| Eagle367 said: Hey mates, I don't just mean people blatantly exposing their intentions. I also mean anti democratic agents who take actions to undermine democracy while saying so. People like Trump. And I think ultimately stopping anti democratic forces from even participating is more democratic than letting them reign free. As I said, your freedoms end where another begins. You will be dooming your future selves and your descendants to tyranny and non democracy if you don't stop anti democratic forces in your current time. Thus restricting your choices to only democratic politics that is people who still fundamentally believe in democracy and don't wanna destroy it is vital. People like Imran khan, Trump, etc should be stopped for running once they show their anti democratic hands. That is basic safeguarding. I was using the most cartoonish out there example to make a point. Ultimately in a time dependant timescale, absolute democracies are less democratic than democracies with proper safeguards. The wainwright Republic fell to the nazis because it didn't have proper safeguards. And US will fall as well to fascism if it does nothing. |
I don't think that's how it works. Banning people from being elected is a great chance for abuse: if at some point you do end up with someone undemocratic in power anyway, there won't be a democratic way to remove them from power anymore, since they can just decide that their opponents are undemocratic and thus unable to be elected. And even if you don't get that far, you can still be subtle enough to not be anti-democratic enough to get banned from elections. I don't think there's simply a way to effectively ban anti-democratic people from elections and positions of power without opening huge gaps for abuse of power, which is even worse than allowing those people to be elected. The way I see it is that there's two bad options, and the one that's common in democracies is the less bad one (just like democracy is compared to other forms of government).
