Difference between autocracies and democracies

bob mcbob

Following on from another thread, what do people think the differences or similarities are between autocracies and democracies.

For me, the differences are just a question of scale & percentages.

For example an autocracy may have 30% of the population who support and benefit from the regime whereas the figure in a democracy is 60%.

In terms of laws it is just the scale of these that is different between autocracies and democracies.

So when you are comparing democracies and autocracies you are not looking at fundamentally different systems - just different shades of grey.

Autocracy or one-party state?

Podge_irl

"Democracies sometimes do things some people don't like, therefore they are the same as a dictatorship"

The differences are, in reality, vast and extend far beyond the popularity of the particular party in power. Independence of judicial institutions being a huge one. Free elections themselves often constrain parties to at least pretend to care about minority viewpoints. There are often restrictions on how and when elections needs to be called. Democracy is not just about the national legislature but tends to permeate throughout the layers of government.

They very clearly are fundamentally different systems.

Nody

Difference is in an Democracy you can vote in another government; in an Autocracy you get the security forces knocking on your door to "explain" to you why you should not vote on someone else by torture. If you think they are only "different shades of grey" I'd suggest you start with speaking and reading from people who've lived under an autocracy who's now fallen because all you're doing is showing your own ignorance on the topic.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058292510/difference-between-autocracies-and-democracies

I think you area little confused about the true meaning of democracy. It might be worth your while reading this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Republic-Collins-Classics-Plato/dp/0008480087/ref%3Dsr_1_4?adgrpid=1186373945660141&hvadid=74148575413981&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=150385&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-74148510377985%3Aloc-92&hydadcr=10777_2102411&keywords=plato%E2%80%99s+republic&qid=1681640682&sr=8-4

You might also be confusing totalitarianism and autocracy.

Neither democracy or autocracy depend, for their definition, on any particular percentage support.

bob mcbob

Ok let look at examples -

We have all seen people in autocratic states arrested, detained and imprisoned on arbitrary charges.

This could not happen in a democracy where the rule of law is well established, could it? Actually yes it could - a person with no criminal record and who has committed no crime could be arrested, detained and imprisoned within 24 hours - here's how.

First they are arrested for "suspected breach of the peace" - this is an arbitrary "crime" that is a civil proceeding rather than criminal offence but it does allow the person to be detained and transported to a police station.

Second at the police station the person is asked to supply their details - if they refuse to supply them, this is a criminal offence. At this point they will be processed as a criminal and detained in a police cell overnight.

Third the next day, that person would be taken to court where once again they would be asked to supply their details. if they refuse to supply them, then they will be held in contempt of court and in all likelihood imprisoned.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120481822#Comment_120481822

So how would you classify Switzerland? I know before I even cast my vote that no matter how well my chosen party does it will not change the government. And even when my party does do well and nominates a particular person to the federal government the other parties might club together and select a different person from my party, who might be more acceptable to them...

And I suggest you be a bit more careful about attacking the posters....

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120483938#Comment_120483938

The difference is you have an actual vote that can actually make a difference; in the same way you can vote for the flat earth party and never have your party make it to the government you still have an actual choice. In Russia and similar styled countries it can never make a difference no matter what party you vote on including the ruling party. And to build on that would you have the security force come and take your child to "find out their political views" if they painted a a picture claiming Russia should seek peace with Ukraine and put you, as the parent, in house arrest? Or send soldiers around because you refused to "vote" in a sham election? That's the difference and why it's not shades of grey but apples and watermelons.

One-party states are more similar to ancient Greek democracy than modern democracies with parties and all the swings and roundabouts.

I live in a one-party state (Vietnam) and a different "faction" took power a few years ago and things are quite different.

Interestingly, no one really cares or even knows who the president is or prime minister is. A president died a few years ago and it was barely news. They seem to vote in local elections or something. I think I understand it less than I used to.

There are a lot of things coming to light about this newer regime that is focused on security rather than the previous one that was more outward and Westward looking. Really damaging policies regarding the country's housing market etc.

There's a lot to be said for a single party with democratically elected people who then work within Government to effect change. It just happens to be going against my personal way of life as they are fairly anti-foreigner at the moment.

Art Fonzarelli

Since a book was recommended above, I'd urge anybody interested in this discussion and modern forms of democracy, to get a copy of Sheldon Wolin's, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.

bob mcbob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120483855#Comment_120483855

I thought I would supply some details on the breech of the peace arrest highlighted above. This is a true story in a democracy near you.

A person attempts suicide by walking into the sea. This person is seen by a passer by who calls in other people to help with the rescue. The person is pulled from the sea and a crowd gathers to help him warm up with towels & other stuff. The person is taken to hospital and recovers. The police are in the hospital - their course of action is to arrest the man in hospital for a suspected breech of the peace as the crowd on the beach were seen as causing an affray. I think it would come as a surprise to the good samaritans that they were in fact involved in criminal activity.

I think even the Russians would be embarrassed by this one.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484886#Comment_120484886

Complete nonsense. Give a link to the Daily Mail source for this story.

FoxForce5

People have short memories if they forget we arrested people for travelling more than 5 km and prevented people from going to funerals in our democracy all in the name of a disease which is still here and more virulent. A true democracy can't take you rights away from you. We saw quickly how we don't have rights, rather conditional privileges.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484952#Comment_120484952

If that were true, democracies would not have prisons.

In cases of emergencies, like disease or pestilence, or war, it is normal in a democracy for some freedoms to be suspended, but not cancelled altogether. They were restored once the initial danger had ameliorated.

In a totalitarian regime, rights are at the whim of the dictator, as is life itself, and when removed they generally remain removed.

Podge_irl

Also the restrictions had, by and large, incredible public support.

If you want to do whatever you want whenever you want then you need an anarchist society not a democracy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484886#Comment_120484886

Obviously the Russians wouldn't be embarrassed, but even if this story is true its absurd to conflate what is clearly an outlier with a systemic removal of rights.

Economics101

Narrowly-defined, Democracy means that governments are chosen by popular vote. But to make this meaningful you need several other things: independent courts, police who enforce the law rather than the whim of those in power, freedom of speech and assembly, media freedom and independence, and a culture which respects institutional and constitutional structures.

Without these conditions you don't have a liberal democracy. There are many countries which call themselves democratic or popular, but are in reality rather nasty places.

Count Dracula

I think Democracy is different insofar that it gives citizens the delusion of choice.

Autocracy is more honest, insofar as it is often promising to uphold your freedom, at the very expense of it, but it is telling you that in fairness?

FoxForce5

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484983#Comment_120484983

There are no legal reasons those restrictions could not have stayed forever. Hence the reason no supreme court challenges against them , our constitution allows for a permanent state of 5km or whatever for the "public good" . That is scary.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120485196#Comment_120485196

There are no legal reasons those restrictions could not have stayed forever

You have no way of knowing that.

Anyway, I don't find it all that scary. Also being a democracy means at the very least requiring public support for the measures (not that that is always infallible).

bob mcbob

Another example - In the Soviet Union in the 70's dissidents were routinely held in psychiatric wards as not complying with the state obviously meant that the dissidents had mental health issues.

Couldn't happen in a democracy I hear you say - well not on the same scale but yes something similar could.

The scenario is as outlined previously

• attempted suicide
• arrested for suspected Breech of the peace related to the suicide attempt
• detained in cell for not supplying contact details

However rather than going to court, it is decided that this non compliance & attempted suicide could be related to mental health issues. What happens then is that the person is detained in a psychiatric hospital using the powers of the mental health act. If the person had supplied contact details then it is likely that they should have been have been allowed home and receive community based care.

In this scenario it does have to be acknowledged that there was no malice involved - merely professionals left to pick up the pieces and put in place the most humane solution possible for someone refusing to comply with the state.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487119#Comment_120487119

This is all conspiracy stuff.

Give actual examples where this has happened in a widely accepted democracy. Single outlier examples are not really enough to justify your claims.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487239#Comment_120487239

"Conspiracy" is appropriate IMO. It could all happen (possibly parts of it - the earlier posts?) to a "freeman on the land" type when the reality in their heads collides with the reality of the legal system, courts, police etc! It's a highly specific and artificial "scenario".

Beta Ray Bill

Totalitarianism, Dictatorship and Autocracy are just fancy words for the F word. The word that we don't even call our enemies anymore

Fascism

IE: One person in charge, (and for the most part) and you better do what they say "or else".

I'm sure there are examples of Fascism where the person in charge was mostly not terrible (Mikhail Gorbachev springs to mind) and at an infra level and development level Fascist countries seem on paper to get a lot more done for at lot less in a given period of time.

There are often overlaps in terms of policy between Democracy and Fascism, but I don't think that means there is middle ground between them

rock22

@Beta Ray Bill = "Totalitarianism, Dictatorship and Autocracy are just fancy words for the F word. ...

Fascism"

I think you need to get a new dictionary

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499101#Comment_120499101

Same thing, one person in charge.

I went to thesaurus.com and checked

Same Craic....

They're all just different flavours of one person in charge

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058292510/difference-between-autocracies-and-democracies

The political situation in e.g. North Korea is not "fundamentally the same" as our political system. We vote, they don't. We choose, they don't. You can't get any further apart.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499438#Comment_120499438

But, in a "Politics forum" thread, surely it is those 'different flavours' which are the subject of debate.

Many previous nations in Europe, who would have been opposed by the Italian Fascists, described themselves as Autocracies. The USSR was a dictatorship yet found itself opposed and at war with the Italian Fascists. Surely an odd state of events if they were all the same? I doubt Stalin would ever describe himself as a Fascist although he would recognise the title of dictator or autocrat.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499438#Comment_120499438

No because you can have for example Khmer Rouge, North Korea etc. which are/were all autocratic but not fascist since that require a strong right leaning were as they are strongly left leaning instead (i.e. Marxism). Facism is often associated with an autocractic regime but an autocratic regime does not need to be facist (it depend on which direction they want to use as the excuse for existing since "it's for the people's best").

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499762#Comment_120499762

That is just semantics.

Do you want to be shot in the head or the heart. Either way, you are just as dead. I doubt if the killer is left wing or right wing makes any difference, you are still dead.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499797#Comment_120499797

It's a difference of political view; the end result may be the same but claiming that all autocratic countries would be fascist is removing the fact that the extremist are on both sides of the political spectrum. It's the same as claiming Mussolini policies are the same as Hitler's policies which are the same as Stalin's policies because they are all autocratic leaders which is simply sloppy and removes the differences in dogma.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499752#Comment_120499752

I get what you're saying, I suppose it's a case of what you say you are, what others perceive you as and what you yourself know you are.

Socialism opposes Fascism and Communism opposes Capitalism. All the different "flavours" exist around that circle, but they are the 4 main ones that encompass everything else (IMO)

So while Italy and and the USSR were both dictatorships, cultural differences and history would not make them "allies" or even palatable to each other.

And it could be argued that the Italian government's involvement in the economy could have made it lean more into the red than the blue.

Like look at FF and FG, up until very recently, they were rivals despite being 2 sides of the same coin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499762#Comment_120499762

Again, what you say you are is not what you actually are. Pol Pot was not left-wing, even though he may have claimed to be. He was born to an extremely wealthy family and received and western education. He murdered over 1 and half million people, Left-Wing parties do not do that.

People in Cambodia lived in huts with Sweet FA while he lived in his palace overseeing a genocide (Left equality?). He belongs in the top right hand corner in the picture above.