Sometimes a voting population needs to be protected from the consequences of their vote
Who should have the power to make that decision?
Do you want a benevolent king at the top that can dissolve parliament, dismiss government, call for new elections, make parties illegal, and censor the press?
Or maybe have something like an electoral college?
Or the army coups, if things get too far?
The ultimate check on power is the people. A general strike, large scale protests, and occupation of public buildings can topple a government. Institutions from military, police, local government, government agencies, and so on value their positions and won’t go down with a sinking ship.
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Your first question is pretty philosophical. All I can say, is that most representative governments place a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.
A military takeover based on the desires of a minority of citizens would violate that principal. I don’t think any reasonable person can call it saving democracy.
kadup@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A functional democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority, and people from the US love making this mistake. It is true that the president gets elected by a majority vote… but this person now represents everyone, including the minority that opposes them.
It is natural that their government will make decisions aligned with their voters (in theory) but they shouldn’t be allowed to actively undermine the rights of everyone else.
No matter how inflated your perception of your “flawless” constitution and democracy is, this is something many countries understand pretty well and yours struggles with.
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you honestly think a military junta would be more representative of the American people than Trump, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Also our president is not elected via majority (or plurality) vote. This has been one of the major complaints about the American political system since 2000, so I gotta wonder how much you’re paying attention.
kadup@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Good thing I never made such claim and absolutely nothing on my comment reaches that conclusion, then.
The details about your horrendous electoral system are irrelevant to the point, which by now is very clear you didn’t understand.
You’re not doing much to fight the stereotype of americans lacking basic reading comprehension though.
door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Yes, but it is a question that is pertinent to the situation. What do you do if a population elects someone that starts undermining their democracy? I understand that forcibly taking that person’s power away is in itself anti-democratic, but if their actions are even worse, then it would be justified right? A smaller anti-democratic act to save the democratic system that they’re dismantling.
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You’re basically describing the Riechstag fire decree.
door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Or Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt. That’s the problem with this, it all depends on what the consequences of waiting it out are.