• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Of Constitutions and Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
This is a question that arose from one of my discussions with Mozz on AIM, re : politics, etc.

Essentialy, the question is : If you had to chose, would you rather have a government that is NOT a democracy, but which has its power controled and limited by a solid and well-defended constitution (or charter of rights, or any other document setting out the limits of the government's power, and the rights of the people) , or a government that is a democracy, but where the constitutions is a one-line thing that set out regular elections, and no other restraint of any sort on the government, nor rights for the people?
 
The problem is that no solid constitution exists. All forms of government on this planet have flaws, some less apparent than others. If you don't set out any rules except for election, then not only can the government do what it wants, but the people can do what they want, too. That is not a society, it's chaos. Only people that are naturally wise and fair would be able to make something like that work.
 
Does this assume that the politicians actually follow the constitution?
 
As I said - the constitution comes with sufficient means to enforce it.
 
I think we need to have more information on the constitution in both cases.
In the non-democratic government, exactly what sort of people are put in charge?
In the democratic system, what limitations are there on who had the right to vote?

I'll take whichever one places intelligent and experienced professionals in charge, and reject the one that instates mob or arbitrary rule.
 
Okay, sorry, I read "well-defended" as "well-defined". I don't know then, I guess I'd prefer the one with the solid constitution. But then, I don't think either one would be exactly ideal.
 
Damian Silverblade said:
As I said - the constitution comes with sufficient means to enforce it.
Click to expand...

But does that mean it actually GETS enforced? Most countries have systems in place to defend their constitutions...doesn't mean they ever use them.

Assuming this one ruler thing doesn't include some sort of Hitler- or Stalin-esque figure, then I'd be all for it. Voting only works if it results in anything. Without a well-defended constitution, there's no reason to assume the voting would be upheld. The shorter the constitution, the more room there is to interpret to fit the ruling power.
 
Hmmm... I'd prefer the constitution. Elected officials can get pretty scary sometimes(Not that dictators aren't worse, but there's a reason for constitutions) and a good constitution protects the necessary rights governments are made to secure.

(OTOH, if the constitution didn't protect stuff like free speech/religion, due process, et al, or limited those protections to certain classes... Then I put my faith in the public.)
 
In a practical sense, the first one (non-democratic with constitution) is what we already have.
 
And the second one (democracy without consitution) is what the Christian right wing would like to have :-D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom