NationStates Jolt Archive

In the 90´s, Algeria had free elections...a hard-line islamist party won the popular vote, and the military-backed governement annuled the elections, claiming that this islamic party couldnt be allowed in power, has it would terminate the democratic regime...in the 1930´s Hitler´s NASDP won German elections by a landslide and pretty much abolished democracy...so, should we allow political parties that have at its belief core the desire to scrap democracy to coexist in the democratic party spectrum? Furthermore, should such parties be assured the right to pursue the popular vote as any other party, in the name of the hallowed principles of free speech and freedom of political association?

Yes.

That's what we have constitutions for.

Uh. Yes. That's the whole idea of Democracy, isn't it?

In the US the Facist parties and the Nazi parties run for president every once in a while. They'll never win but they still are allowed to.

In the US the Facist parties and the Nazi parties run for president every once in a while. They'll never win but they still are allowed to.
Well, in Portugal fascist political associations are banned by the constitution.
In certain Easter-european countries the Communist party was outlawed.
The rationale for both is that they represent a danger to democracy, and the simple ability to publicly espouse fascist or communist ideas is a risk that is not worth taking.

They should be capable of running in a democratic state. If they get elected in by the populous then it just means that the populous doesn't want a democratic state. Though if they are elected without the predeposition that they will renounce democratic ways, then the people should have the power to rebuke their rule.

Unfortunatly, yes. In a democracy every opinion should be allowed. Even shitheads opinions.

The problem here is..not that they get elected...It is after their term is up do you really think they would give up power to another democraticly elected government? Hard line anythings tend not to. That is where the problem is, if they dont give up power rightfully chances are they will abolish the constitution.

Expect Venz to be doing in that say...less then 10 years. You are all popular when you steal stuff from landowners and give to the poor, but eventually youre gonna run out of land to steal and freebies to give away to buy votes...then what?

Yes,they should,as long as they adhere to the law.I´d also like to point out that the NSDAP never had a majority but that Hitler used his status as newly elected chancellor to release a chain of completely legal laws(due to a loophole in the constitution of the Weimarer Republik) to pervert a formerly democratic system into one of the most genocidal governments to ever be seen on the face of the earth.

The problem here is..not that they get elected...It is after their term is up do you really think they would give up power to another democraticly elected government? Hard line anythings tend not to. That is where the problem is, if they dont give up power rightfully chances are they will abolish the constitution.

Expect Venz to be doing in that say...less then 10 years. You are all popular when you steal stuff from landowners and give to the poor, but eventually youre gonna run out of land to steal and freebies to give away to buy votes...then what?
Whos Venz?

It's a neccessary evil. In Germany, we have the NPD, a neo-nazi party, that clearly states that it wants to destroy the democratic order of Germany. As long as they follow the rules for parties, they're game.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't combat them. Banning them is just not the right answer, sometimes.

"Freedom is always the freedom of the one that thinks differently."
-Rosa Luxemburg

It WAS pretty funny when they tried to ban em and all the higher-up people turned out to be undercover cops reporting on each other...

Well, Personally I am not a big fan of democracy anyway, but I wont get into that.

If the people vote for such a party, the obviously that is what they want. This is the essence of democracy itself. If the people vote to abolish democracy who is any individual to say no?

It's a neccessary evil. In Germany, we have the NPD, a neo-nazi party, that clearly states that it wants to destroy the democratic order of Germany. As long as they follow the rules for parties, they're game.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't combat them. Banning them is just not the right answer, sometimes.

"Freedom is always the freedom of the one that thinks differently."
-Rosa Luxemburg
Yes, but is it an one-issue party? Or do the have a comprehensive agenda for society?

Yes, but is it an one-issue party? Or do the have a comprehensive agenda for society?They do. They even have a foreign policy. Their main point in that is that they want to ammend the UN charter because they think it says that any UN member is allowed to occupy the former axis powers should they show signs of aggression (which is technically true, but the Charter they quote isn't the same as the real charter).

They do. They even have a foreign policy. Their main point in that is that they want to ammend the UN charter because they think it says that any UN member is allowed to occupy the former axis powers should they show signs of aggression (which is technically true, but the Charter they quote isn't the same as the real charter).
well, clearly Germany deals with its past much better than Portugal...the portuguese constitution to this day prohibits fascist political associations...and i hear that the Iraqui constitution in-making ban the Baas party.

well, clearly Germany deals with its past much better than Portugal...the portuguese constitution to this day prohibits fascist political associations...and i hear that the Iraqui constitution in-making ban the Baas party.The Ba'ath Party? We ban the NSDAP or any party that calls itself Nazi Party. Banning a specific party isn't the same thing as banning their agenda (though advocating genocide remains banned for good reasons).

The Ba'ath Party? We ban the NSDAP or any party that calls itself Nazi Party. Banning a specific party isn't the same thing as banning their agenda (though advocating genocide remains banned for good reasons).
still, germany allows nazi ideology to be pursued under a different guise...

It's a neccessary evil. In Germany, we have the NPD, a neo-nazi party, that clearly states that it wants to destroy the democratic order of Germany. As long as they follow the rules for parties, they're game.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't combat them. Banning them is just not the right answer, sometimes.

"Freedom is always the freedom of the one that thinks differently."
-Rosa Luxemburg
It also prevents them going underground and keeps them a known menace.

still, germany allows nazi ideology to be pursued under a different guise...True. I take it that's the difference. But banning the Ba'ath party isn't wrong in my eyes, since it's the party of Saddam Hussein.
I agree that Portugal should allow fascist parties, just not the specific ones that caused strife.

True. I take it that's the difference. But banning the Ba'ath party isn't wrong in my eyes, since it's the party of Saddam Hussein.
I agree that Portugal should allow fascist parties, just not the specific ones that caused strife.
Actualy, whats ironic is that fascism was never in power in portu7gal...what we had was a dictatorship from 1933 to 1974 set up quite in the same fashion as Dolfuss´s in Austria...and you know what happened to Dolfuss, right?

Actualy, whats ironic is that fascism was never in power in portu7gal...what we had was a dictatorship from 1933 to 1974 set up quite in the same fashion as Dolfuss´s in Austria...and you know what happened to Dolfuss, right?Yup, but my library is closing, so I have to drop out of the discussion...:(

Yup, but my library is closing, so I have to drop out of the discussion...:(
God speed

Well, in Portugal fascist political associations are banned by the constitution.
In certain Easter-european countries the Communist party was outlawed.
The rationale for both is that they represent a danger to democracy, and the simple ability to publicly espouse fascist or communist ideas is a risk that is not worth taking.

That's a great idea.

I mean, I'm all for democracy and freedom and stuff, but what if, for once, the Neo-Nazi's win? Then there won't be any more democracy! Great job, dumbasses...

In this world, you have to have rules and regulations. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And in anarchy, someone (the strongest, often meanest group) is ineviteably going to rise and take over.

Complete freedom > litte or no freedom

That's a great idea.

I mean, I'm all for democracy and freedom and stuff, but what if, for once, the Neo-Nazi's win? Then there won't be any more democracy! Great job, dumbasses...

In this world, you have to have rules and regulations. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And in anarchy, someone (the strongest, often meanest group) is ineviteably going to rise and take over.

Complete freedom > litte or no freedomThere's better ways to fight the neo-nazis than just with political means. In order to rid Germany of democracy, for instance, the neo-nazis would need to get 2/3rds of the seats in the Bundestag, and they'd have to get a majority of the 16 state governments under their control. Currently, the best any neo-nazi party has done is enter a state parliament. They have yet to breach the obligatory 5% to be represented in the Bundestag. Also, we have three neo-nazi parties, not just one, so banning them all would band the members together.

Democracy requires that you allow them.

In the 90´s, Algeria had free elections...a hard-line islamist party won the popular vote, and the military-backed governement annuled the elections, claiming that this islamic party couldnt be allowed in power, has it would terminate the democratic regime...in the 1930´s Hitler´s NASDP won German elections by a landslide and pretty much abolished democracy...so, should we allow political parties that have at its belief core the desire to scrap democracy to coexist in the democratic party spectrum? Furthermore, should such parties be assured the right to pursue the popular vote as any other party, in the name of the hallowed principles of free speech and freedom of political association?


Yes.

That's a great idea.

I mean, I'm all for democracy and freedom and stuff, but what if, for once, the Neo-Nazi's win? Then there won't be any more democracy! Great job, dumbasses...

In this world, you have to have rules and regulations. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And in anarchy, someone (the strongest, often meanest group) is ineviteably going to rise and take over.

Complete freedom > litte or no freedom
Curiously enough, in Portugal a far-left party that purports the violent removal of the democratic sistem is allowed...talk about double standards.

Yes we should.

There are fundamental, unulterable principles of democracies that should be protected by strong loophole free laws. Even if these un-democratic parties do get to power they will be able to change the basic economic and social structure of the country but not the means of the people to eventually reject the changes.

This is the "in an ideal world" senario in reality as soon as an undemocratic party gets control of the army they're going to do whatever they want anyway!!

There are fundamental, unulterable principles of democracies that should be protected by strong loophole free laws. Even if these un-democratic parties do get to power they will be able to change the basic economic and social structure of the country but not the means of the people to eventually reject the changes.

This is the "in an ideal world" senario in reality as soon as an undemocratic party gets control of the army they're going to do whatever they want anyway!!
well, i see your point...i call it realist, while others would say it shows some cynicism... ;)
Still, if that ever happened in Portugal or the US (an anti-democratic party reaching power) there would still be a sistem of checks and balances...for instance, in Portugal, the army´s commandeer-in-chief is the President, and he´s elected in a separate election...so, in theory anyway, a anti-democratic governement wouldnt control the military.

Of course they should, we've got a couple of nazi-parties. One of them almost got into the Riksdag (parliament) (or just the municipal council of some town or other), but the seats in it was actually cut to stop them. It was legal, they just had to up the percentage required to get into it.

Democratic, but not really.