, they can decide what is the understanding of the law".
Same things for the police using "drones" to monitor civilian without authorization. But still, no consequence...
In my view those are two very different things.
People support tyranny by supporting policies that feed on the perception of public fears.
Reactions are just reactions and my judgment don't really hold as much value as making personal changes and being an example to the world.
In practice it really doesn’t work that way, though.
Something similar happens with unelected commissions and bureaus.
Are presidential governments more resistant to this kind of executive overreach?
> countries which describe themselves as “democracies”
I thought it was common knowledge that any country that has the word "democratic" in its official name is anything but. Same for "republic". And for the true bottom of the barrel, "people's".
It may be high time to add "united" to that list.
I'd prefer that system much more TBH, if nothing else it would reduce the noise.
As long as it's a constitutional rule of law respecting individual human rights I really couldn't care less about how decisions are made.
It’s always meant that [1]. Elections are essential. But since antiquity it’s been recognised, first through custom then by law, that they had to be balanced against e.g. minority rights and tribal partisanship. Reducing democracy to elections is a modern American/British phenomenon.
- P.S. Sorry if my belief took your statement out of context.
Fukuyama sets 3 conditions for a liberal democracy : strong state, rule of law and accountability
Notably, majority rule isn't sufficient for full democracy, and isn't necessary or sufficient for minimal democracy.
The autocracy of the majority is mob rule, not democracy