6 ms·

AfD is garbage, but banning it might be counter-productive. A democracy should have institutions that would ensure it's survival even if the biggest idiots tak

AfD is garbage, but banning it might be counter-productive. A democracy should have institutions that would ensure it's survival even if the biggest idiots take over - because one day they will.

purerandomness 3y ago
The Nazi's playbook, however, is to disable the institutions that ensures its survival, as a first measure as soon as they take over. The trick is to figure out the day before it's too late. Last time, for example, it didn't work.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
What if banning parties like AfD is the institution that ensures democracy's survival?
- ms4720 3y ago
  Then your country is too weak for democracy
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    Then what?
- xedrac 3y ago
  I think by definition, that's no longer democracy.
  - effie 3y ago
    Democracy does not imply that a political party cannot be banned. Nazi party is forbidden in many countries that are usually considered democratic or at least flawed democratic (democratic formally, but not in effect). Democracy in contemporary context also does not mean direct democracy, it means representative democracy. That's why banning a party that has overwhelming popular support can still be democratic, if it is done lawfully by democratically controlled institutions (via regular and free elections). Dissent of the people for a specific decision or policy does not have legal power in standard democracies unless a special mechanism is invoked, such as referendum with the power of law (whose invocation the president or representatives have to agree on, details depend on country).
    - illiac786 3y ago
      This. Why does everyone think banning a party MUST be antidemocratic? If it can be proven that AfD is supporting Nazi views for example (which I am convinced many of its leaders are), then it's illegal in Germany and should be banned. Why would a party be above the law? But scrutiny must work both ways, they should only be banned after due process.
      - effie 3y ago
        > Why does everyone think banning a party MUST be antidemocratic? Probably because those "everyone" (in fact, a big portion of population) wants to have that party that the other side wants to ban, and there is chance it could happen. So they try to defend it preemptively by suggesting any banning in general would not be democratic (which is probably not true). Another reason is that in recent history, most if not all German governments banning parties either were undemocratic, or turned out to dismantle democracy.
        illiac786 3y ago
        I meant here on HN. I seriously doubt there's a lot of AfD voters on HN =)
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago
  If someone has to save democracy by destroying it through thwarting its democratic processes, did they really save democracy? To be clear, I do not welcome the resurgence of the far-right. But blaming voters for voting in ways you might not prefer is like a movie director blaming the public for not enjoying their movie or a chef blaming diners for not enjoying their cooking; it is utterly wrongheaded. The question for the left and centrist parties is how they have failed so utterly and pathetically in presenting a compelling case to the public to vote for them.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  “What if Anakin Skywalker actually saved all the children by killing them?” If you vote badly and that kills democracy, that’s just a risk you have to accept. If you believe in democracy you believe stupid people have a voice.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  I think reasonable follow up for banning a party would be to automatically ban any party that even a single member voted in favour of the ban. And also bar any current members from those parties from holding up any elected role for rest of their lives. Checks and balances. To ban someone you must be ready to fully give up your own political care. It seems just fair. This would ensure that bans only happen when people think they are absolutely needed.

AfD is garbage, but banning it might be counter-productive. A democracy should have institutions that would ensure it's survival even if the biggest idiots take over - because one day they will.

purerandomness 3y ago

The Nazi's playbook, however, is to disable the institutions that ensures its survival, as a first measure as soon as they take over. The trick is to figure out the day before it's too late. Last time, for example, it didn't work.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

What if banning parties like AfD is the institution that ensures democracy's survival?

ms4720 3y ago
Then your country is too weak for democracy
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Then what?
xedrac 3y ago
I think by definition, that's no longer democracy.
- effie 3y ago
  Democracy does not imply that a political party cannot be banned. Nazi party is forbidden in many countries that are usually considered democratic or at least flawed democratic (democratic formally, but not in effect). Democracy in contemporary context also does not mean direct democracy, it means representative democracy. That's why banning a party that has overwhelming popular support can still be democratic, if it is done lawfully by democratically controlled institutions (via regular and free elections). Dissent of the people for a specific decision or policy does not have legal power in standard democracies unless a special mechanism is invoked, such as referendum with the power of law (whose invocation the president or representatives have to agree on, details depend on country).
  - illiac786 3y ago
    This. Why does everyone think banning a party MUST be antidemocratic? If it can be proven that AfD is supporting Nazi views for example (which I am convinced many of its leaders are), then it's illegal in Germany and should be banned. Why would a party be above the law? But scrutiny must work both ways, they should only be banned after due process.
    - effie 3y ago
      > Why does everyone think banning a party MUST be antidemocratic? Probably because those "everyone" (in fact, a big portion of population) wants to have that party that the other side wants to ban, and there is chance it could happen. So they try to defend it preemptively by suggesting any banning in general would not be democratic (which is probably not true). Another reason is that in recent history, most if not all German governments banning parties either were undemocratic, or turned out to dismantle democracy.
      - illiac786 3y ago
        I meant here on HN. I seriously doubt there's a lot of AfD voters on HN =)
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
If someone has to save democracy by destroying it through thwarting its democratic processes, did they really save democracy? To be clear, I do not welcome the resurgence of the far-right. But blaming voters for voting in ways you might not prefer is like a movie director blaming the public for not enjoying their movie or a chef blaming diners for not enjoying their cooking; it is utterly wrongheaded. The question for the left and centrist parties is how they have failed so utterly and pathetically in presenting a compelling case to the public to vote for them.
Shawnj2 3y ago
“What if Anakin Skywalker actually saved all the children by killing them?” If you vote badly and that kills democracy, that’s just a risk you have to accept. If you believe in democracy you believe stupid people have a voice.
Ekaros 3y ago
I think reasonable follow up for banning a party would be to automatically ban any party that even a single member voted in favour of the ban. And also bar any current members from those parties from holding up any elected role for rest of their lives. Checks and balances. To ban someone you must be ready to fully give up your own political care. It seems just fair. This would ensure that bans only happen when people think they are absolutely needed.