Democracy does not prevent tyranny.
Tryanny: 'cruel and oppressive government or rule' (Oxford English Dictionary)
Democracy: 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives' (Oxford English Dictionary)
Many people seem to believe in the illussion that democracy automatically prevents tyranny and these leads to further conclusions that institutions which aren't democratic must be tyrannical. The purpose of this debate is to discuss whether democracy does prevent tyranny and whether it is possible for forms of democracy to remove any chance of tryanny in a state.
For further discussion, you may argue whether it is a good for society that democracy is often represented in a positive light.
Agree
Side Score: 6
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Well, when you have true democracy, what happens? The same thing that happened in Thailand in the past few years: http://www.cfr.org/thailand/ My point is, at SOME POINT someone will get power. The average person doesn't have the judgement to run a country. It requires a rare breed of genius. Even American presidents aren't the average Joe. George W. Bush was dreadful according to most and HE still had to be that breed of genius. See what I'm saying? If you have democracy, then the average Joe's of the world will make all of the decisions without having proper judgement and regret it later. In Thailand, it was tried (like in the article that I linked to earlier) and tons of stuff went wrong. Most people ended up completely unemployed. In places like the US, Britain, Japan, and South Korea, and other places they have prime ministers or presidents, not dictators. And they are DEMOCRATIC republics. Unlike North Korea or China, these countries do best for the people. A democratic republic has proven to work. FULL ON DEMOCRACY USUALLY DOESN'T. It's been tried before. It was tried in Athens and worked then I guess but not usually. Side: Agree
While I agree with your argument overall, there are some points I would like to dispute. "In places like the US, Britain, Japan, and South Korea, and other places they have prime ministers or presidents, not dictators. And they are DEMOCRATIC republics. Unlike North Korea or China, these countries do best for the people. A democratic republic has proven to work. FULL ON DEMOCRACY USUALLY DOESN'T. It's been tried before. It was tried in Athens and worked then I guess but not usually." The countries you listed are partially democratic, but you claim that a democratic republic has 'proven to work'. However the Weimar Republic was also a democratic republic, that did not prevent the Nazi's from obtaining power, the fundamental problem with democracy is that it can easily lead to demagogueries, where a political leader is elected purely because they appeal to the lowest common denominator in a population, this will quite often be a public anger or hatred which the political leader will then incorporate into his campaign. While democratic republics are not pure democracy they still contain some of the faults which pure democracies have. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
Of course! Let me explain the one of many flaws in modern so-called democracy. If there are 100 people who have to vote for one party out of five. Let's say 13% don't vote. 19% vote Liberal, 26% vote conservative, 18% vote green, and 24% vote Labour. The conservatives will win and govern the country. But only 26% of people will want then, the other 74% will not get the person they wanted. But that is supposed to be fair. 'Tis not! I am sorry I avoided the debate aim, but yes it cannot prevent tyranny if it is not perfect it's self. Side: Agree
democracies are elected dictatorships.that is why in many western democracies there are two elected houses of parliament with entirely different ballot systems.it is only on the odd occassion that the voters give a political party a majority in both houses of parliament. Side: Agree
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
