🇳🇱
We have this misconception that #Democracy is executing the will of the majority... But thats not true.
Any democracy that gives 51% of people what they want, even when that is abusive to the wishes of the 49% will not survive, that leads to revolution... democracy has never been about majority rule.
What democracy is about is rule by the people, ALL the people. Any successful system will reach agreements that nearly everyone will be happy enough with so as not to pick up a gun and shoot the other side for oppressing them. Its about compromising enough that everyone can settle rather than agree.
This is exactly why the electorial college and other elements of government exist rather than a simple 51% rule... because we want to make sure any idea has atleast some level of support from most represented groups... so in the end the ones who may not like the vote can at least live with it.
@freemo fun fact: in ancient Greece, democracy was all about the "power" (i.e. 'crazia') to the citzens (i.e. 'demos'), through a majority vote during an assembly, after a free discussion. There were no clear concepts of individual rights and respect of the minority, like in modern democracies. There were no supreme constitutional rights: if the majority vote decides something, this will be effective.
The assembly was used for direct government, and also for judging people in trials. For example Socrate was condemned from a jury of 500 or more citizens. They did not applied codified laws, but they decided that what he was doing was a danger for the values of the community, because the majority of the assembly decided so.
I am aware.. it was a simpler model and I think the evolution was larger a good one... the idea had to start somewhere.
> in other words, in Greece, democracy was like a Tirrany, but instead of giving all the power to a single man, or to a restrict number of people (oligarchia), they gave all the power to the vote of the majority.
Yup we call that a tryanny of the majority.
@freemo in other words, in Greece, democracy was like a Tirrany, but instead of giving all the power to a single man, or to a restrict number of people (oligarchia), they gave all the power to the vote of the majority.
Other fun fact: in many places, the king was not considered a tyrant, but a man that had to "serve" his people and partially subject to law and obliged to be fair. They considered "democracy" too much inefficient, and they trusted more a restricted number of people for taking decisions, protecting the kingdom, and maintaining order.
Often we see history like a fable, but there are many subtle variations.