Boes wrote:What problems? That's democracy right there. Just because the majority doesn't conform to your morals doesn't mean the system is wrong, what kind of elitist conception of democracy is that supposed to be?
So following your argument to its logical conclusion, the people of any country should be able to vote on any issue and decide policy based on a majority verdict.
Does that mean you would be in favor of the following policies, if a majority voted for them in a referendum:
-- banning the Koran
-- making it illegal for anyone to receive a salary over $100,000 / annum
-- making sex before marriage illegal
-- making cannabis legal
-- bringing back capital punishment
-- forcing immigrants or people of a particular religious persuasion to live in ghettos
-- setting up an inquisition to punish "blasphemers" and "heretics"
-- seizing all the land owned by white farmers and forcefully evicting them from the land
There are societies around the world today where majority of people support these measures and many societies historically in which a majority of people supported these measures. If you believe in direct democracy, you grant legitimacy to all of these regimes and measures.
So no, I do not believe in "democracy" where it conflicts with basic human rights and liberal principles. You say that makes me an elitist; I say that democracy without liberalism is no democracy at all. Historically, we have a poor record when it comes to guaranteeing freedom of speech and we have often treated our minorities disgracefully. We must be vigilant not to fall into those traps and we must have standards which govern our behavior regardless of what the majority think. These standards are written into our constitutions, international law and so on.
To use the old cliche, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is a democratic vote, but it's not a liberal democratic vote.
Do you believe in following what the majority say, regardless of what national and international law say, or what ethics suggest?
Rumpetroll wrote:And Milošević wasn't democratically elected, as he was first elected by the communist party of Serbia, it was only after he rose to power that the first multi-party (''democratic'') elections were held. With state controlled media, so Milošević's opponents had 0 media coverage, plus were often, especially in later years of the nineties beaten, sent to jail, etc...
I don't really want to get into this here as it's off topic, but AFAIK most commentators recognize that a majority supported Milosevich in his first (1989) election and although the elections weren't entirely transparent, he would have won a victory in any case:
http://www.slate.com/id/1006263/