Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if either judicial or legislative power is transferred to the executive branch (cabinet etc) then you are no longer a modern democracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your post is nice and intuitively plausible, but the point is that you're essentially playing fast and loose with the semantics of 'democracy'. For example, I think it is generally accepted that whatever a democracy is, the UK is one of them [if you disagree based on your criteria, I think you can be legitimately accused of fallaciously defining the problem out of existence]
Now, I'm not sure how much you know about our political system, but the executive branch (i.e Cabinet and the PM) is in practically completely control of the legislative branch (i.e. Parliament). So we fail one of your necessary conditions already.
This is all getting off the point anyway, which is that the Nazi analogy used in the first place (a few pages back) is a perfectly legitimate analogy to use, because even if you argue about to what extent Germany was a democracy, it is hard to argue that Hitler didn't at least have a democratic mandate (or at least as much of a democratic mandate as Labour do currently), and so I'd still be interested in your response to bkholdem's original point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the example is flawed because Germany became a tyranny in 1933, any politics enacted thereafter were not democratic. And making a point that it was a democracy in the first place is also flawed because it wasn't, it was a failed attempt to institutionalize democratic principle. Hitler's appointment to chancellor was not a democratic appointment.
|