Restricted democracy?

In most republics / democracies, the right to vote was restricted more or less at the start. (Women, young people, poor people, illiterates, foreigners / new immigrants, cultural or religious minorities, criminals, non-landowners, even soldiers were or are excluded from voting in some democracies.) Of course, this changed during the years - it's too difficult to tell the non-voters that they have to pay taxes or go to war for something they don't want and have no way to prevent.
However: AFAIR the founding fathers (i.e. the Federalists among them) were mostly for a more restricted democracy, because they thought "if we give the right to vote to the poor, they'll simply vote for whoever promises the most money to them". WI they had successfully prevented the general right for voting? How would history be changed?

Heh, German democracy IS restricted. "Wehrhafte Demokratie". So its not like we would lack an example.

What you propose is a kinda oligarchy, or a timocracy. I can see it happen in the USA, but still than the american revolution would contribute to the french revolution, but the french revolution would soon become too radical to stop at an oligarchy.

Susano said:

Heh, German democracy IS restricted. "Wehrhafte Demokratie". So its not like we would lack an example.

What you propose is a kinda oligarchy, or a timocracy. I can see it happen in the USA, but still than the american revolution would contribute to the french revolution, but the french revolution would soon become too radical to stop at an oligarchy.

Click to expand...

1. Where is democracy in Germany restricted? Can´t see a sign of it, really. Wehrhafte Demokratie just says that a party or group which tries actively to overthrow the political system, gets problems with the authority.
Like the Baader-Meinhof gang, the communist party in thr 50s in the west.

2. The right to vote has to go with the ability to select between ideas.
This needss several skills like literacy (so you don´t depend on your village elder to tell you what the newspaper says, the law says etc), and property on a certain scale. (Giving the vote to a medieval peasant working the farm of his overlord in fact just gives the overlord x votes with x being the number of "voters" in his villages.

Democracy based on property is not demcoravcy anymore, though. Its Timocracy, where you get differentw eighted votes on different tax amounts.

And if you forbid parties (SRP, KPD, nearly the NPD, good thing the Verfassungschutz's own incompetence prevented it!), than this is a restricted democracy!

Susano said:

Democracy based on property is not demcoravcy anymore, though. Its Timocracy, where you get differentw eighted votes on different tax amounts.

And if you forbid parties (SRP, KPD, nearly the NPD, good thing the Verfassungschutz's own incompetence prevented it!), than this is a restricted democracy!

Click to expand...

I was referring to a evolutional approach to democracy (with full voting rights for everybody at the end). A pattern that can be seen as typical in the western world.
And I didn´t say that the overlord has the voting rights de jure, then it would be system you mentioned (haven´t heard the term myself yet) but de facto as he can order everybody to do what he wants.

There is an old cartoon I think from the simplicissimus: East Prussian Junker calls out the election results: "There have been 2 votes for the Social Democrats. The poor fund (Armenkasse) won´t recveive any more potatoes.


And democracy doesn´t mean everybody can do what he wants, but that he can do it constriced by law, tradition, common sense. And here´s the law applied.
That the NPD wasn´t forbidden, well, the Government just acted with their usual amount of skill.

The Schulmeister (school principal) doesnt get potatos anymore

Democracy must be open to everything. What is the difference to fundamentalism, commnism, nazism? They too crakc downon everything that is not their ideology. Democracy must be different. And its a hybris of government when it decides which parteis ar egood for the people and which not! Thank you very much, I can very much decide this on my own! There must not be a lw limiting it - else the countrys no full democracy.

Susano said:

The Schulmeister (school principal) doesnt get potatos anymore

Democracy must be open to everything. What is the difference to fundamentalism, commnism, nazism? They too crakc downon everything that is not their ideology. Democracy must be different. And its a hybris of government when it decides which parteis ar egood for the people and which not! Thank you very much, I can very much decide this on my own! There must not be a lw limiting it - else the countrys no full democracy.

Click to expand...

I give you the point with the Schulmeister.

Democracy is open to anything. If you like, you can walk around in your cellar praising the wisdom of Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden. "Die Gedanken sind frei" , as the old student´s song goes.

And the KPD, SRP and now KPD were not forbidden for thinking about, or wishing another government but because they actively pursued a policy against fundamental laws we quite reasonably try to hold up because there is some historical evidence from between 1933-1945 and 1945-1989 for the eastern part what happens if you don´t.

You realise that "Die GEdanken is frei" is satirical? Not only the thoughts should be free, but the speech, too. Free speech, a fundamental politcial AND civil right!
Of course, politically they purused anti-democratic aims,. bt so what? They still can only come to power by elections. If they do so, however, in that unlikely case, it has been the wish of the people and thus to be respected.

You see, democracy can never be saved by rules. It rises and falsl with the peoples mindset. If the people have an anti-democratic mindset, those rules cannot save us from falling into despotism, because rules need people to live them. If the people have a democratic mindset, though, one does not NEED those rules.
So either way the restrictions are uncessary!
Weimar had a pretyt godo constiution, but obviously the peoples mindset was anything, but not democratic.

In Heinlein's Starship Troopers only the veterans are allowed to vote.

Franklin had a comment on Property based voting.

He suggests the case of a man who owned a Jackass worth- I think it was $25 who therefore owned enough, in that juristiction, to vote.

The man learns more and becomes wiser. Sadly the Jackass dies. The man no longer had a vote. Franklin asked this question:

"So who had the vote the man or the Jackass?"


Actually movements in the franchise, in the United States, have moved both ways. For instance in the 1800s in many states you did NOT have to be a Citizent to vote.

Then too Millions of African American men had their votes taken away between 1876 and 1900 by a variety of legal and illegal means

I would think that sooner or later, the vote would be given to everyone. With all the immigrants pouring into the country, and the rapid population growth, just how long are all these people going to settle for being disenfranchised? Sometime in the early 20th century (at the latest) the Constitution will be amended and everyone will be given the vote...

Susano said:

You realise that "Die GEdanken is frei" is satirical? Not only the thoughts should be free, but the speech, too. Free speech, a fundamental politcial AND civil right!
Of course, politically they purused anti-democratic aims,. bt so what? They still can only come to power by elections. If they do so, however, in that unlikely case, it has been the wish of the people and thus to be respected.

You see, democracy can never be saved by rules. It rises and falsl with the peoples mindset. If the people have an anti-democratic mindset, those rules cannot save us from falling into despotism, because rules need people to live them. If the people have a democratic mindset, though, one does not NEED those rules.
So either way the restrictions are uncessary!
Weimar had a pretyt godo constiution, but obviously the peoples mindset was anything, but not democratic.

Click to expand...

But this amount of poltilical laissez-faire helps them: You mentionioned Weimar: When the laws to the protection of the republic were not enforced, or not renewed, the extremists of the far left and the far right ran berserk in the streets, intimidated activists from the centre and did everything they could to bring the system to collapse.
It´s in the nature of political extremists to use violence. That´s why they are called extremists.
It would be quite weird: If you shoot someone down, you get jailed. If you do it b/o political convictions, you propably get jailed, too.
But the party official who held a speech urging "the masses" =this means you to take up the gun, the organisation coordinating him, printed his flyers etc. works with impunity.

Other point:
1. I´ve got the impression this part of the thread interests only us two,
2. I feel increasingly silly discussing this in english.


Greats, Steffen

Lol. Scott (Faelin) already mentioned some posts make no sense to him. Guess the sense got lost into the translation. If one has a democracy, it should be full democracy. The people shoudld decide the course of the country, and if that means nazism or ocmmunism, then so be it.

I cant say much on th other part of the thread because, well, its american history, heh.

As usual, Pascal is too much a sincere and coherent democrat...
But democracy has its own enemies inside, and should always decide if leaving them free to speak or not.
It essentially depends on the given situation. If the radical/revolutionary party operates in a context in which it has no probabilty to triumph alone (at worst it will gain, say, a 10% but never more) you can leave it free, and even accept it into some coalition gov't proviso it doesn't swallow it.
But 1) when a party has a paramilitary apparatus which actually makes extensive use of violence
AND, still more important, 2) when too powerful a tycoon/oligarch/corporations compact/what you want stands behind a rising political force, democracy MUST pass to active and preventive self-defence.

So: no extremists in power, no timocracy (I'm strongly convvinced the goivernemnt of the rich is an abominable imposture and a mortal offence to democracy. They just steal even more than the poor. So, if politics is stealing, at least be the poor and middle-class the ones who steal)

basileus... Basileus.... *tries to remember*.... ah, Stefano?

When the party uses violent means, than it of coruse is NOT protected by free speech anymore however, if partys are banned just because of their political alignment, than what else is it IF NOT restricting democracy??

If given too much power, a democracy can be just as bad as any other system of government. That's why I favor the old American solution to the problem - have a government that is strongly restricted in its powers. That way, no matter who controls the government, there isn't too much power for them to abuse.

As for restricting the vote, I can see a system arising in which only people who pay more into the government (taxes) than they get out of it (pay, welfare, etc.) are allowed to vote. Some people in the US would like such a system, because they feel that people who depend on the government for their paycheck or their welfare check have a vested interest in making the government more and more powerful, and are therefore a threat to limited government. I think that such a system could arise in the United States, but probably not in Europe. As a general rule, European culture is much more friendly to powerful governments than the US is.

tom said:

In Heinlein's Starship Troopers only the veterans are allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

Minus the heavily militaristic and Spartan overtones in Starship Troopers, I have been impressed by Heinlein's notion that full citizenship - ie voting rights - should perhaps be something which is earned at adulthood, not automatic just because one is born in a particular place. As an American, I sometimes believe that immigrants who go through the naturalization process and take an oath value their citizenship more than many native-born Americans. I'm not sure if there is a truly fair solution to this, but I wonder what would happen if the US required some type of national service (military or otherwise) before voting rights were bestowed on anyone residing or born in this country.