Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
OK, arguing about how democratic the Nazi regime was is getting kinda boring.
The essential point can be made without any historical controversies:
Imagine if, say, the UK (which I think we can agree is democratic to any required extent) tomorrow elected a government based on a manifesto dedicated to the extermination of all the Jews in the country. In your opinion, would that government be acting legitimately in carrying out its democratically mandated policy? If yes, then congratulations, you're crazy; If no, then why not? What are the limitations of democracy, and how exactly are these limitations decided?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was abit rusty and checked the UK on Wiki, as I understood it does indeed have parliamentarism, even a very rigorous one, so I'm bit confused on your earlier comment on the UK not having a proper legislative branch.
I forego the technicals, ie. if we assume your elected british nazi party did NOT remove the legislative branches, judicial branches or something similar (which in practice I think is close to impossible but w/e, this is hypothetical anyway) they would have to pass probably thousands of acts of law to make their policy legitimate, and the passing those laws would effectively seize the principles of equality and freedom of religion to exist within your borders and you would have gone from being a modern democracy to being a 'tyranny of majority' - which is a fairly complex legal term used when discussing this very issue.
This is also the reason why I always denote democracy with 'modern democracy' or 'liberal democracy', to make sure people know what I support.
|