PDA

View Full Version : Is democracy limited to the legislative ?



Maciamo
20-01-07, 00:44
People have become obssessed about the term "democracy" since the late 20th century. Governments are criticised for not being (enough) democratic. Countries are invaded so that democracy can be established. Politicians fear being labeled as having 'undemocratic' ideas...

Yet, it is time that people realise that a state is composed of 3 branches : the legislative (parliament), the executive (government), and the judiciary (courts). Yet, in the so called "democartic countries", only the first one is really democratic, as it is the only one which members are directly elected by the people.

In the few countries with a directly elected president (USA, France...), the highest member of the executive is also democratically elected, but not the ministers/secretaries, and even less the administration.

The judiciary is never democratic, apart from the random role played by the jury, when and where there is a jury system...

So saying that a government is democratic is mostly a non-sense, as only parliament can be democratic in today's system.

Duo
04-03-07, 22:41
Well that depends what system we are talking about. In the US federal and state judges for example also have to go under election. Furthermore, supreme court justices are voted in congress, that means that in a way the people's representatives are choosing the judicary, along with the executive, direclty voted by the people, who nominates them. There are also some other bureacratic positions that require elections.

Maciamo
05-03-07, 00:29
Well that depends what system we are talking about. In the US federal and state judges for example also have to go under election. Furthermore, supreme court justices are voted in congress, that means that in a way the people's representatives are choosing the judicary, along with the executive, direclty voted by the people, who nominates them. There are also some other bureacratic positions that require elections.

True that some functions require elections, but they are not democratic elections, right ? Appointing a judge is like appointing a minister, or even a board of administrators appointing a new CEO for a company. There may be a vote, but it is not up to the country's population to decide, only a few people with power and influence.

Silverbackman
29-04-07, 09:28
The only thing "democratic" about nearly all nations claiming to be one is that elections maybe decided democratically. This however does NOT make the legislative or any elected branch a democracy......because the representatives are not required to listen to the people.

In reality, no country today is a democracy. The correct term would be a democratic republic. A republic is far different and far less tyrannical than both a autocracy and a true democracy. But republics can be tyrannical too......especially when the checks and balances have been eroded (which is what has been happening in the US right now).

gidai
05-01-19, 14:19
At least, the office of minister should be won by an exam, in which all those involved have not known to have tangency with politics.
The executive should be chosen according to the personal competence of each candidate. So, an academic exam for all candidates in the field of the ministry, with candidates and examiners who have not been politically involved at all. The winner is the minister.

And, at first, for all those involved, they should not have psychiatric or legal-criminal issues.