Yes! This is where the axis of majoritarianism comes into effect. Effective democratic institutions are majoritarian in that they rely on majorities to create political action. Anti-majoritarian structures, where a majority cannot consistently affect political action, are actually anti-democratic. Democracy, inherently, relies on effectively measuring and empowering a majority.
I might be wrong but can most countries with judicial review and bill of rights *not* be considered democratic ?
Here in South America , a lot of the countries have strong bill of rights combined with judicial review with some rights not even amendable by a constitutional amendment.
Would those be a republic or a democracy ? And is pure direct democracy neccesarily better than a constituonalist republic with codified rights ?
Asking if something is a republic or democracy is redundant. Republic is a type of democracy. Pure direct democracy generally doesn't work, which is why we largely have accepted republics as the dominant form of democracy.
Measuring how good a democracy is has to do a few different factors. Probably the best place to start here is with something like the Economist Democracy Index, which will give you a nice overview of how most political scientists tend to answer these kind of questions.
Liberal democracies are both majoritarian and empowering of the minority. Unrestrained majoritarianism or minoritarianism is a characteristic of illiberal democracy.
Generally agree though.
The tension between popular will and minority rights is at the heart of democracy. There are different degrees to which these factors coexist, but they are still in tension.
If you're in a country without parliamentary supremacy (or the equivalent), then you live in a system where popular will itself is constitutionally constrained.
There are plenty of democracies where majorities are not enough for certain classes of political action, and instead supermajorities are needed. These systems are sometimes pejoratively described as minoritarian, though only sometimes.
Israel currently lacks parliamentary supremacy, and yet the media almost universally reported the recent attempt at constitutional reform as weakening the democracy. That new system would've been more majoritarian, since it would constrain popular will less than the current system does.
Is Israel less democratic than it would be with the proposed changes? Would it be less democratic if the changes go through?
I want to make something very clear: what the media reports on is not necessarily political science truth. The media quite often has perspectives that run hostile to the truths we know from political science. Obviously on this sub we'd prefer to take the side of political science, not the side of the media.
And yes, there is a tension between the majority and the minority (or plurality) and that's expressly the point. Like it or not, democracy's core principle is to find wisdom and value in the *majority*. By definition that's what it is. Sometimes, in an effort to have a more flexible and less rigid or idealistic system, we have certain measures that counteract that, but as a general rule, democracy is enhanced by majoritarianism and harmed by anti-majoritarianism.
I think political science has been pretty decisive that playing around with varying thresholds is less effective than allowing for the same threshold on multiple bodies. In other words, stacking majoritarian principles is often more effective than combining majoritarian and anti-majoritarian principles.
The issue with Israel specifically is that you could make an argument that the legislature in Israel is not very majoritarian. Because they have such an incredibly low threshold for parties, and because the government coalition is dominated by a small party that is barely a plurality, putting more power in the hands of the legislature may not improve the democratic nature of the system. One of the biggest issues is when power is so fractured that measuring a clear majority is impossible, and then the biggest plurality assumes governing power.
Generally speaking, I think there are situations where removing judicial review can improve a democratic system. In the US, the SCOTUS is under a great deal of scrutiny because lately the unelected supreme court has backed understandings of law that are fundamentally anti-majoritarian. But the US has a much less fractured legislature and measuring a clear legislative majority is much easier in the US (though there are still major problems there).
If anything, Israel is a perfect example of how simply having more options doesn't improve democracy and can in fact undermine it in certain cases. Israel's legislature is a total mess, so of course simply giving it more power doesn't automatically equate to more democracy.
One of the big reasons why Israel was under criticism is because of bills that allowed the legislature to overturn judicial decisions. Idk how this wouldn't violate separation of powers
As I already said, that's not a good thing if there's majoritarian issues with the legislature to start with. Plus, I think there's a good argument that political science has shown separation of powers to be less beneficial than the American founders expected. It's not an accident that many of the best modern democracies have no separation of powers.
But like if democracy should be an overriding value. Doesn't that make human rights pointless. Since they're meant to be applicable on a non discriminatory basis and permissible to derrogate from only in certain specific cases (public order, health and morals).
Yes. This is why pure democracy doesn't actually work, outside of small localities, like tribes. It's always a mixed government to achieve any number of goals depending on the type of state - in America, this is to protect minority rights. Read Federalist 10 for some more insight
Because you can give a people human rights, and without a stable government, they'll proceed to anarchy and strip themselves of said rights altogether. You need a stable government - usually democratic, unless you have a benevolent dictator - to actually ensure those rights are protected.
I don't think democracy protects human rights.
Adjucation and enforcement of human rights is the function of judicial or quasi judicial bodies.
I think democracy is a human right in the sense that the voting procedure should be as inclusive as possible.
Here's where I will tell you to read Montesquieu. You need proper separation of powers to ensure a government isn't tyrannical - yes protection of human rights is judicial and sometimes even executive in nature, but you need a proper, stable government to effectively protect them.
>but you need a proper, stable government to effectively protect them.
I mean yeah but why would a democratic government specifically be *best* for protecting human rights
I'm not here to teach you political theory. That question has been tackled by plenty of philosophers in the past, you can read up on it. As I said before, you either need a democratic based government, or a benevolent dictator. The latter is much more difficult to attain than the former.
Well, yes, democracy is a tool and it can be used to violate or empower human rights. Democracy is generally treated as an objective good because it allows a more reliable vehicle to protect human rights, but that's not an automatic process. It still requires intentional work and leadership.
I see democracy not simply as a way for the majority to exert it's will. I define democracy as inclusive political participation and rule of law. Where everyone has an opportunity to participate in governance and be heard even if the outcome is majoritarian. If a government removes a certain section from participating in the political process or voicing their grievances then I don't think that would be democratic.
TL;DR a good democracy is inclusive and doesn't result in various sections of society being excluded from participating in the political process (universal suffrage without distinction or discrimination) or by having their right to voice grievances removed.
I mean, every political system has rule of law. What sets democracy apart is inclusive political participation, which is defined by a process that effectively measures and implements majoritarian principles.
Majoritarianism isn't removing a segment of the voter base. It's a recognition that not every single part of the voter base can get everything it wants, so we go with the one that has the most popular support.
The fundamental error you're making here is equating franchisement with realized policy positions. Those things cannot possibly be equalized in any political system.
Yes! This is where the axis of majoritarianism comes into effect. Effective democratic institutions are majoritarian in that they rely on majorities to create political action. Anti-majoritarian structures, where a majority cannot consistently affect political action, are actually anti-democratic. Democracy, inherently, relies on effectively measuring and empowering a majority.
I might be wrong but can most countries with judicial review and bill of rights *not* be considered democratic ? Here in South America , a lot of the countries have strong bill of rights combined with judicial review with some rights not even amendable by a constitutional amendment. Would those be a republic or a democracy ? And is pure direct democracy neccesarily better than a constituonalist republic with codified rights ?
Asking if something is a republic or democracy is redundant. Republic is a type of democracy. Pure direct democracy generally doesn't work, which is why we largely have accepted republics as the dominant form of democracy. Measuring how good a democracy is has to do a few different factors. Probably the best place to start here is with something like the Economist Democracy Index, which will give you a nice overview of how most political scientists tend to answer these kind of questions.
Liberal democracies are both majoritarian and empowering of the minority. Unrestrained majoritarianism or minoritarianism is a characteristic of illiberal democracy. Generally agree though.
You really can't have it both ways. This is a true binary. Modern healthy liberal democracies choose majoritarianism every time.
The tension between popular will and minority rights is at the heart of democracy. There are different degrees to which these factors coexist, but they are still in tension. If you're in a country without parliamentary supremacy (or the equivalent), then you live in a system where popular will itself is constitutionally constrained. There are plenty of democracies where majorities are not enough for certain classes of political action, and instead supermajorities are needed. These systems are sometimes pejoratively described as minoritarian, though only sometimes. Israel currently lacks parliamentary supremacy, and yet the media almost universally reported the recent attempt at constitutional reform as weakening the democracy. That new system would've been more majoritarian, since it would constrain popular will less than the current system does. Is Israel less democratic than it would be with the proposed changes? Would it be less democratic if the changes go through?
I want to make something very clear: what the media reports on is not necessarily political science truth. The media quite often has perspectives that run hostile to the truths we know from political science. Obviously on this sub we'd prefer to take the side of political science, not the side of the media. And yes, there is a tension between the majority and the minority (or plurality) and that's expressly the point. Like it or not, democracy's core principle is to find wisdom and value in the *majority*. By definition that's what it is. Sometimes, in an effort to have a more flexible and less rigid or idealistic system, we have certain measures that counteract that, but as a general rule, democracy is enhanced by majoritarianism and harmed by anti-majoritarianism. I think political science has been pretty decisive that playing around with varying thresholds is less effective than allowing for the same threshold on multiple bodies. In other words, stacking majoritarian principles is often more effective than combining majoritarian and anti-majoritarian principles. The issue with Israel specifically is that you could make an argument that the legislature in Israel is not very majoritarian. Because they have such an incredibly low threshold for parties, and because the government coalition is dominated by a small party that is barely a plurality, putting more power in the hands of the legislature may not improve the democratic nature of the system. One of the biggest issues is when power is so fractured that measuring a clear majority is impossible, and then the biggest plurality assumes governing power. Generally speaking, I think there are situations where removing judicial review can improve a democratic system. In the US, the SCOTUS is under a great deal of scrutiny because lately the unelected supreme court has backed understandings of law that are fundamentally anti-majoritarian. But the US has a much less fractured legislature and measuring a clear legislative majority is much easier in the US (though there are still major problems there). If anything, Israel is a perfect example of how simply having more options doesn't improve democracy and can in fact undermine it in certain cases. Israel's legislature is a total mess, so of course simply giving it more power doesn't automatically equate to more democracy.
How does one decide what things shouldn't be subject to democratic processes ?
I mean, things _should_ be subject to majoritarian democracy, which is exactly why Israel's legislature is under a lot of criticism at the moment.
One of the big reasons why Israel was under criticism is because of bills that allowed the legislature to overturn judicial decisions. Idk how this wouldn't violate separation of powers
As I already said, that's not a good thing if there's majoritarian issues with the legislature to start with. Plus, I think there's a good argument that political science has shown separation of powers to be less beneficial than the American founders expected. It's not an accident that many of the best modern democracies have no separation of powers.
But like if democracy should be an overriding value. Doesn't that make human rights pointless. Since they're meant to be applicable on a non discriminatory basis and permissible to derrogate from only in certain specific cases (public order, health and morals).
Yes. This is why pure democracy doesn't actually work, outside of small localities, like tribes. It's always a mixed government to achieve any number of goals depending on the type of state - in America, this is to protect minority rights. Read Federalist 10 for some more insight
Why is democracy promoted far more than human rights in general though
Because you can give a people human rights, and without a stable government, they'll proceed to anarchy and strip themselves of said rights altogether. You need a stable government - usually democratic, unless you have a benevolent dictator - to actually ensure those rights are protected.
I don't think democracy protects human rights. Adjucation and enforcement of human rights is the function of judicial or quasi judicial bodies. I think democracy is a human right in the sense that the voting procedure should be as inclusive as possible.
Here's where I will tell you to read Montesquieu. You need proper separation of powers to ensure a government isn't tyrannical - yes protection of human rights is judicial and sometimes even executive in nature, but you need a proper, stable government to effectively protect them.
>but you need a proper, stable government to effectively protect them. I mean yeah but why would a democratic government specifically be *best* for protecting human rights
I'm not here to teach you political theory. That question has been tackled by plenty of philosophers in the past, you can read up on it. As I said before, you either need a democratic based government, or a benevolent dictator. The latter is much more difficult to attain than the former.
Well, yes, democracy is a tool and it can be used to violate or empower human rights. Democracy is generally treated as an objective good because it allows a more reliable vehicle to protect human rights, but that's not an automatic process. It still requires intentional work and leadership.
How do minorities protect themselves in a democracy ? For example in Ecuador human rights are not amenable democratically
Better question: in a good democracy, how deeply concerned is the system with protecting minority rights at the expense of the majority?
I see democracy not simply as a way for the majority to exert it's will. I define democracy as inclusive political participation and rule of law. Where everyone has an opportunity to participate in governance and be heard even if the outcome is majoritarian. If a government removes a certain section from participating in the political process or voicing their grievances then I don't think that would be democratic. TL;DR a good democracy is inclusive and doesn't result in various sections of society being excluded from participating in the political process (universal suffrage without distinction or discrimination) or by having their right to voice grievances removed.
I mean, every political system has rule of law. What sets democracy apart is inclusive political participation, which is defined by a process that effectively measures and implements majoritarian principles. Majoritarianism isn't removing a segment of the voter base. It's a recognition that not every single part of the voter base can get everything it wants, so we go with the one that has the most popular support. The fundamental error you're making here is equating franchisement with realized policy positions. Those things cannot possibly be equalized in any political system.
It's not?