So the General Assembly can vote 191-1 to pass any meaningful resolution, and if the one voting no is one of the permanent members, it's dead. No more discussion. Does that sound like a democracy to you?
Democracies are better
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
That could happen, but how often has it. One of the finer skills in politics is compromise. You may fark up the soup this time, but what goes around ......... .So the General Assembly can vote 191-1 to pass any meaningful resolution, and if the one voting no is one of the permanent members, it's dead. No more discussion. Does that sound like a democracy to you?
It has happened many times by default. The US especially has used vetoes and the threat of vetoes, or pocket vetoes, many times in the past several decades. There is no particular reason, and certainly no requirement, for compromise. The veto power is absolute and can't be overridden. Any organization where one member can completely reject any move by the rest of the members, is not run democratically. Simple as that.That could happen, but how often has it. One of the finer skills in politics is compromise. You may fark up the soup this time, but what goes around ......... .
The UN being undemocratic has NOTHING to do with vetos, nor have I mentioned vetoes anywhere. I wonder what you think you are responding to....actually Fuji doesn't get the concept that Democracies have rules for elections. Simply because the UN has vetos doesn't mean it's undemocratic
The UN is undemocratic because its members were not elected. Period.
This notion that governments are "citizens" in "UN democracy" is pathetic and laughable. Democracy means rule by the people. A bunch of tyrants, authoritarians, dictators, and other representatives of repressive regimes getting together do not become a democracy just because they vote among themselves. The people have been left out.
Definitions of democracy:
Wikipedia - Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).
Dictionary.com - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Merriam-Websters - a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
None of those definitions describe the United Nations. Sorry blackie but it's you who is having to come up with some perverse new definition of "democracy" in your laughable attempt to say that an unelected legislature can be a democracy.
You fail badly here. Sorry.
Wikipedia - Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).
Dictionary.com - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Merriam-Websters - a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
None of those definitions describe the United Nations. Sorry blackie but it's you who is having to come up with some perverse new definition of "democracy" in your laughable attempt to say that an unelected legislature can be a democracy.
You fail badly here. Sorry.
True, none were elected, including the original powers that created the UN who basically annoited themselves as supreme members. I don't see how you can say the absolute veto power is unconnected with the fact that the UN is not run democratically. All real power flows from that arrangement.The UN being undemocratic has NOTHING to do with vetos, nor have I mentioned vetoes anywhere. I wonder what you think you are responding to.
The UN is undemocratic because its members were not elected. Period.
This notion that governments are "citizens" in "UN democracy" is pathetic and laughable. Democracy means rule by the people. A bunch of tyrants, authoritarians, dictators, and other representatives of repressive regimes getting together do not become a democracy just because they vote among themselves. The people have been left out.
Nobody said it was, but some here seem to think it is run democratically which I think is wrong on the face of it, for reasons that fugi and I both expressed.Respectfully I disagree with you. The UN is not a Government....
No-one has a veto in the UN General Assembly. You're referring to the Security Council which is a different body. Of course the UN GA does not have the authority to order the use of military force, so you may see the UN GA as irrelevant and think that all the action happens at the SC, but in fact the UN GA undertakes many (non-security) initiatives independent of the UN SC.I don't see how you can say the absolute veto power is unconnected with the fact that the UN is not run democratically
In any case it's undemocratic by any normal definition of democracy--its members are not elected by the people, except for the tiny minority of 40 or so from democratic nations.
A more pressing point would be the ICC, which people DO want to vest with considerably government-like powers. Its members are selected in a similar fashion to the UN GA--one vote per dictator, it's also an undemocratic institution. In that respect it is far more worrying because there are those who actually do want to give it real power over citizens otherwise living in democracies.Nobody said it was, but some here seem to think it is run democratically which I think is wrong on the face of it, for reasons that fugi and I both expressed.
But as has been pointed out to you before, the ICC cannot work without non-democratic members, because there are no supra-national enforcement mechanisms for any of the key issues such as crimes against peace, genocide, and breaches of LOAC and humanitarian law.A more pressing point would be the ICC, which people DO want to vest with considerably government-like powers. Its members are selected in a similar fashion to the UN GA--one vote per dictator, it's also an undemocratic institution. In that respect it is far more worrying because there are those who actually do want to give it real power over citizens otherwise living in democracies.
A democracy only ICC would be less effective than what we have today.
Unless Fuji is planning to make the US and Israel the world police.
Even in Canada where any Canadian citizen, unlike the US, can be Prime Minister, the democratic system is where representatives are elected, some get there as a result of being parachuted in, by others outside the community, in ridings where therefore the people's favorite have little or no chance, so the vote is flawed. On the Hill, party politics keep members from voting the way they want to, by whipped votes or by arrogant leaders who will chew up your political future if you don't follow his wishes. Every one gets a vote, but the quality/legitimacy of that vote can be questioned many times. Then you representative that you voted for to be your voice in parliament, is absent during very important or strategic votes. He's told to be absent.Nobody said it was, but some here seem to think it is run democratically which I think is wrong on the face of it, for reasons that fugi and I both expressed.
Just as in our Democratic Government, the UN is full of many of the same actions. Not every single aspect of the way the UN is run is democratic, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable attempt at a democratic institute. The world of political is far from perfect and that's what you arguing for Fuji; black and white in a field with a 1000 shades of grey. It isn't ever going to be that way, but you can keep wishing for it Virginia.
Not if you realize that the constiuency is nations, not individuals.In any case it's undemocratic by any normal definition of democracy--its members are not elected by the people, except for the tiny minority of 40 or so from democratic nations.
That is about as stupid as I have seen you go.So you're not even arguing with me.
"The UN is not perfect but it's the best we have for now" does not contradict or dispute the statement that the UN is entirely undemocratic.
You are also not disputing that democracies are better than non-democracies.
Thus you probably also won't dispute that democracies should not cede any power or sovereignty to any non-democratic agency.
That leads, logically, to the claim that democracies should not permit the UN or the ICC to have any jurisdiction over their citizens.
The democracies, through their elected representatives (with the exception of the US and the ICC) have allowed the UN and the ICC to have jurisdiction over their citizens.
In this case, it is in theory the will of the people who have allowed this to happen.
Against this you essentially say...Fuji says they shouldn't.
It is actually you, in this statement who is being fundamentally undemocratic.
I know one of those wars is WWII, but what is the other one?I don't see anywhere in your post anything disputing this statement: "The UN is entirely undemocratic."
As for your notion that dictatorships are better--good luck with that. I am grateful that our soldiers fought two hard wars to make sure that's not how we live here. Given their hard sacrifices, I find it repugnant that you would be willing to throw away the rights they fought and died for.
Seriously, you arn't poorly educated enough to think WWI was about preserving democratic values do you?
This lack of understanding, ingrained or contrived, is a definite possibility, tied together with fact that he can't read. The exact quote he sited was from post #144 was actually 'benevolent dictatorships', but one post later he molds it into something incorrect that he can fit and use.I know one of those wars is WWII, but what is the other one?
Seriously, you arn't poorly educated enough to think WWI was about preserving democratic values do you?
This fuji will never get. He made that clear in post#167.Not if you realize that the constiuency is nations, not individuals.
From Fuji; (with some emphasis added)
Definitions of democracy:
Wikipedia - Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people,(OR) by consensus (consensus democracy), (OR) by direct referendum (direct democracy), (OR) by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).
Dictionary.com - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Merriam-Websters - a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
His generic definitions above all have exceptions but he doesn't accept these exceptions.
The US ambassador is not a representative elected by the people, nor is the guy who chose him. How can he be a representative of a democracy by using Fuji's logic?
Doesn't the US president have a veto?So the General Assembly can vote 191-1 to pass any meaningful resolution, and if the one voting no is one of the permanent members, it's dead. No more discussion. Does that sound like a democracy to you?
Yes he does, but it can be overriden. The veto power of each of the five SC members is absolute.Doesn't the US president have a veto?
Doesn't the US president have a veto?
So now we have degrees of veto powers; that not very democratic, or is it? The president can be overridden, but if whatever he's signing is become law I suspect it's really hard to find the 2/3 majority to over turn it since a majority voted for it earlier. So yes it's possible, but not likely. How often does it happened? About 10% of the time.Yes he does, but it can be overriden. The veto power of each of the five SC members is absolute.
First just a note--you are not disputing that the ICC is undemocratic, or that its existence erodes fundamental democratic rights and freedoms. You are, instead, trying to justify it in practical terms, saying that if we do not give up our democratic rights then we can't have something like the ICC.But as has been pointed out to you before, the ICC cannot work without non-democratic members
Even if I agree with you, the conclusion I would draw is that it's better not to have an ICC in that case.
However I don't agree with you, I see no reason why the ICC could not be constituted strictly from democratic nations and then the bloc of democratic nations could negotiate extradition treaties with non-democratic nations. Such agreements were in place long before the ICC ever existed so I can't see ANY reason why that isn't a workable solution.
Sure some rogue states will probably not sign up, but those same rogue states would likely refuse to co-operate with the ICC if it ever did order them to turn over someone they cared about.
All in all I see no value in the ICC, yet I see considerable harm to fundamental democratic rights and freedoms.
