Stephen Date wrote:
--- Mistral wrote:
Stephen Date wrote:
The term democracy covers a multitude of sins.
Broadly
speaking it should include an elected government,
the
rule of law, some kind of constitutional basis
whether
written (as in most cases) or based on common law
(as
in the UK), respect for the persons and property
of
the governed (human rights) and freedom of speech.
Well, no. You can have any or all of those in a 'democratic form of government', but none of them are intrinsic to a democracy. There is an enormous difference.
Well, don't just stop when it is getting interesting !
Surely the list I have cited above comprise the institutions through which a democracy functions. Without these institutions you can no more have a working democracy than you can have a working car without an engine or wheels.
I'm afraid I didn't mean anything terribly interesting. <g>
You seem to be using the word democracy in its broadest, most modern sense - what I was taught to call a 'democratic form of government', meaning primarily self-rule by the people. This broader sense can include delegating authority to representatives, the use of constitutions, etc. In the strictest definition of the word, however, those things are not included; it refers only to the direct exercise of power by the people (i.e. 'majority rule').
Quite possibly you may find that shade of difference is meaningless in the UK; I don't know. But having had it pounded into my head for years both in school and at home that the US is *not* a democracy, but a democratic form of government (specifically a republic), and that the difference is crucial to the way the US is governed, it's become rather automatic to point out that difference.
Just to explain: the US founders thought democracy was a Very Bad Thing; like Aristotle, they believed it would inevitably end up in mob rule ('tyranny of the majority'). This is why they gave us, among other things, a Constitution that's very hard to change, the electoral college, and the checks and balances of three branches of government; they wanted to protect US citizens from the dangers and excesses to which a strict democracy is prone. A democracy has the rule of the people; but we have instead the rule of law.
Being scrupulous about drawing the distinction is the best way I know of to ensure that the dangers of strict democracy are not forgotten; I have heard too many people say 'the US is a democracy' and use that to justify attempting to overturn the protections in our laws because 'the will of the people' (i.e. mob rule) is more important than the rule of law. This position is becoming more and more common, even among our elected representatives, and I find it problematic.
IOW, I was splitting hairs again. My only excuse is that it seems to me a rather important one. Sorry about that. Oh, and no Jingoism is intended or should be inferred.
ObB7: I'm not a bit certain that Blake was advocating anything approaching equality or democracy. After all, 'not until free men can think and speak' doesn't necessarily imply that all men should be free. (OK, that's weak, but "I'm tired and I hurt.")
Mistral