Is It Democratic To Elect A Dictator Or A Lunatic ?

[khairyexpat]

Hypothetically speaking:

Some lunatic or dictator managed to manipulate his own people to elect him/her fair and square, would that process be still considered democratic?

 

[camberiu]

You mean, like in Germany during the 1930s?

 

[ghost]

It's done all the time. The name Bush ring any bells.

 

[khairyexpat]

You mean, like in Germany during the 1930s?

Or KFC.

No, seriously, ... hypothetically !!!

 

[khairyexpat]

It's done all the time. The name Bush ring any bells.

So, is it, OR is it not ?

I don´t want to beat around the bush.

 

[camberiu]

It does not stop being "democratic" if a bad choice is made. You can very "democratically" completely destroy your society and persecute entire groups of people. It happens all the time. The confinement of Japanese Americans on prison camps during World War II was done very "democratically". It was 100% unconstitutional, but done very democratically. The same can be said about the Patriot Act.

 

[thorsten]

It's election is democratic, the problem is that often non-democratic actions are following.

 

[Chet]

Democracy is another way to say mob rule. Mobs can do a lot of stuff that is actually against self interest. Voting in a despot is often just the beginning.

 

[khairyexpat]

Democracy is another way to say mob rule. Mobs can do a lot of stuff that is actually against self interest. Voting in a despot is often just the beginning.

Shocking statement.

 

[khairyexpat]

Democracy is another way to say mob rule. Mobs can do a lot of stuff that is actually against self interest. Voting in a despot is often just the beginning.

Still can´t get over the first shock.
Like turning the whole world on its head.

But, if it is self destructive (the way you put it), why every politician on earth is rapping himself in its flag ?
Why is it sought after at all corners of the earth ?