"Pure Democracy" v "Freedom"

[manchesterman]

I posted about this topic in another thread, but it sits better here. Mainly because I want to consider this on a philosophical, even psychological and ethical level.  The other was referencing a particular politician, so people were unable to stop themselves from going on the defensive mode in making it a left v right fight.  So I want to take the politics and the personalities out of it, so I will provide a hypothetical scenario.  It may seem far-fetched and incredulous, but when we are discussing 'absolutes' even the most ridiculously unlikely scenarios need to be taken into account. So,

The year is 2030 in the Kingdom of the Unified States of North Korrussina  (KUSNK) a normal, mediocre 'Western-style' democracy.  In that land there lives a Kim Hitstalini.  Elections for President are due in 2032. Hitstalini is 42 years old, tall, rugged, handsome, charismatic, rich and powerful. He is a brilliant orator and many millions idolise him and find him captivating and engrossing. He made a huge fortune from his multi-billion business Ubezon and his world-leading social media platform Twitbook. He also has many close friends in the broadcast and other media who are more than happy to promote him, denigrate his opponents and generally lie and twist facts to suit his agenda.

Hitstalini decides he's bored of his playboy lifestyle and, wealthy beyond imagination, the only thing left for him to achieve is power. Total power...

..fast forward ..over the next year or so, he puts together a platform on which he wants to become the next President. His policies are to any neutral observer, draconian at best. But with the help of his media baron friends who control 90% of the TV, radio and newspaper industries, and aided by a weak and divided political opponent who has failed to address the declining living standards of its citizens over the past 5 years, he is able to be annointed as leader of the official opposition party.

Some highlights of his policy manifesto are:

(1) Elections are a waste of time. Politicians are just in it to get their snouts in the trough once elected and are self-serving grifters. However, I have all the wealth I could ever need, so can focus on serving you better than any of them can. So, if you elect me I will abolish elections and steer the country on a course to a brighter future, as a Captain steers a ship. Absolute unquestioning obedience is required at all time for the ship to run smoothly (ask any Admiral!) They have no time for debates and discussions when danger is imminent. And that is how I intend to run the good ship KUSNK.  Elections only cause dissent, division and distraction from the greater goal. Instead, I will lead you as a great all-powerful Saviour and I will teach my ways to my sons and daughters so they can carry on my work after I'm gone.

(2) One of the main reasons we have so many social and economic problems in KUSNK is because in our great nation today we have far too many [insert "other"]. They are not like you and me, listen to how they talk, look at howthey behave. These people are a cancer on our nation and we will only truly rise again as a prosperous and respected nation if we rid ourselves of these vermin. For the greater good of the nation, these people need to be dispensed with [of course, he dosent talk of genocide, the language is coded and subtle and 'dispensed with' is deliberately vague]

(3) Also, in our glorious nation, there are many people - though not vermin - that are disruptors. They prevent the wheels of business and high finance from advancing, with their pitiful claims for 'more rights, 'more money, 'more food and shelter'. They protest in our streets and this offends and obstructs our elites [who create the wealth, let's remember] and are a stain on our land and cause disquiet. I propose anyone participating in any protests, other than officially approved events, will be immediately arrested and summarily jailed for 30 years. No trial is necessary - the evidence is prima facie. If anyone resists, police are free to shoot to kill. This will make our society a far calmer and quieter one than the tension-filled streets we witness today, just like the tranquil days our grandfathers reminisced about.

(4) Judges & barristers will not be needed as such, other than to rubber stamp arrests (as above). Any who refuse to act in accordance with my new laws will be summarily branded a traitor and hanged outside City Hall.

(5) The police and military will have the right to stop citizens, question them and arrest them at any time without having to show probable cause. The word of our fine law enforcement officers is all the evidence needed for conviction of any crime which will be rubber-stamped as per (4). There is no right of appeal and no minimum sentence. [Of course, this won't be "you". I'm just talking about "those others"]

(6) To ensure we have weeded out all the ne'er do wells in our society, I propose to install CCTV in every room in every home.  Of course, we will only use it to interfere in the lives of miscreants and agitators. My loyal obedient citizens will have nothing to fear from this policy.After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

I will announce other policies after my election. Of course, there will be nothing to worry about in those policies. You have my word of honour as a loyal citizen of KUSNK!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The election is 3 months away. The government is horrified at this manifesto which will make Hitstalini the sole arbiter of everything and everyone's lives (up to and including who lives and dies).  The very essence of freedom in the sense that every citizen currently understands it,is in existential peril.  They also know that, with the economic situation not being good and with 90% of the media in Hitstalini's pocket, it is not inconceivable that he could (to paraphrase Lincoln  'fool enough of the people one time'; and that would be all it would take to end democracy and freedoms as we know them.

However, they have one last chance. The ruling government still has a small working majority and it works quickly to propose a bill to enshrine in law which states (paraphrasing): Anyone may rise to the office of President, with the exception of anyone who proposes and intends to use that office to: cancel all elections permanently, proposes summary detentions & executions without trial and removes all concept of privacy 24/7 and without exception.

Remember, to this point, Hitstalini has done nothing illegal, and the latest polls show him leading the incumbent by 41% to 36% with 23% support for various minor candidates.  FPTP is used so there is no AV option to avert disaster.

So, my 'moral dilemma' for you dear reader is: would you support the government bill or not?

Personally, if I'm balancing the pros and cons of depriving one person of the right to hold one (very powerful) job role, against the basic rights (including the right to life itself) of their citizens; it's not really a hard choice to make!  Indeed, it's very utilitarian in its concept.

This is the flaw in the argument of all "absolutists" (on any issue, not just this one). They simply can't conceive of the most outlandish, dystopian scenario happening, so they dont worry about it...until it's too late.

I've tried to remove all red team - blue team elements from the scenario. Those on the right can view Hitstalini as a left-wing dictator and vice versa.  I'm not interested in the party politics , I'm interested in the ethics and psychology of the thought process.

One grouping I would especially like to hear from would be the "libertarian right". They regularly trumpet individual freedoms over the repressive boot of the state. In this scenario the 'individual freedoms' are saved by a YES vote and the 'jackboot of the state' is served by a NO vote, but I also see how that would go against their libertarianism philosophy in its purest state.

All opinions welcome, but unlike Hitstalini, keep it civil!

[johnloony]

Dec 21, 2023 1:46:16 GMT manchesterman said:

I posted about this topic in another thread, but it sits better here. Mainly because I want to consider this on a philosophical, even psychological and ethical level.  The other was referencing a particular politician, so people were unable to stop themselves from going on the defensive mode in making it a left v right fight.  So I want to take the politics and the personalities out of it, so I will provide a hypothetical scenario.  It may seem far-fetched and incredulous, but when we are discussing 'absolutes' even the most ridiculously unlikely scenarios need to be taken into account. So,

The year is 2030 in the Kingdom of the Unified States of North Korrussina  (KUSNK) a normal, mediocre 'Western-style' democracy.  In that land there lives a Kim Hitstalini.  Elections for President are due in 2032. Hitstalini is 42 years old, tall, rugged, handsome, charismatic, rich and powerful. He is a brilliant orator and many millions idolise him and find him captivating and engrossing. He made a huge fortune from his multi-billion business Ubezon and his world-leading social media platform Twitbook. He also has many close friends in the broadcast and other media who are more than happy to promote him, denigrate his opponents and generally lie and twist facts to suit his agenda.

Hitstalini decides he's bored of his playboy lifestyle and, wealthy beyond imagination, the only thing left for him to achieve is power. Total power...

..fast forward ..over the next year or so, he puts together a platform on which he wants to become the next President. His policies are to any neutral observer, draconian at best. But with the help of his media baron friends who control 90% of the TV, radio and newspaper industries, and aided by a weak and divided political opponent who has failed to address the declining living standards of its citizens over the past 5 years, he is able to be annointed as leader of the official opposition party.

Some highlights of his policy manifesto are:

(1) Elections are a waste of time. Politicians are just in it to get their snouts in the trough once elected and are self-serving grifters. However, I have all the wealth I could ever need, so can focus on serving you better than any of them can. So, if you elect me I will abolish elections and steer the country on a course to a brighter future, as a Captain steers a ship. Absolute unquestioning obedience is required at all time for the ship to run smoothly (ask any Admiral!) They have no time for debates and discussions when danger is imminent. And that is how I intend to run the good ship KUSNK.  Elections only cause dissent, division and distraction from the greater goal. Instead, I will lead you as a great all-powerful Saviour and I will teach my ways to my sons and daughters so they can carry on my work after I'm gone.

(2) One of the main reasons we have so many social and economic problems in KUSNK is because in our great nation today we have far too many [insert "other"]. They are not like you and me, listen to how they talk, look at howthey behave. These people are a cancer on our nation and we will only truly rise again as a prosperous and respected nation if we rid ourselves of these vermin. For the greater good of the nation, these people need to be dispensed with [of course, he dosent talk of genocide, the language is coded and subtle and 'dispensed with' is deliberately vague]

(3) Also, in our glorious nation, there are many people - though not vermin - that are disruptors. They prevent the wheels of business and high finance from advancing, with their pitiful claims for 'more rights, 'more money, 'more food and shelter'. They protest in our streets and this offends and obstructs our elites [who create the wealth, let's remember] and are a stain on our land and cause disquiet. I propose anyone participating in any protests, other than officially approved events, will be immediately arrested and summarily jailed for 30 years. No trial is necessary - the evidence is prima facie. If anyone resists, police are free to shoot to kill. This will make our society a far calmer and quieter one than the tension-filled streets we witness today, just like the tranquil days our grandfathers reminisced about.

(4) Judges & barristers will not be needed as such, other than to rubber stamp arrests (as above). Any who refuse to act in accordance with my new laws will be summarily branded a traitor and hanged outside City Hall.

(5) The police and military will have the right to stop citizens, question them and arrest them at any time without having to show probable cause. The word of our fine law enforcement officers is all the evidence needed for conviction of any crime which will be rubber-stamped as per (4). There is no right of appeal and no minimum sentence. [Of course, this won't be "you". I'm just talking about "those others"]

(6) To ensure we have weeded out all the ne'er do wells in our society, I propose to install CCTV in every room in every home.  Of course, we will only use it to interfere in the lives of miscreants and agitators. My loyal obedient citizens will have nothing to fear from this policy.After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

I will announce other policies after my election. Of course, there will be nothing to worry about in those policies. You have my word of honour as a loyal citizen of KUSNK!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The election is 3 months away. The government is horrified at this manifesto which will make Hitstalini the sole arbiter of everything and everyone's lives (up to and including who lives and dies).  The very essence of freedom in the sense that every citizen currently understands it,is in existential peril.  They also know that, with the economic situation not being good and with 90% of the media in Hitstalini's pocket, it is not inconceivable that he could (to paraphrase Lincoln  'fool enough of the people one time'; and that would be all it would take to end democracy and freedoms as we know them.

However, they have one last chance. The ruling government still has a small working majority and it works quickly to propose a bill to enshrine in law which states (paraphrasing): Anyone may rise to the office of President, with the exception of anyone who proposes and intends to use that office to: cancel all elections permanently, proposes summary detentions & executions without trial and removes all concept of privacy 24/7 and without exception.

Remember, to this point, Hitstalini has done nothing illegal, and the latest polls show him leading the incumbent by 41% to 36% with 23% support for various minor candidates.  FPTP is used so there is no AV option to avert disaster.

So, my 'moral dilemma' for you dear reader is: would you support the government bill or not?

Personally, if I'm balancing the pros and cons of depriving one person of the right to hold one (very powerful) job role, against the basic rights (including the right to life itself) of their citizens; it's not really a hard choice to make!  Indeed, it's very utilitarian in its concept.

This is the flaw in the argument of all "absolutists" (on any issue, not just this one). They simply can't conceive of the most outlandish, dystopian scenario happening, so they dont worry about it...until it's too late.

I've tried to remove all red team - blue team elements from the scenario. Those on the right can view Hitstalini as a left-wing dictator and vice versa.  I'm not interested in the party politics , I'm interested in the ethics and psychology of the thought process.

One grouping I would especially like to hear from would be the "libertarian right". They regularly trumpet individual freedoms over the repressive boot of the state. In this scenario the 'individual freedoms' are saved by a YES vote and the 'jackboot of the state' is served by a NO vote, but I also see how that would go against their libertarianism philosophy in its purest state.

All opinions welcome, but unlike Hitstalini, keep it civil!

Yes

but it’s a bit of a silly scenario in the first place

[The Bishop]

Tbf the silliness may not be wholly unintentional, its about taking the espoused positions of certain forum members to their "logical" extreme.

[carlton43]

I have issues with your title as it is predicated on a false contest. The problem needs to be framed better.

I have more problems with your very convoluted and intellectually disjointed preamble citing a case to cause personal dilemma.

I suggest Candidate X, an uber-populist tending to being a rabble rouser at times, has used his celeb status and background to campaign indirectly and through adoring proxies on social media. He now leads the polls and has started a series of nationwide mass rallies. He seems to be morphing from economic centre left coupled with populist housing, immigration, crime prevention and social support policies to a possible proto dictator to save the nation.

There are underlying trends of a form of racism and of the anti-Metropolitan, with disdain for the democracy that has 'Betrayed the Aspirations of the True British'. He has hinted at and started to flesh out ideas of altering the voting qualification and entitlement, to extending the period between elections so as to have the time to 'Make those Changes the Nation is Crying Out For'.

The present government are seeking ways to marginalize him, stall his campaign and to make some of his activities illegal by means of legislation for a Formal Constitution with embedded protocols that will prevent him achieving his aims. Do we assist the government and lean towards a formalist American model with heavy Supreme Court ability to intrude and regulate, or not?

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 21, 2023 1:46:16 GMT manchesterman said:

(2) One of the main reasons we have so many social and economic problems in KUSNK is because in our great nation today we have far too many [insert "other"]. They are not like you and me, listen to how they talk, look at how they behave. These people are a cancer on our nation and we will only truly rise again as a prosperous and respected nation if we rid ourselves of these vermin. For the greater good of the nation, these people need to be dispensed with [of course, he dosen't talk of genocide, the language is coded and subtle and 'dispensed with' is deliberately vague]

Hey, but weren't you born in South Geogaustria? Bloody furriners, coming here and trying to take over our government. Get back on your armoured train.

[manchesterman]

Dec 21, 2023 12:37:32 GMT The Bishop said:

Tbf the silliness may not be wholly unintentional, its about taking the espoused positions of certain forum members to their "logical" extreme.

QED

[polupolu]

Would I support your proposed Bill?

Unequivocally yes.

I start from: "Everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not impinge on other people's liberty to do likewise". Where liberties collide - as many inevitably will - society has to decide how to weigh the conflicting liberties. For me, the means of doing so at the most granular level is the judicial system and at the overarching level, which sets the framework, the governmental system.

Democracy has the advantages that a) governments have some form of social legitimacy - which means people are (marginally) more likely to accept decisions, b) transfer of power can be achieved without revolutions, and c) government politicians know they will eventually be in opposition, which may limit their actions to a degree. It is probably the best system we have discovered as a result of these advantages; but it is, nevertheless, horribly flawed.

The problem with the American-style "Libertarians" is they only believe in the "Everyone should be able to do whatever they want" bit. I guess it is a form of narcissism which fails to view the world through the lens of anything but their own wants and desires.

Incidentally, there are already all sorts of limitations on who can vote or stand for elected office. Democracy isn't absolute. Adding "anyone who says they want to abolish democracy" to the list of people unable to stand for office is similar to saying "I will tolerate anything but intolerance".

[islington]

OK, I'll argue the contrary case.

I would oppose the Bill.

I would also campaign vigorously against this dangerous candidate, and do all I could to ensure that voters are made fully aware of the implications of his programme.

But in the end, you have to bite the bullet and resign yourself to the fact that if the people will vote for such a candidate, your democracy is doomed. You cannot guarantee that freedom and democracy will continue by adopting constitutions and laws. If you could, freedom would have been safe in Weimar Germany; and would never have been attained in Britain, a country where Parliament can make any law it likes without constraint.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not a shrewdly drafted constitution.

And incidentally, saying "I will tolerate anything but intolerance" is nonsense, a flagrant contradiction in its own terms.

[carlton43]

Dec 21, 2023 16:54:50 GMT islington said:

OK, I'll argue the contrary case.

I would oppose the Bill.

I would also campaign vigorously against this dangerous candidate, and do all I could to ensure that voters are made fully aware of the implications of his programme.

But in the end, you have to bite the bullet and resign yourself to the fact that if the people will vote for such a candidate, your democracy is doomed. You cannot guarantee that freedom and democracy will continue by adopting constitutions and laws. If you could, freedom would have been safe in Weimar Germany; and would never have been attained in Britain, a country where Parliament can make any law it likes without constraint.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not a shrewdly drafted constitution.

And incidentally, saying "I will tolerate anything but intolerance" is nonsense, a flagrant contradiction in its own terms.

Well said.  Well put.  There is nothing to add to that.

[islington]

Can I press manchesterman or polupolu (or anyone else that thinks anti-democratic candidates should be barred from seeking election) for an answer to the question I raised in the parallel discussion on the US thread?

It's currently not unusual in the UK for headbanging Trotskyists or knuckle-dragging racists or similar extreme groups of left or right to put up candidates in Parliamentary elections. Now, these are people that would undoubtedly, if they ever got the chance, move the country sharply away from what most of us understand as freedom and democracy: yet they remain at perfect liberty to stand and the presence of such a candidate on the ballot paper does not occasion any particular comment.

Yet if I've understood your position correctly, they should be prevented from standing. Have I got that right?

In my view this would be a novel and highly undesirable departure from established political practice in this country. And I say this as someone that has no time at all for extremists of either left or right. 

[manchesterman]

Absolutely not, so yes you have misunderstood the position. It's not about a party having distasteful or despicable policies. It's about individuals who would seek to install themselves as lifetime autocratic dictators abd would subjugate the rights of the vast majority of the nation (up to and including the right to live). In simple terms in my scenario, the candidate would seek to turn the nation into something between an even more repressive North Korea and something beyond Orwell's Eurasia.

It is in many ways a dichotomy, As bigfatron pointed out elsewhere, should it be permissible to terminate the democratic rights and freedoms forever of 100% of the citizens, based on the support of one individual's policies being given the support of say 45% of the voting eletorate (c 33% of the actual population) on one specific day? Surely, at this point, democracy (on that sense) can never be allowed to be absolute. No one has the right to do whatever they want, even if it is temporarily popular with the large minority of the population. This is why we have and should treasure dearly regulations under the Human Rights Act etc.

I mean, in my scenario, ditching FPTP and having an AV for President would likely solve the problem (but that's a side issue!)

This spawned off from the Trump debate in another thread. It was seen by some as "anti-democratic" to try to bar someone from standing for the most powerful job role in the leading Western democracy, who tried to subvert democracy and overturn the result of the election. .

Obviously my scenario is a grossly over-exaggerated one, where clearly all right-minded people would vote to prevent the candidate from becoming President, and was presented in response to the "absolutists".

As many of you will be aware, other areas of work have limitations on employing people grossly unsuitable for the role; e.g. paedophiles cannot be teachers, social workers, scout leaders etc. That all seems to be accepted across the spectrum as highly appropriate and right; but apparently you can't be deemed "unfit for office" in what is, with all due respect, the most important job role in any nation?

[islington]

Dec 22, 2023 11:31:02 GMT manchesterman said:

Absolutely not, so yes you have misunderstood the position. It's not about a party having distasteful or despicable policies. It's about individuals who would seek to install themselves as lifetime autocratic dictators abd would subjugate the rights of the vast majority of the nation (up to and including the right to live). In simple terms in my scenario, the candidate would seek to turn the nation into something between an even more repressive North Korea and something beyond Orwell's Eurasia.

It is in many ways a dichotomy, As bigfatron pointed out elsewhere, should it be permissible to terminate the democratic rights and freedoms forever of 100% of the citizens, based on the support of one individual's policies being given the support of say 45% of the voting eletorate (c 33% of the actual population) on one specific day? Surely, at this point, democracy (on that sense) can never be allowed to be absolute. No one has the right to do whatever they want, even if it is temporarily popular with the large minority of the population. This is why we have and should treasure dearly regulations under the Human Rights Act etc.

I mean, in my scenario, ditching FPTP and having an AV for President would likely solve the problem (but that's a side issue!)

This spawned off from the Trump debate in another thread. It was seen by some as "anti-democratic" to try to bar someone from standing for the most powerful job role in the leading Western democracy, who tried to subvert democracy and overturn the result of the election. .

Obviously my scenario is a grossly over-exaggerated one, where clearly all right-minded people would vote to prevent the candidate from becoming President, and was presented in response to the "absolutists".

As many of you will be aware, other areas of work have limitations on employing people grossly unsuitable for the role; e.g. paedophiles cannot be teachers, social workers, scout leaders etc. That all seems to be accepted across the spectrum as highly appropriate and right; but apparently you can't be deemed "unfit for office" in what is, with all due respect, the most important job role in any nation?

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but have I?

Consider the Workers Revolutionary Party as it existed from 1973 until it fragmented in the mid-1980s. ("Splitters!")

It was led, indeed dominated, by Gerry Healy, who I'm certain, given the chance, would have transformed Britain into a state that was neither free nor democratic.

Yet the WRP routinely put up candidates at general elections - as many as 60 in 1979 - and no one, so far as I know, suggested that they should be prevented from doing so. But according to your position, surely such anti-democratic candidacies should have been banned.

[manchesterman]

I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things.

You also mentioned the far-right before. I seem to recall the NF had a policy in the 70s/80s of effectively "paying foreigners £1000 to leave the country". Whilst I would find such a policy deeply disturbing and reprehensible, I would not say that it reached the threshold for an outright ban.

Again, I reiterate, this was a discussion around absolutism. The bar for banning would be incredibly high, and I'm open to persuasion on exactly how high that bar should be raised, but the bar should not non-existent as some would prefer.

[johnloony]

Dec 22, 2023 12:56:42 GMT manchesterman said:

I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things.

There was for years in Croydon central library a copy of the 1979 general election manifesto ofnthe Workers Revolutionary Party. It disappeared some time ago and I regret that I didn’t make and keep a photocopy of it. Iirc, it was about 12 or 16 pages size A5. I remember a few key phrases like

Expose the Westminster conspiracy
Release the political prisoners
Democratise justice
Democratise the trade unions
Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords

and so on. Basic principles of a revolutionary transformation of the political system, but creating a new form of what they would call “democracy”.

[manchesterman]

None of those would come anywhere close to the bar I would say, (indeed "democratise the trade unions", sounds like a Thatcherite policy)

[polupolu]

Speaking for myself only (and I know my view may be a bit extreme here)...

In a democracy, anyone who advocates political violence is clearly not a believer in that democracy and forfeits any right to participate in it. Anyone who stands on a platform of abolishing elections is in the same boat.

As I mentioned above, democracies already limit candidacies for various reasons. For example in the USA, the constitution says you are barred from standing as President if you are not a "natural born citizen", or are younger than 35, or if you have been "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" etc.). In this country you cannot be an MP if you have been sentenced to more than one year in prison and are in Prison currently.

I don't remember much about the platform of the WRP in the 1970s but if they advocated political violence or abolishing elections then in my book they would have no right to stand for democratic election in a democratic country.

I appreciate that there is a practical issue with deciding whether someone is indeed advocating political violence or the abolishing of elections. In pseudo-democracies and "democracies-in-name-only", my argument could be used as an excuse for banning opponents without real cause - but, to me, history suggests no such excuse is generally required in those situations.

[Wisconsin]

I always wonder what the Monarch would do in our system if asked to give Royal Assent to an outrageously antidemocratic bill - perhaps shoved through using the Parliament Act.

[johnloony]

Dec 22, 2023 13:42:36 GMT Wisconsin said:

I always wonder what the Monarch would do in our system if asked to give Royal Assent to an outrageously antidemocratic bill - perhaps shoved through using the Parliament Act.

As a monarchist, I hope that there are circumstances in which the monarch would use his or her power of veto occasionally. I do not accept the opinion of some constitutional “experts” who claim that it hasn’t been used since 1707 and that it has “therefore”fallen into “dissuetude” i.e. disuse.

For example, when the House of Commons - directly against the wishes of the UK government - passed a Bill to extend EU membership from 31st October 2020 to 31st January 2021, I would have preferred HM QE2 to have vetoed the Bill - on her own initiative, and without waiting for PM Bojo to advise her to do it. At the time there was speculation about whether Boris Johnson might advise the Queen to veto the Bill, or whether he would ignore what the law was requiring him to do.

[manchesterman]

That would seem profoundly more anti-democratic than the incredibly extreme circumstances that I was proposing a ban for in the OP!

[carlton43]

Dec 22, 2023 12:56:42 GMT manchesterman said:

I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things.

You also mentioned the far-right before. I seem to recall the NF had a policy in the 70s/80s of effectively "paying foreigners £1000 to leave the country". Whilst I would find such a policy deeply disturbing and reprehensible, I would not say that it reached the threshold for an outright ban.

Again, I reiterate, this was a discussion around absolutism. The bar for banning would be incredibly high, and I'm open to persuasion on exactly how high that bar should be raised, but the bar should not non-existent as some would prefer.

"... I would not say it reached the threshold for an outright ban."

That giveaway phasing suggests that you have an actual embedded anti-democratic agenda borne out of a moral superiority complex.  You will not and cannot trust a majority decision if it conflicts with your own deeply held beliefs.