Democracy, free speech or the rule of law?

[jBirch]

Hey all,

With the CBC down my evening drives have been filled with the wonderful thoughts of the BBC. One of their reporters is doing a piece on democracy and what it is.

The recent crusade to bring "democracy" to the world and thereby fix what ails it is a noble goal, but I wonder if it's a bit wide of the mark. I'm wondering what's more important in your mind (and you have to prioritise):

1) The ability to freely elect officials.
2) The ability to freely (and safely) criticise harshly
3) The Rule of Law.

My vote is for the Rule of Law. A monarchy, a communist country and a dictatorship can all be very effective IMHO, if everyone lives equally under the law. It's the rule of law that brings peace, not democratic process.

James.

[esskreemr]

Ohhhhhh...this should be good.

[Larrison]

Hmm.. I'll disagree. Having only the rule of law does not address the question of how the law is written and imposed, and who does the writing and enforcing of the law?

*If* you have a good basis of laws and they are fairly enforced -- that's the best. But how did you get them in the first place?

If (for an hypothetical question) that a law was passed to outlaw ownership of all swords, including fencing weapons, how could you appeal or change those in a dictatorship or one-party state? The key thing with a democracy is that you can change the law in order to best reflect the desires and needs of the citizens. And if necessary, you change the people who make the laws without force of arms.

But I also note, the structural form of the government in that it should have an independent judiciary which administers the law, is also needed. You don't one one party of any ilk to also control the judicary down to the lowest levels, and you want a tradition of independence in the judiciary where they are committed to the idea of justice and fairness, instead of hack political partisanship.

I can be argued back and forth between a representative democracy (such as with the US Congress and Presidency, or a PM and Parliament) or a direct democracy (only having a president or other national adminstrator) -- but I think the key is having a voice in who is running the government, and who is making the laws. Without that, you have no feedback system to correct for something that is stupid that may become law.

[Epee_Pox]

It's a false choice.


Rule of law without legitimate law is bad.

Democracy without rule of law is pointless.

Democracy without free speech is an absurdity.


So if you think the most legitimate law comes from a democratic kind of process, then you need all three. Absence of any one of these ruins it all.

[jBirch]

Ah, but if you have universal applicability of the law then even those writing the laws are subject to them. Kind of prevents really stupid laws from being written.

I agree that democracy without rule of law and truly free speech doesn't work. Just take a look at Cambodia, to quote last night's BBC broadcast.

Can a monarchy, communist or a dictatorship perform as justly and optimally in the long run if the universal rule of law holds? If one of the laws is against criticising the government?

I think it can. That it is the universal and equal applicability of the law that brings peace and stability. Not the manner in which those laws are written nor how they are limited.

James.

[L.O.A.S.]

My vote is for the Rule of Law. A monarchy, a communist country and a dictatorship can all be very effective IMHO, if everyone lives equally under the law.

Was there ever a fair/just monarchy, communist regime or dictatorship? The problem with these types of governments is that the masses are equal, often equally oppressed. When there is unlimited power in the hands of one or a few without accountability, problems are bound to happen, not only for those poor unfortunates who live under that rule but for neighboring countries as well.

It's the rule of law that brings peace, not democratic process.

Are we talking peace on a global level, or just in your community? There will always be bad apples out there stirring up trouble (regardless of the rule of law). Democracies make it difficult for those people to rise to power, and limit that power through various checks and balances within the government. I would think that trying to bring this type of system to a region that historically has always had “single point failure” type governments would be a good thing. I got the impression that the reporter you referred to has some issues with the “crusade”.

[jeff]

"Democracy, free speech or the rule of law?"

I'll use the rock musician answer to "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" - "I'll take 3 of each please".

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Was there ever a fair/just monarchy, communist regime or dictatorship?

No country is perfect, but I happen to live in a reasonably fair and just Monarchy (capital M) - Sweden.

There are several other good examples - Norway, Denmark, GB, the Benelux countries, and Japan, for example.

Singapore is, or at least has been, a strange thing: English-speaking dictatorship without corruption and AFAIK even application of the written (harsh) law.

I agree with Epee Pox that the choice is false; lack of one usually leads to the other two going bad.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson