I was reading some statistics on the Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel and the numbers outlined the potential for a Jewish fundamentalist state within a generation. Consider the implications given that Israel is nuclear.

There are 8 million residents in Israel and 6 million of them are Jewish. Ultra Orthodox Jews represent nearly 15% of that number and the trend towards Ultra Orthodoxy is rapidly growing as the complacent attitude of the Israeli government to the the land grabs exhibit. Ten or more children are the norm in Ultra Orthodox families and that birth rate will give them a majority voting bloc in a generation.

It is a similar situation in most European countries with the Fundamentalist Muslims being the social engineers, using the birth rate as a natural progression to ruling via the ballot box in a democratic constitution. The issue is of course that the new rulers are totally alien to the existing secular minded citizens. New religious zealot based government will mean policed alien social laws along with religious and cultural indoctrination.

I can certainly see where and how democracy can destroy freedom. Where the will of the like minded are in reality the will of a small group of religious zealots. I think it might be time to appoint a benevolent dictator.

Does Democracy Destroy Freedom?

Yes, it has already !

Dear SOG,

You ask, 'Does Democracy Destroy Freedom?'

We first should define what we mean by 'Democracy.'

"Democracy" actually comes from a Greek word
meaning "rule of the people," and this is no doubt
what the American President Abraham Lincoln had in
mind when he defined democracy as the "government
of the people, by the people, and for the people."

In practice, no such system has ever existed.
Pure democracy would mean that every citizen would
have the right to participate in every decision, a
situation that would lead to complete chaos and
would leave little time for all kinds of other activities.

This ideal form of democracy has been approximated only
in very small communities such as the ancient Greek
city-states and in early New England towns in the US.
Even in these cases, however, the right of participation
was denied to certain people - specifically, both slaves
and women in Greece, and non-property holders and women
in New England.

In practice, the socieites we consider democratic are those
that have institutionalised procedures for periodically
choosimg among contenders for public office. They have a
'Representative Democracy.' That is, the voters elect
representatives who are responsible for making political
decisions.

In all democracies the right of the individual to choose
among alternatives is held in high regard, and this right
pre-supposes such basic civil liberties as freedom of speech
and assembly.

Democracy does not destroy freedom when several basic
conditions have been met:

1) Advanced economic development.
2) Restraints on government power.
3) Absence of major cleavages.
4) Tolerance of dissent.
5) Access to information.
6) Diffusion of power.

Most people tend to simply accept the system they've
been socialised to believe in. Extensive research
on political socialisation has shown that people take
the legitimacy of their particular political system for
granted very early in life, and usually adopt the
political views of their parents. By the time they're
in elementary school, children all over the world take
an overwhelmingly favourable view of their own
country's system and of its national leaders.

This is not an endorsement of dictatorship, merely a personal experience. I lived in Spain 3 years under the dictatorship of Franco, and know the history of the conflict which elevated him to this status.

A person - man or woman- was completely safe walking the streets at any time of day or night.

Penalties for lawbreakers were harsh. I was asked to visit an American young man who was imprisoned for a drug offence. He was in a cell with about 8 other prisoners. They had a bucket in the corner, and straw on the floor. The place smelled more like a zoo to me. They were provided with 1 meal per day, and then relied on friends and relatives for extra food or luxuries. The guards told me that recidivism was rare. There was also an English guy who used to brag that his burglaries in England financed his holidays in Spain. He made the error of being lazy, and did a burglary in Spain. This hardened English criminal, who had been in prison numerous times in the U.K., broke down and cried like a baby asking if I could help him get transferred to England to do his time.

Franco died, and within months there were reports of youths on 2 stroke motorbikes snatching tourists handbags, hate crimes against gays started, and the streets were no longer regarded as safe for women to walk alone.

To this day there are Spanish law abiding citizens who still mourn the death of Franco. It has forever changed their lives.

In certain circumstances maybe be one strong and unchallenged leader is a better choice than democracy as we know it.

Having lived under both ideaologies, all I can say is that I felt safe under Franco's rule. I still think our way of democracy applied by wise leaders could be equally beneficial for us. Right now I would say this is something we don't have.

sonofgloin,worldwatcher & Individual,

You are all definitely onto the new phenomena that is becoming more and more and serious not just here but in the West in general.

Democracy has become nutty - anything is tolerated thesedays. Western societies are becoming welfare communist/totalitarian states. Independant enterprise is no longer encouraged.

I've often thought the same about the positive effects of a benevolent dictator. Enough is enough.

Ww - you do know that the Spanish no longer call their children mama and papa but Progenitor 1 and Progenitor 2. I first heard this years ago when their Socialist govt came into power.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031506.htm

We're surrounded by sleep walkers/stepford wives and fantasists, and dominated by the political elitist latte sippers. I don't know if this is the feminisation of society.

The lefty agenda it seems is now entrenched in our educational institutions and the mantra is western self loathing. Check out Celia Green in the UK - big problems there. I recently met a UK teacher who teaches on a Nigerian island because she can no longer stand teaching in the UK as the kids on the island are so much nicer and teachable.

Lexi again hits the nail on the head.

Democracy should perhaps be viewed as a scale of say, 1 – 10, against the attributes she suggests. Although I’m really disappointed about the “absence of major cleavages”.

If you were to then take western democracy as a scale in the middle, join Marxism to the left and fascism to the right you would have a pretty complete spectrum.

I think that western democracies have the basics of a reasonably balanced system however; I’m not comfortable with the socialization of many aspects of our lives. IMHO, it is this socialization that distorts and divides our communities, thus it is in conflict with democracy